1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is length infinitely contracted for a photon at c?

« on: 26/03/2020 02:08:52 »

A photon does not represent a valid reference frame.  All valid frames have physics that is no different than any other frame, and this includes light moving at c. You're attempting to describe a frame in which a photon is at rest, which yields meaningless results.
So the best I can answer is that in such a 'frame', length is meaningless, as is time, mass, and just about any other meaningful thing in physics.

While I understand and agree with you, understanding this principle of length contraction from differing reference frames might help our interpretations of the double slit exp. and others.

If a photon could be thought of a being capable of infinite length contraction then conversely when travelling its length could be of infinite length but from our frame of reference its the size of a photon.

It would mean there is no reverse causality involved in the quantum eraser exp because the photon is still connected to it's source until the instant it collapses to a particle.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is length infinitely contracted for a photon at c?

« on: 26/03/2020 01:47:07 »

Is length infinitely contracted for a photon at c?
Or to put another way could a photon have a longer length when travelling as a wave before it collapses into a particle on measurement?

3

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 24/03/2020 06:21:28 »

An onion theory.

an onion where the shells stretch off to infinity in either direction, from a conceptual perspective.

4

New Theories / Re: Is gravitational field strength a parameter that defines life?

« on: 22/03/2020 11:00:07 »

The original premise of the thread makes no sense.

I couldn't phrase it in a way that would fit in the subject field.

5

New Theories / Is a Particle an Anti-Black Hole?

« on: 22/03/2020 10:10:23 »

As 2 black holes approach each other their event horizons would briefly reduce in radius before enveloping each other, essentially light is being pulled out of the event horizon since there is a change in the equilibrium of the gravitational field surrounding the black holes. During this phase some energy may be released from the event horizon. This example exaggerates the effect for the sake of clarity, but the 2nd object could actually be of a much lower mass for this to happen.

If this process is inverted then you end up with the same action as electron excitation where the electron briefly goes up an energy level before dropping back down again and releasing the energy as photons.

6

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 21/03/2020 14:11:06 »

In what, exactly?

Everything, like a double mirror reflection.

7

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes nded

« on: 21/03/2020 12:06:26 »

If there is a boundary, what is on the other side?

An inversion

8

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?

« on: 21/03/2020 10:19:20 »

It's in equilibrium with gravity

9

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 20/03/2020 21:15:23 »

The current theory; energy cannot leave a black hole, mays still be a very good empirical approximation for what is going on.

Whether energy leaves a black hole would be dependent on your frame of reference.

10

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 20/03/2020 18:28:36 »

The theory that light cannot escape a black hole has never been proven in the lab. What we can show in experiments is that wavelength will red shift, as energy leaves zones of gravity based  contracted space-time. Math is not 100% reliable since math can be used to prove the physics of game engines using virtual reality; infinite lives. Experiments are needed to separate the real from the virtual. Infinite lives will not show up under experimental conditions, even if the game engine math says on the computer screen. A good conceptual foundation supersedes math, since math is like a faithful horse that will obey even a poor conceptual or virtual master.

I agree with the first bit about light never having been proven to emit from a black hole.
What's all that stuff about infinite lives?

11

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 20/03/2020 15:31:48 »

The spacetime of the universe is like a candy wrapping. Twisted at each end, the true parameters are obscured if observed from the interior.

12

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 20/03/2020 12:58:37 »

On the edge of the universe matter is of a lower density producing less gravitational time dilation and hence a faster rate of time. This gives the appearance of an inflationary expansion relative to our reference frame of higher density.

13

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 20/03/2020 09:27:28 »

The 'big bang' event initially had time in the forward direction, at some point there was a temporal inversion where pressure mediation was inverted into gravity. 

14

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 20/03/2020 06:28:02 »

Gravity can be better understood as a temporal inversion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Gravity is a mediation in pressure flowing from low and towards high density (pressure). This law also describes how locally time (motion) is slowed by density (pressure).

15

New Theories / Re: Is gravitational field strength a parameter that defines life?

« on: 20/03/2020 05:55:14 »

The Earth is the only planet where life is known to exist, it's gravitational acceleration for it's year happens to be within 1% of c? Maybe more than coincidence.

I don't see any relation at all between those two things. Can you actually give some logical reasoning behind your argument?

It could be said the probability of finding life on a planet is proportional to it's gravitational acceleration multiplied by its year divided by c being within a range of 2%

I just thought it might indicate a 'sweet spot' or more habitable zone. I don't see any obvious relationship either, other than a coincidental result to some calculations.

I don't think so. A very massive planet at a much closer distance to the Sun would also fit that criteria, but its chances of supporting life would be far less due to the excess heat. The opposite problem would be true for a distant, low-mass planet.

I did say proportional to not equal to, of course there are other variables.

16

New Theories / Re: Is gravitational field strength a parameter that defines life?

« on: 20/03/2020 05:37:10 »

If an object were to fall at the earth's gravitational acceleration (g=9.8m's2) for a year it would be within 1% of speed of light

What does that have to do with life?

The Earth is the only planet where life is known to exist, it's gravitational acceleration for it's year happens to be within 1% of c? Maybe more than coincidence.

It could be said the probability of finding life on a planet is proportional to it's gravitational acceleration multiplied by its year being within a range of 2% of c.

17

New Theories / The thumbprint of a creationary element, or just a coincidence?

« on: 20/03/2020 04:52:54 »

◊If an object were to fall at the earth's gravitational acceleration (g=9.8m's2) for an earth year it would reach of speed of light (+1%), this is unique in our solar system.

Could this be evidence for some relationship between a stars mass, the orbital period of planet, the planets mass and the possibility of life arising on that planet? And if so could it also be a signature of some 'creationary element'?

18

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 20/03/2020 00:24:48 »

Any measurement is subject to the gravitational field of the observer.

19

New Theories / Re: Boundary of the Universes

« on: 19/03/2020 16:22:29 »

Consider these thought experiments: If a massive object were to approach a black hole the event horizon would have a reduced radius due to the change in equilibrium of gravitational potential. Another example is if you flew in the opposite direction to a black hole the event horizon would increase in radius, if flying towards it will reduce to that observer, the event horizon's radius is dependent on the observers reference frame. The event horizon can never be breached by an observer due to the gravitational effects of time dilation and length contraction of the Schwarzchild radius within that frame of reference.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do we need to light the rocket fuel for a rocket to take off?

« on: 19/03/2020 15:18:58 »

I wonder why they don't use a spring to assist the take off