Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How far along is the research on "ChronoForce"?
A: The current state is about the same as Electro-Magnetic force when Ben Franklin realized that lightning and electricity are the same force, or when Michael Faraday realized the "invisible" magnetic lines of force could generate electricity, and electricity could develop magnetic lines of force.
Q: Is there any scientific observation to support the "ChronoForce" hypothesis?
A: In December of 2006 Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins (of Purdue University) uncovered a mystery that up until this point has not been explained by traditional physics theory. A variation in nuclear decay rates was found to correlate with solar flare activity. Later an annual variation was recognized as varying with apogee (aphelion) and perigee (perihelion) distance from the sun in our elliptical orbit. The proximity to the sun's concentration of "ChronoForce" is what we suspect causes the predictable, annual, variations in nuclear decay rates. It remains to be determined whether the observed variation of nuclear decay was caused by our solar system passing through a wave of "ChronoForce" generated outside our solar system, (possibly inducing the observed solar flares), or were a result of a "seismic" type of disturbance on the surface of the sun. We suspect the former since the decay rates began to change prior to the observation of the solar flare disturbance.
Q: Wasn't Einstein's theory of time and motion verified back in 1971 by flying atomic clocks around the earth aboard jet airplanes?
A: The rate of time passage was also observed by taking two atomic clocks that had been synchronized and driving one up to the top of a mountain. When the clocks were brought back together, a difference was observed. The effect can be observed by using a tall building to separate the clocks. The effect observed aboard the airplanes was due to the higher altitude and farther distance from the earth's center of gravity (not relative motion). This is evidenced by the fact that the time difference was observed at the top of the tall building even though the building wasn't moving.
Q: How close to the "speed of light" limit have moving objects been measured?
A: This is a debatable question. If you ask any physicist trained in today's conventional wisdom, they will tell you nothing can move faster than the speed of light. But let's use one of Dr. Einstein's "thought experiments" for another insight into speed. If you examine the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) you may be told the protons used in the research there are accelerated to about 0.999999991 c (almost the speed of light). Now as we all know this is a speed measured from a fixed point on the earth. If you were riding on one of those protons you would agree with that speed estimate. If you were riding on one of the protons running in the opposing ring at the same speed, you would also agree with that speed estimate. When those two rings of protons are steered into a collision path, the closing (relative) speed of the two protons would be closer to twice the speed of light. Since we are only able to observe these speeds visually (or electronically), you would never see the opposing proton coming, and never know what hit you. Much the same as two supersonic airplanes would never acoustically hear the other plane approaching in opposition. So we leave it up to you as to how the speeds are to be measured (and what frame of reference for that measurement is most accurate).
Q: Is there any additional scientific experiments which could verify or disprove the ChronoForce hypothesis?
A: Yes! We would suggest testing the "gravitational lensing" effect of Relativity Theory by focusing one of the orbiting satellite telescopes on a background starfield during a solar eclipse to verify whether the gravity of the sun bends the light, or the effect of a gravitational "tidal" bulge in the atmosphere refracted the incoming light causing the stellar displacement seen during the terrestrial observations of 1919 by Arthur Eddington. Additionally we could send a precision time base clock satellite into orbit at different altitudes to verify how the "ChronoForce" field drops off with varying distances from the earth's center of mass.
Q: Why don't these "time variations" show up on today's sensitive scientific instruments?
A: Most of the measurements today have a time component to them (miles per hour, cycles per second, even weights are measured by pressure transducer that use a time base to measure weight). Now if the time base of these measurements is affected by the ChronoForce, the accuracy is in question but the values derived from these measurements may not even show any (admittedly small) variations anyway.
Q: Aren't the variations of time demonstrated by the orbiting GPS satellites a result of their speed?
A: No. That is one of the observations that has confused, or mislead "conventional" physics. Einstein's ideas on relativity proclaim speed as having an effect on the "Space-Time" fabric of the universe. The reality is that the farther you get from the center of mass (also the center of concentration of ChronoForce) the greater the differential of time passage. Basically the time differential is a result of the distance from the center of mass, not the speed that the orbiting body is traveling.
Q: How can you be sure that the time variations are not the result of speed?
A: First let's look at the precision clocks that run at different rates when taken to the top of a tall building. The clock at the top floor is said to be moving faster due to it's greater altitude (and greater radial speed). If, however, we look at satellite orbits, we find that the higher the orbit, the greater the compensation needed to keep the clocks in sync with the terrestrial standard even though the higher the orbit, the slower the orbital speed. For example the orbital speed at 100 mile altitude is 17474 mph, while the orbital speed needed at 1000 miles altitude is 15809 mph, and the speed needed at 10,000 miles altitude is only 9422 mph. Basically the higher orbits need greater time compensation even though they have a much slower speed. This demonstrates that the effect of time variation is a result of distance from the center of Gravity/ChronoForce not speed.
Q: What other value does the ChronoForce Hypothesis have for the future?
A: The ChronoForce Hypothesis may be able to explain how electrons seem to move "instantaneously" from one orbital to another as prescribed by Quantum Mechanics. We will have to explore how it works at an atomic level (in close proximity to the nucleus of the atom) to properly describe the effect. By being able to describe or predict the electron activity we may be able to resolve the differences between the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Q: Recently, it has been determined that the universe is not only still expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing or accelerating. Conventional science doesn't have an answer as to why or how. Theories about "dark matter" and "dark energy" have been proposed because there is no other known explanation. Does the ChronoForce have an explanation?
A: It is really not surprising that Saul Perlmutter found different speeds for the Type 1-A super Novas that he studied. We should all be able to recognize that light slows down in denser material. Well when Edwin Hubble did his observations at the Mt. Wilson observatory he was at about 5700 feet altitude (pretty thick atmosphere). Whereas Saul Perlemutter made his observations at the Keck observatory in Hawaii at 13,600 feet (a much thinner atmosphere). This would mean less slowing of the received light at the higher altitude.
We also know that the higher we are (farther from the earth's center of mass) the faster time (ChronoForce) flows. Again changing the perceived flow of time/speed.
Another factor is that in the years since Hubble made his observations, the universe has been expanding, meaning that the finite mass of the galaxy is distributed over larger distances, causing time to speed up (making velocities appear faster).
Q: Does the ChronoForce theory have an explanation for the effect that conventional physics refers to as "dark matter"?
A: Yes I believe you are referring to the observation that distant galaxies don't orbit like the Newtonian model predicts they should... As a mater of fact they do follow Newtonian models. Our observations are just a bit parochial (that is very localized). They are derived from observations of orbits in our solar system.
In our solar system there is one very large central point of mass (the sun) and less than a dozen smaller masses with a lot of empty space between them. There is so much empty space and the masses are so small that the planets don't interact very much. So the planetary orbits can be predicted with great accuracy even ignoring the other planet's masses.
If we were to zoom out to observe the entire galaxy, you would see lots of stellar bodies orbiting the central mass (probably a black hole), but many would have the same or very nearly the same orbits. Each star in the galaxy would be pulling or be pulled by all the other stellar bodies in the galaxy. The mix is so thick with stars (in relatively close proximity) that the galaxy has orbits that resemble a very viscous medium rather than the relatively empty space of a solar system. It is this thick soup of stars that looks like the orbits are incorrect, but it is this "distributed mass" that causes the illusion of orbital variance from the Newtonian model of a solar system.
Q: Suppose (just for a moment) we agree with the proposition that Time is a force, not a dimension. Einstein wanted to join it with space, and the EMF (Electro-Magnetic Force). Why do you contend that it is more closely related Gravity?
A: For centuries, man has classified things into families by using the similarities and differences of their properties. For rocks we have igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. For animals we have warm blooded, and cold blooded. Further, we have mammal, reptile, avian, and fish. You get the idea...
With the EMF we have a bi-polar force. Positive and negative with the electric force, and North and South poles for the magnetic force.
With gravity and the ChronoForce we have essentially a mono-pole force. Gravity is always an attractive force, never repulsive. The ChronoForce always points into what we refer to as the future, never into the past. Both forces are mono-poles.
Trying to join Time with the EMF is like trying to graft an apple branch onto a hickory tree, they are both forces, but from very different families.
Q: Does the ChronoForce Hypothesis explain the precession of Mercury's orbit differently from General Relativity's explanation?
A: This is really a bit off-topic from the normal ChronoForce (time) based questions, but since Gravitational Force and ChronoForce are so closely related we'll give it a shot ...
Gravity has always been considered an almost instantaneous "straight-line", attractive force. The truth is, much like the Electro-Magnetic force, Gravitational force has a latency property (usually referred to as Hysteresis). This "Gravitational Hysteresis" is observed by the effects on the Earth-Moon orbital interaction. The Lunar Gravitational Hysteresis affects the Earth by slowing the rotation of the Earth, increasing the length of a day. This slowing has been observed for centuries. It has often been explained by "Tidal Action" throwing the tides against the continents at the shores of the ocean. The Earth's Gravitational Hysteresis effect on the Moon can be observed by the increasing orbital distance of the Moon (about 1.5 inches per year). This distance increase has only been observable since the astronauts left the reflectors on the surface of the moon during the Apollo missions, and the Russian "Lunokhod" missions to the moon. As we can surely believe there are no tides on the Lunar surface to blame on the observed effect. Basically the rotational inertia of the Earth is transferred to orbital height of the lunar orbit while slowing the rotational speed of the Earth. This is a textbook example of the "Conservation of Rotational Inertia" at work.
Now back to the precession of Mercury. The reason for the precession is that the Solar Gravitational Hysteresis from the Sun's rotation (about 25.3 days per rotation) is imposed on Mercury. This alters Mercury's normal elliptical orbit causing it to precess in the direction of the Solar rotation. The effect of Solar Gravitational Hysteresis is more difficult to calculate due to the fact that the Sun has no solid surface but more of an incredibly hot atmosphere which rotates faster at it's equator than at it's poles. The hysteresis effect will be the average of the rotational speed at the poles and the speed at the equator. The Solar rotational inertia is converted to the precession of Mercury's orbit.
By the way it has been theorized that when the Sun burns up most of its fuel and starts to expand, it may drag Venus and the Earth into higher orbits due to the same Gravitational Hysteresis effect rather than enveloping the two planets in its corona.
Q: Gravity has been called a really weak force when compared to the Electro-magnetic force. Demonstrated by a simple, small magnet able to pick up a nail that is being held down by the gravitation of the whole planet. Does the ChronoForce agree with that assessment?
A: See how difficult it is to separate Gravity from the ChronoForce? They really are intimately interconnected.
When you pick up that nail with the magnet you need to observe the distance the magnet has to be moved before the nail is picked up. The point here is that Electro-Magnetic force is a very powerful, very short range force, whereas gravitational attraction extends for thousands of miles.
Additionally the magnet is very selective as to what material it will pick up. How well does the magnet work with that piece of paper on the table? How well does it pick up that plastic comb in your pocket? The point here is that Magnetism is highly selective as to the material it works on, Gravitational attraction is universal.
Comparing Magnetism with Gravity is like comparing horsepower with torque in a car. They show some similarities, but have different effects at different distances on different materials.