21

New Theories / Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

« on: 10/12/2016 14:24:30 »

 CPT ArkAngel

   I have been on your path. There are some inconsistencies with your interpretations. Space being curved is a 2d explanation of a 3d process (dilation). A planet to space is also an atom to space relativity. You are missing what gives the electron motion in the first place. You are trying to give explanations in terms of the standard model and that causes a conflict in the minds of your readers. You have to realize your understanding while I agree is on the correct path needs to readjust the mindset of your audience in order to project your thoughts. And drop the metaphysical drivel. Entanglement is created at the creation of light. It is a mirror image in the spectrum not faster than the speed of light, just a trick on the standard model. You might be ready to grasp what causes the electron to move. This is ignored by main stream and the next step in the evolution of understanding.

Here is a hint: E=mc^2 Here is another form E= m*c * Space * c.  Photons are a distortion of a grid pattern of c spin that give electrons a rotation in any direction of space. The jump of the electron is the photon distortion. Fundamental energy c is the only energy. Kinetic energy is a macro mass concept only. Electron and up to the black hole which is super macro mass or an electron in a different fractal universe.

The spectrum is just different distortion patterns of the separate fundamental energy system (quantum mechanics). Quantum mechanics is the cause of relativity.

You do not create positrons and negatrons (both electrons) only the representative wave form in the spectrum.

Fusion creates electron pairs to form protons and neutrons using flow patterns in a stable positron negatron complimentary spin state of flow and creating a radiation spectrum pattern.

Fission destroys the mass back into photon spin particles also creating a radiation spectrum pattern.

So yes everything evolved from fundamental energy.
 

22

New Theories / Re: On Light and the Photoelectric effect.

« on: 09/12/2016 14:04:58 »

So I'm considering that the photon that space "tried" to create when leaving A, is not the same photon after a mili second after towards B...

Its interesting you and I will agree because we recognize nothing can move, speed up or slow down unless acted on by an external source. The standard model of a particle photon is illogical to its behavior. You cannot trap a photon because it is not a particle but a wave of particles spinning at c (a packet). c is the external source for all energy. Refraction is a dilation and diverted direction issue part of relativity.

Training in subjective models is like mass hysteria. You create a box and when the answer is outside of the box your mind gets stuck inside of the boundaries you constructed. The current model is stuck in such a box. Differences will arise when one person suggests the answer is in one portion of the box over another. This is  because it is not in their box.

We are moving on with errors on our math since day one, this on everything, necessarily assumptions to eventually reach reality...

The relativity math is correct. Its the subjective conclusions that fail logic. The illogical needs to be discarded especially the duality of the photon virtual speck of nothing wave. Everything that has an affect has mass. In order for relativistic math to exist properly photon mass has to exist outside of the atomic structure. That is just a logic fact. Quantum mechanics rule physics and physics follow math. A photon cannot be part of the atomic structure and follow relativity math.

23

New Theories / Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox

« on: 09/12/2016 01:13:02 »

The confusion over the meaning of time is understandable. Time is a man made concept of ratios to c. So time is just motion. Total reaction time is frame dependent for all spices and all clocks. Physics is the same in every frame relative to your clock for reaction time.

24

New Theories / Re: On Light and the Photoelectric effect.

« on: 08/12/2016 13:34:44 »

If a particle gets hit by a massless photon traveling at the speed of light then it has to be the energy of the photon that counts.

While we can label an item (massless virtual photon) so it does not violate relativity mathematics can we describe a massless virtual photon? A particle has mass while a massless particle is not a particle. You cannot have it both ways. How do you describe the physical effects of something that you are describing as nothing?

To me energy is separate from macro mass. Energy being micro mass spin state of c would be a physical wave created on energy. This does not violate relativity. Matter of fact it would create all of the observations of relativity by moving the electrons confounded with the photon. Get over your prodigious standard model for one that follows relativity. Not necessarily my understanding but one that a more intelligent person then I would come up with.

25

New Theories / Re: Proof

« on: 07/12/2016 12:42:30 »

GoC: one astronomer pointed this out when he claimed two galaxies of different sizes were in the same group with different red shifts...
  The size would than be the reason for the different red-shifts, perhaps a different relocation due the variations themselves...

Perhaps we favor the model we were taught. That is my whole point.

Einstein favored the steady state but was persuaded by the red shift because he could not think of any other reason for the red shift. The MMX suggested space was a void only. There model was GR not being accumulative. Now we view lensing. The lensing is dilation of space as observable. The current model is lensing being the threshold boundary between dark mass and dark energy. The voyagers moving out of the solar system suggests GR dilation with their increase in tick rate of their clocks.

26

New Theories / Re: Proof

« on: 06/12/2016 14:06:41 »

Alex

Now being practical:
We do observe an aleatory galaxy and we do observe and assume that it is moving away from us

Why do you personally believe the universe is expanding and not steady state?

Most of us believe because of others which we assign greater knowledge say it is so. We can follow some of the associations and convince ourselves of its proof. The changes in the BB since its inception has been more fantastic with each derivative. The Universe is like being on the surface of a balloon for the current interpretation. The space we once occupied is no longer space as we currently understand. We can no longer get to that space. We need to create a worm hole to traverse the center of the balloon to another surface of the balloon. The latest balloon interpretation was because of the fully formed galaxies 13 billion light years away. This violates Relativity to the point of being ridiculous. Space is dilated in the presence of macro mass. For the most part space between galaxies is somewhat flat not curved in one direction as a whole as the balloon example suggests.

There is SR and GR red shifts. Astronomers only use SR red shift for acceleration away from our position. Currently galactic accumulative dilation (we view as lensing) is not figured into the departing speed. So we measure the GR and SR combined as just SR. One astronomer pointed this out when he claimed two galaxies of different sizes were in the same group with different red shifts. He was ignored because it did not fit the current model.

Science cannot afford to throw away results that do not fit the current model. They are not true scientists.

There are only size dimensions and no proof of other dimensions. Invoking non observable issues beyond size dimensions is fantasy not reality. Mathematicians are not overly concerned with mechanical reality in my experience. We need more engineers looking at relativity the math follows the observations


thebox

While every part of the universe exists in real time as you correctly point out, no observation is in real time. All observations are from the past positions. Even your screen display. Our relative ability to perceive a difference is so insignificant as to be indistinguishable from real time locally.

27

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 04/12/2016 18:02:37 »

  You cannot hurt my feelings. "Got to go" I was late for work. I do not care whom you criticize or do not. I follow relativity, you can or cannot if you like but I use Relativity as a basis for quality of understanding. Spacetime in my estimation is the foundation energy to move electrons with angular motion as a vector. So discussing weather patterns is secondary and not the cause of gravity to my mind. Gr dilation is the attractive force to my mind. mass being attracted to the inverse square distance to the most dilated position (center of mass). This is Einstein's curved space.

28

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 29/11/2016 19:10:59 »

Particle spin is only expressed as orbital motion, hence angular momentum is generated. Unidirectional propagation like light only has orientation (polarisation) not angular momentum.

Nilak- I am becoming more impressed by you.

Yes angular momentum. If the spin state of c is complimentary than the path of the electron is an angular momentum in a straight line. Say the speed of the electron is c but the angular motion would revolve around a straight line path to reduce the vector speed. So the jump to a longer orbit would cause friction with c spin to create a propagating wavelength equal to the electron jump. The photon packet being a disturbance in zero point energy c. A right hand wave on one side and a left hand wave at 180 degrees. The spooky entanglement issue not being faster than light just created with opposite spins. Not so spooky just predetermined.

The c as a speed limit in absolute space works because c is the propagating speed  of all fields. All fields move at a constant speed, only orbital trajectories make the appear like slowed down.

Very Good!

In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.

Here we have to understand how we measure time. Relative 0.5c does not make a clock slow down by half the tick rate of relative rest. The tick rate slows down by ~13.3924%. This can be shown using geometry. The geometry and Lorentz contraction of tick rate are the same. The contracted tick rate is due to the longer path the two way direction of light has to take with velocity of mass.

You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).

Ok here is an example of spin Ether. Consider a large marble sphere as the electron. We have wheels moving at c which move the marble in an angular path The angular path takes up twice the size of the marble to go in a straight line. We first have two wheels than another two wheels at 45 degrees from the first two and 90 degrees in rotation with complimentary spin. One channel is right hand and the one next to it is left hand electron rotation. Matter and anti matter. This goes on indefinitely like 2d plates 45 degrees offset and 90 degree spin state. Dilation is how far apart the wheels are while they remain spinning at c. It is mathematically impossible for the axil length between wheels at the 45 degree angle to be the same as the perpendicular axils. So there is some flexibility. That flexibility is expressed as propagation waves. This represents ordered spacetime. All observations can be explained using these mechanics. Is something moving the spinning particles (wheels)? Yes. What I do not know but something is holding back the c spin particles from each other. 

How can the mechanics work and the mind reject the mechanism? This is a burden to my sense of reality. PhysBang suggests I am crazy. I can only reply Maybe

29

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 28/11/2016 14:08:42 »

It is true that any two similar masses attracts each other.  Inverse square law mainly describes the process by which it is happening.  Actually Newton generalised it and he did not specify the distance upto which this attraction works. Ok, let us assume that there are two masses, m1 and m2.  It is true that these two masses attracts each other.  But,  gravity start working only when two masses comes near to each other.

Distance to attraction is based on the dilation differences of space energy. The affect is the inverse square of the distance. Dilation is a gradient and the cause of gravity (Einstein's curved space). Your question becomes is there enough dilation gradient to move an object? We are attracted to the center of the Earth because of the dilation of energy is greatest in the center of the Earth. There is less energy per volume of space in the center. The suns dilation affects the Earth trying to pull it away from a straight line. The orbit is the equilibrium between gravity and centrifugal force.

Newton's theory up to inverse square law  is 100%  correct.  But, universal law of gravitation  is not incorrect.  Actually Newton extended his inverse square law, as universal law of gravitation without any base.

But there is a basis. Geometry of space. Look at everything that works on the inverse square law. Look at a ball, double the distance and the ball is one quarter the visual size. Double the diameter you get four times the mass. All spectral signals work that way including magnetism. The math of geometry follows the observations. 

Einstein realised that attraction of masses is far limited and he did not accepted Universal law of gravitation.  He carried out number of experiments, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational red shift of light.  Soon, he realised that it is the energy momentum as the reason for gravity on earth.  But he could not find the source and moved to spacetime.

Yes, spacetime is an indicator of the energy state when you use a clock. What do we measure with a clock? c as the energy state of your frame. Dilation of energy in GR is an increase in distance between energy accelerators of electron motion. Electrons, protons and neutrons are attracted to greater dilation of energy. Greater dilation causes less friction to spacetime for moving electrons. Mass creates dilation of space energy and mass is attracted to a greater dilation of space energy. Its extremely simple.

Gravitational lensing:  Through his experiments, Einstien proved that light bent near the gravity field.  But he forget that we are already in the gravity field and it is influencing each and everything including light.  Gravitational lensing is going on the earth continuously.

Lensing is the visual threshold of dilation of energy between mass spacetime mc and spacetime c E=mc^2. Mass is a conduit for spcetime energy by moving electrons.

Dark energy:  While carrying out these experiments also they have forget that they are doing these experiments in a gravity field and it is influencing it.  It is true that 75% of the universe is covered by Dark energy

I suspect 100% of the universe is covered by dark mass energy (spacetime). Time = Motion = Energy

As per General relativity curvature of the space time is decided by mass. In other words mass tells space time how to curve. Newton's law of gravitation clearly says gravitation is the attraction of two masses, which is known to us, and it is appearing before us.  Where as Einstein's curvature of space time is an imagination and its presence is not known.  For quite long time it is a mystery, whether space time is a curved one or horizontal. 

Energy being point to point would be horizontal and vertical. We know it is point to point because there is no perfect circle. Just points closer together to create space. Pie is our proof.

How mass dilates energy:
Actually, we know how much energy mass posses.  How this small amount of energy comes out and forms as a curve.  If the energy has to create a curve means, it must be freed from the atoms.  But energy remaining within atom, a curve is formed.

Two completely separate systems. Think of a black hole and the rest of the galaxy. Spacetime has order mass follows the dictates of that order. Spacetime is quantum mechanics that force mass into the motions we call physical laws.

Sorry got to go.

30

New Theories / Re: Creationism?

« on: 23/11/2016 15:45:11 »

Science can understand religion as is.
Religion doesn't understand science.

Science should not follow faith.
Faith should not follow Science.

The value of one restricts the other but a moral code needs to be followed by all.

31

New Theories / Re: What causes gravity?

« on: 23/11/2016 15:36:01 »

   Lets consider the moon with a tube ten feet in diameter going through the center to the surface at two sides. Without mass in the tube we know the potential energy decreases to the gravitational center of that moon. The gravity decreases lineally with potential energy. No mass is involved for the potential energy state of every position. there is an affect on space by mass without contact with mass. That affect is maintained throughout the tube. It is described as a field. Now we need to describe the field with a very simple decision. Is the field a physical property? Current science believes the field is an extension of mass An increase in mass extends the extension of the field. But the question comes down to fundamental energy. Do electrons move them selves? If that is the case than we live in a Universe of magic. For those unwilling to believe in magic there is only one solution. Something moves the electrons. If something moves the electrons than what is moving the electrons has motion. We know Relativity cannot be if a medium of energy has flow. We would not have the same speed of light in every direction. This is a conundrum until the realization that a medium of space spin in place satisfies, the electron motion, Relativistic affects, c as a constant, chemical reactions, clock tick rate, gravity, fields and magnetism.   

They all can be described with particle spin c. Dilation of energy particles allows rods and clocks the flexibility to explain Relativity as a mechanical state. ...... in space and . . . . .  in the center of mass. Rods are longer and clocks are slower in GR center of mass. The rods and clocks exactly match to allow the clocks a slower tick rate to traverse a longer rod. The larger clocks internal movement matches the external movement in every frame while c remains the same. Gravity is an attraction to a more dilated space then it currently occupies. A more energy dilated space allows for less resistance to spin and move the electrons. An electron may spend more travel distance towards the center of gravity dilation then away from the center of gravity dilation. in the center of mass the electron would spend equal length duration within a sphere of influence. 

This may or may not be true but it describes Relativity mechanically. Quantum mechanics create Relativity observations.

32

New Theories / Re: I think space must have a physicality!

« on: 21/11/2016 15:10:49 »

A light second in flat space has a consistent distance. While you can come close to a flat space, space can never reach it. Same as mass cannot reach c without turning into a black hole. This happens when the mass of a sun reaches the speed of light attraction. c energy can no longer keep atoms apart. Black holes may be electrons in a different fractal universe.

According to GR, space can't have an absolute position because the way it is defined. But if it had it would not change shape or position during the process you described.

the static Aether cannot have an absolute position cording to the MMX. A dot based spin energy on the other hand might just be what causes relativity (Dark mass dark energy [spin]). Spacetime is a uniform structure while macro mass is a chaotic disruption of dark mass energy.

33

New Theories / Re: One way speed of light

« on: 19/11/2016 18:51:22 »

The 1-way speed of light cannot be measured directly since the observer can only be present at the emission or detection, but not both

I suspect this to possibly be incorrect. Einstein suggested atomic clocks can measure the one way speed of light. c+v and c-v of the Earth's rotational speed.

The reflection event when part of the 2-way/round-trip measurement requires clock synchronization, which is only relative for an inertial frame at a specific speed.

Inertial vector speed causes the reflection to be different from perpendicular. The different angle for light causes a longer distance for light to travel. This increase in distance slows the clock tick rate. Pythagoras and Lorentz are the same value for contraction.

34

New Theories / Re: Can E=mc² be explained using fluid dynamics?

« on: 16/11/2016 13:06:55 »

This should lead to the simplified equation E=V*c²

where E is the potential energy that can be released by a collapse of the bubble (assuming the bubble is empty) and V is the displaced body of the medium due to the existence of the bubble, equal to the volume of the bubble.

Considering the ratio of mass to space is a marble to a football field how could a bubble expel a medium? Would it not e more likely that the medium is the super fluid?

35

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 14/11/2016 16:55:23 »

Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass,

In my opinion only mass gets attracted to mass.

which is more space density.

Why do you view it as more space density?

Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not

Equilibrium is the point between two bodies where a third body between has equal attraction.

Space is more dynamic than I thought. But somehow acceleration is harder to explain because I need to imagine waves accelerating other waves.

The possibility exists that gravity is not a wave but a linear static dilation to the center of gravity. Different elements change the center of gravity of course. Energy to move electrons towards the center of mass would become less dense due to moving more electrons. Simple geometry. A wave would be Doppler effects on space not gravity effects. A type of macro massless kinetic wave of fundamental energy.

On top of this all waves like EM or waves corresponding to strong/weak force travel at the same rate (x/t=ct=c).

Yes of course space is the potential battery c and the electrons are the engines always running.

Then a velocity below c in a x direction must be because of field values propagating in y an z direction in a circular pattern.

That describes electron motion as rotation and vector movement. The photon and electron are both moving at c but the electron rotates while moving forward. Quantum mechanics is energy c. The circular pattern is the rotating jump of the electron displayed as a wave packet propagating through space at c. The wave length and rotation is the pattern of the jump of the electron creating the photon on fundamental energy c.

. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.

When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.

When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.

It is the decrease in energy density in mass that causes the refraction of light direction that causes the trajectory change.

If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.

You are confusing Doppler and gravity as the same cause. They are not.

  In Relativity we first had postulates. Then the math that fell from those postulates mimicked observation to show the power of Relativity as reality. The third part is the mechanics. This is what scares those in science today. What if you worked on something all your life and found it to be false? It would be as difficult as convincing the Pope there was no God. No disrespect intended. And the followers are even more committed to follow the subjective interpretations wanting to be with the group of professed knowledge.

I totally believe in Relativity postulates and math. I make suggestions of a mechanical process that may or may not be true but like the postulates my mechanical view follows relativity. If you were to go into the rabbit hole (Relativity) You would need more than the math to know why things grow and shrink or why you can only see the eyes of the cat. The mechanics o relativity is the next step in the process of understanding.

Why do you think the voyagers slowed down? Or did they?

36

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 14/11/2016 14:36:15 »

You are having excellent knowledge in GR and SR.  But i do not know why it is, my mind never accepted them and has taken a 'U' turn and a bad notion developed in my mind that if you steps into the shoes of GR and SR, then you will become a piece of a big cloth.  Actually i had not studied them perfectly.  But it is true, to wage a war you cannot do it with empty hands. 

Ok, let us discuss one simple and known incident.  Suppose if we threw an electric bulb, which contains vacuum, it break with big noise.  It is known reason that it is due to atmosphere pressure.  There is heavy pressure in the open area and it tries to occupy empty space of the electric bulb, where pressure is low. 

In another example to test the power of dark energy or vacuum, things are taken differently.  Let us take water in a bucket, close the bucket by another empty bucket.  Now remove air, in between 1st one and 2nd one.  Water in the bucket escalates.  Here we are taking the power of vacuum as reason for escalation of water. 

In the 1st instance, outside atmosphere pressure is taken as reason.  Where as in the 2nd instance it is the vacuum power  counted. In the second example atmosphere pressure is ignored completely. When air is removed, atmosphere pressure on the water is lost and it escalates.

Suppose if we take the electric bulb into space and break it, it makes no noise at all.  In the case of water also, if the same test is done in space, where outside pressure is low, there is no scope for any escalation of water.

Here we have to remember on important point that vacuum or dark energy has got no power/strength at all.  It gains strength due to the outside pressure only.

I have an advantage to my way of thinking. To me Electrons do not move by themselves. That would be magic. So if they do not move by them selves than quantum mechanics moves them. The dimension of quantum mechanics is below the electron. It has to be a quantum spin state because vector motion would violate relativity as Einstein pointed out. I look at the universe as motion of time is from space and not mass because energy to move electrons have to come from space. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame to produce the same measurement of light in a vacuum. This can be shown using plane geometry of vector velocity. So what ever you want to call it time, dark energy or Spacetime all energy comes from space. Unless you believe in magic of course. Time measurement begins at planks distance of motion. Motion = time = energy. Macro mass energy is a conduit from space spin energy. The space spin pattern rotates electrons in vector motion. While this is my opinion it follows relativity and combines quantum mechanics with Relativity as mechanics and not just postulates.

The pressure of atmosphere and the attraction of gravity combine to create a sphere in liquids. Gravity being a dilation of space energy to the center of mass and mass attracted to the lower energy density of space.

According to General Relativity, heavier and denser objects like planets, stars, and galaxies produce a greater warp in space, in essence giving them a stronger gravitational pull. A black hole is a hole in the fabric of space-time, like a deep well into which matter and energy may fall but may never exit.

I view this slightly different. Photons bend around black holes never falling into black holes. Photons follow the curvature of space energy. There is no energy in black holes. Time = energy so there is no time in black holes. Density of a proton to electron is a marble to a football field. A black hole is a football field full of marbles for density. Curves space to the max. But it is still the inverse square of the distance.

But, actually not much is known about Black holes, how they are formed, but existence is confirmed. 

If you look at the universe through a hammer everything looks like a nail. If you look at the universe as atoms what would you expect?

In my view Black holes are also due to the reason of high and low pressure effects only.  When two neutron stars, existing nearby dilates huge amount of fundamental energy into the space, it start spreading to wide area.  These two forces, coming from different directions, tries to meet at any one place.  Here, dark energy and dark matter raises and it takes a well shape. This is the reason, how and why black holes are formed on Sun.

My view of course is changing energy density of space. Fusion is absorbing energy of space to create electrons, protons and neutrons. Mass comes from space but not as a BB. Suns fuel themselves while creating a life cycle of heaver elements from dark mass energy by compression.

Ok, let us study some of the things happening on earth only.  During summer season, low pressure develops and start drawing matter and energy.  Slowly, after some time it neutralizes.  For that, cyclones are also due to this reason only.

 There are two sides to energy. All energy comes from space would suggest macro energy comes from friction with micro quantum energy.

Schwarzschild found that if you squeezed enough mass into a small enough volume, its gravity would become almost infinitely strong. It would warp the space around it so strongly that nothing could escape from it.  Here, we have to keep in mind that this is done on earth, where there is strong gravity.  When the mass is squeezed in a small volume, it start emitting fundamental energy into open area, due to gravity, a strong gravity field is developed.

While I agree with the affects I do not agree mass emits fundamental energy and only changes energy density of space energy.

 

So, we have to keep in mind that Black holes are not creators of this universe, but created due to the forces in the universe.  Due to the presence of strong fundamental energy, it exerts strong gravitational pull.

To me of course it is the loss of fundamental density of energy causing gravity. Fundamental energy being c.

37

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do we moderate discussion of new theories in the main part of the forum?

« on: 11/11/2016 19:31:48 »

Colin2B,

   I have a question? We both believe in Relativity mathematics. Now a subjective opinion about the Lorentz contraction would be is it physical or just visual. Both follow Relativity but only one could be correct. If you were to answer the question as a physical contraction and I as a visual contraction which one would be correct? Does only one follow Relativity? Which one is the standard model?

38

New Theories / Re: One way speed of light

« on: 09/11/2016 16:00:44 »

In SR there is a convention which says no mater what direction you are traveling speed of light is the same. However the one way speed of light can't be measured.

You can measure the speed of light one way with an atomic clock. There is a 14 ns difference between New York and San Francisco in direction. The rotation is similar to a straight line for the distance light has to travel. This as been verified with atomic clocks.

There is a version I'm currently analyzing. It starts with a thought experiment. Presuming the speed of light is constant ( c ) is only in an absolute reference frame, the speed relative to an observer in motion relative to the absolute reference frame will not be the same.

This is correct but the measuring device is confounded with the speed of light measurement.

However the two way speed of light measured by any observer will be always c.

Yes because the 14 ns are added in one direction and subtracted in the opposite direction.

We measure the time it takes to the beam to reach the mirror and come back by measuring how many cycles the photon clock makes.

During vector motion the clock photon and mirror photon are affected by the same angular motion. A photon clock will tick at the same rate at any angle during vector motion. This can be calculated in plane geometry using the finite speed of light.

. But the aether properties are not important for this thought experiment. I should be important to analyze the analogy with GR.

Unless the Aether is the light. GR and SR are always combined. GR can become insignificant in the furthest distances from macro mass where dilation is at a minimum. The Voyagers moving out from our solar system reduced there space dilation. The result was a quicker return of the signal which appeared as if the voyagers slowed down when in fact it was a clock tick rate increase. Simple Relativity.

39

New Theories / Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?

« on: 02/11/2016 15:29:01 »

     Space has to have a structure pervasive throughout the universe or no dark mass dark energy. If there is no DME than electron motion is magic. Since I am a realest and do not believe in magic that structure has to be uniform. This is because we have the same results in any direction we chose. This at first glance appears to be the old Aether. While the minds of the past had gotten that far and tested their theory correctly they did not test for the extra dimension of a spin state. Einstein claimed correctly that we could not assign motion to space. Motion would invalidate Relativity but spin does not invalidate Relativity. Spin c is actually the cause of Relativity. it is much easier to wrap your mind around magic being the cause of electron motion than particle spin at c. Something else is causing the particle spin like fractal galaxies in our universe are spinning. That is beyond most of man's ability to consider. We want everything in its own box. Size dimension up and down where our own galaxy is a mere speck of energy is quite challenging to the mind.

  E=MC^2 is very important but we need to understand that relationship properly. You cannot add to it only understand what it really means. E=c in space, c moves electrons in mass so E= c space + c mass, E=MC^2.

Now lets discuss dilation. Einstein's representation of gravity is two dimensional where dilation is three dimensional (and the cause of gravity). A gradient from the center outward like onion rings toward the surface but a complete gradient not sections. Light curves around trying to stay in the less dilated space it was traveling in. The light sphere get cut in two directions around a massive body creating a dip in the lights intensity of the vector line of that sphere.

Now equivalency of GR and SR will be challenging to comprehend. I will explain it but you have to hold four concepts in your mind simultaneously. Currently the main stream understanding is of contraction with velocity in SR. You contract and the distance between A and B becomes longer. This violates Relativity.
1. GR dilation is physical increase in mass.
2. GR dilation is a physical decrease in space energy c. Energy density is less. Spin particles move further apart and mass expands relative to the dilation. Electrons travel further causing the expansion.
3. SR dilation is a visual increase in the length of your measuring stick not a physical increase.
4. SR clock tick rate reduction is due to removing energy from space by vector motion. The electrons are cycling at rest the tick rate is faster. Vector motion in space adds the vector motion to the cycling motion to = c combined motion. Tick rate slows, c remains constant.

   The design is amazing and relativity is the key to geometry equivalence. It is in this equivalence of GR and SR that the beauty of Relativity is visualized in understanding. Once you can hold all four concepts I can begin to explain the mechanics of equivalence. It was in these four principles I worked hard to understand, that I conceived the mechanical Relativity. Gravity and acceleration have nothing to do with clock speed. Your inertial SR view and GR dilation are the equivalence representing c as a constant.

Let's look at examples of equivalence between SR and GR:

1. On the surface of the Earth the clocks tick faster than the gravitational center of the Earth because of physical dilation of energy ( spin particles further apart electrons traveling further at c per cycle). GR.

2. Out in space (in a space ship) the same distance from the sun and starting at the same rotational speed around the sun (as the Earth), will take in the dilation effect of the sun for a starting point being the same as the Earth. Now instantaneous 32 feet /s/s and decelerating to an inertial speed in ~ 8,000 feet with the reduction being linear your tick rate on your clock would be the same as the center of the Earth. First the ratio of your mass of the space ship to the mass of the Earth has to be subtracted which is insignificant but important for precision. I am only going for accurate understanding not precise numbers.

  Now what causes the equivalence in tick rate? The dilation distance in energy spin particles is exactly the same ratio as the vector velocity increase in distance the electron traveled per cycle to equal total c. The distance through space the electron traveled is the same at c. Electron rotational motion and vector motion is always c. There are three dimensions to the electron motion. Rotation through space at relative rest (never really at rest) and vector motion through space as a limit of total c spin.

The finite speed of light in SR causes the lengthening of view. Light travels forward and backward at two different distances with vector speed. The easy example of half the speed of light will show the reflected light going forward takes twice the length visually and 66.6...% of the length to return while 33.3...% goes through space on the return trip without reflection. So we have a total of 2.66...% /2 = 1.33...% of length. But that still leaves about 0.166...% not reflected because the total was 33.3..% in one direction. Our result is 1.25 % longer visually than at relative rest visually. It is the motion through space without the reflection of light that causes the visual contraction for the observer at rest. Its not physical!!!!

I hope I have explained it in a way that is understandable.

40

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 01/11/2016 02:40:11 »

   

GOC is there any chance that the sun "somehow" due its dilatation and our existence within its horizontal plate, be converting this weightless state of almost zero gravity into acceleration?

The only issue with dilation is the ratio where the dilation between the earth and the sun is the least. Of course the dilation of the sun extends to the end of the solar system And contributes to the total galaxy dilation lens. On the Earth scale within the Earth the dilation only affects mass on the earth for gravity. The dilation of the sun affects the earth scale body. Out in space away from a planet the suns dilation gradient is very slight for the size of a human so the attraction would be insignificant to that difference in scale. Earth's dilation while slightly affected by the gradient of the sun is similar to the moons affect on the ocean lifting the ocean six inches to produce the tides. The sun only moves the apparent center of gravity slightly towards the sun. The sun does not cause gravity on the Earth.

Ignoring life, why do we need suns, or are suns the only meaning of the universe and planets causality?

Hydrogen gas expelled from super nova's could be the seeds for new star formation. A star has a life cycle. It starts with hydrogen. Then fusion produces hydrogen from space energy. The fusion produces higher elements until either a red giant or super nova is produced and the life cycle ends. It depends on the mass of the sun when first produced. That determines its end.

Half of the stars in the galaxy are binary. I suspect a difference in star pair masses cause one to blow creating planets from the blown star. I find it difficult to attribute higher elements in planets during hydrogen star formation. Our sun wobbles through space like it used to have a companion. he Earth might be part of that companion. Pure speculation.