Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 04:17:59
1. Zero can not divide one.
2. One can not be created from zero. Absolute creation does not exist.
3. One can not be destroyed into zero. Absolute destruction does not exist.
4. One can change into different one. Relative creation and relative destruction exist.
5. There is no beginning for absolute existence.
6. There is no end for absolute existence.
7. There is a beginning and an end to relative existence.
8. There is no God.
9. Velocity of light is relative.
10. Space is emptiness that can be occupied, it is absolute. Time is an indication of change, it is relative.
11. There are three and three space dimensions only. There is only one time dimension.
12. Time travel is not possible and there is only one Universe.
Sagar Gorijala is the author of " Fundamental Theory of Existence ".
Post by: Kartazion on 01/02/2022 07:15:24
...Sagar Gorijala is wrong. Speed of light is absolute.
...
9. Velocity of light is relative.
...
Post by: Kartazion on 01/02/2022 07:45:48
For example he claims that 'there's only one Universe'. How can he claim such a thing?
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 08:03:53
...Sagar Gorijala is wrong. Speed of light is absolute.
...
9. Velocity of light is relative.
...
Mass of an object is directly proportional to Acceleration.
Mass <=> Acceleration. [ Directly proportional ].
E=M.C square
Light's mass and energy both must be considered.
1/M = C square / Energy.
Mass is inversely proportional to Velocity+Energy relationship.
Velocity of an object is directly proportional to mass ( and acceleration )
Velocity+Energy of light is inversely proportional to mass ( Gravity ).
As Gravity increases Velocity of light decreases.
On moon velocity of light is faster than on Earth and velocity of light is slower on Jupiter than on Earth.
Velocity of light there appears to be constant on Earth and is said to be absolute. When velocity of light is measured on Moon then it is completely clear that Velocity of light is relative. [ Gravity needs to change to observe that velocity of light is relative ].
Velocity of light is relative.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 08:08:19
So I guess he's got the rest wrong unless you know what you're talking about and are going to explain your OP post to us.
For example he claims that 'there's only one Universe'. How can he claim such a thing?
Time is an indication of change. Higher gravity produces slower change so slow is time
and lower gravity produces faster change so time is relatively faster.
For this reason Time is relative. For this reason time travel is not only impossible but meaningless.
For the same reason there is only one time dimension. Only one time dimension and therefore only one Universe.
Post by: Kartazion on 01/02/2022 08:09:23
The photon is massless. So you can't.
Mass of an object is directly proportional to Acceleration.
Mass <=> Acceleration. [ Directly proportional ].
E=M.C square
Light's mass and energy both must be considered.
1/M = C square / Energy.
Mass is inversely proportional to Velocity+Energy relationship.
...
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 08:33:25
One can not be created from zero.I forget the detail, but I think one is defined as the number of sets with zero members.
Velocity of light is relative.Saying that once makes you look ignorant, saying again, after the error was pointed out, makes you look like a troll.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 09:30:09
One can not be created from zero.I forget the detail, but I think one is defined as the number of sets with zero members.Velocity of light is relative.Saying that once makes you look ignorant, saying again, after the error was pointed out, makes you look like a troll.
Saying the wrong thing does not make me troll, calling someone troll makes you the actual troll. Stop insulting others without understanding science.
And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity, it is not about being with mass or being massless.
Velocity of object with mass is directly proportional to acceleration
Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.
The difference between object with mass and velocity of light is, object's velocity is directly propotional to acceleration
and velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity. This is not ignorance. Stop insulting others without understanding physics.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 11:28:53
One can not become zero, one is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one, zero is not equal to one.
One can not become zero, absolute destruction is not possible.
Zero can not become one, absolute creation is not possible.
One is equal to one, one can change into different one. [ Change ].
One can change into different one, old one becomes new one.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist.
Absolute creation is not possible, absolute existence has no beginning, Universe was never created.
Absolute destruction is not possible, absolute existence has no end, Universe can never be destroyed.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist, Universe has a change of form.
Existence is a circle? The circle was drawn? The circle simply exists?
What came first?
When we draw a circle we can see that the circle has a beginning point and when it reaches end point it becomes the circle. Circle is also known as a never ending line.
Absolute creation is not possible so the circle of existence was never drawn, it simply exists.
What came first?
Existence was never created so existence has no beginning.
If existence is a variation, which variation came first?
Existence changes, so existence is a variation.
When we talk about first variation we talk about beginning. But, there is no beginning.
If there is a first variation, it means " Zero can become one, zero is equal to one ".
So, there is no first variation. So, there is no beginning.
What came first? Existence has no first or last, change has both first and last.
So, Universe has no beginning and Universe always exists without any first variation and without any last variation.
Change has first and last. One changes into different one.
One - first.
Different one - last.
So, there is no first and there is/are no God or Gods.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 11:48:20
Saying the wrong thing does not make me troll,Saying them repeatedly does.
calling someone troll makes you the actual troll.No, it doesn't. Grow up.
Stop insulting others without understanding science.If I didn't understand science, I'd have been sacked decades ago.
And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity,No, it isn't.
We know this because satellites- which depend for their design on the speed of light, do not stop working in zero gravity.
Velocity of object with mass is directly proportional to accelerationIt's more complicated than that.
Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.No, it's not. See above.
velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity. TNo, it's not. See above.
Stop insulting others without understanding physics.I understand the physics a lot better than you seem to.
That's why I can offer actual evidence that the speed of light is not proportional to gravity.
It's also why, on a more abstract level, I can show that you are wrong by dimensional analysis.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 11:48:54
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 11:54:34
Saying the wrong thing does not make me troll,Saying them repeatedly does.calling someone troll makes you the actual troll.No, it doesn't. Grow up.Stop insulting others without understanding science.If I didn't understand science, I'd have been sacked decades ago.And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity,No, it isn't.
We know this because satellites- which depend for their design on the speed of light, do not stop working in zero gravity.Velocity of object with mass is directly proportional to accelerationIt's more complicated than that.Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.No, it's not. See above.velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity. TNo, it's not. See above.Stop insulting others without understanding physics.I understand the physics a lot better than you seem to.
That's why I can offer actual evidence that the speed of light is not proportional to gravity.
It's also why, on a more abstract level, I can show that you are wrong by dimensional analysis.
What? Zero gravity for satellites? When? And, zero gravity only means that velocity of light is not hindered by gravity. Light's velocity is more in that case when compared to velocity of light on Earth. Please understand what you type.
Zero gravity does not mean end of velocity and definitely not the end of satellites.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 11:56:46
Is that meant to be poetry?
No dear friend, it is not poetry. It also says that big bang is not the first variation.
Post by: Kartazion on 01/02/2022 12:19:09
And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity, it is not about being with mass or being massless.AFAIK the speed of light is unchanged by gravity.
...
Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.
...
Post by: Kartazion on 01/02/2022 12:42:52
What came first?
One can not become zero, one is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one, zero is not equal to one.
One can not become zero, absolute destruction is not possible.
Zero can not become one, absolute creation is not possible.
One is equal to one, one can change into different one. [ Change ].
One can change into different one, old one becomes new one.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist.
Absolute creation is not possible, absolute existence has no beginning, Universe was never created.
Absolute destruction is not possible, absolute existence has no end, Universe can never be destroyed.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist, Universe has a change of form.
Existence is a circle? The circle was drawn? The circle simply exists?
What came first?
When we draw a circle we can see that the circle has a beginning point and when it reaches end point it becomes the circle. Circle is also known as a never ending line.
Absolute creation is not possible so the circle of existence was never drawn, it simply exists.
What came first?
Existence was never created so existence has no beginning.
If existence is a variation, which variation came first?
Existence changes, so existence is a variation.
When we talk about first variation we talk about beginning. But, there is no beginning.
If there is a first variation, it means " Zero can become one, zero is equal to one ".
So, there is no first variation. So, there is no beginning.
What came first? Existence has no first or last, change has both first and last.
So, Universe has no beginning and Universe always exists without any first variation and without any last variation.
Change has first and last. One changes into different one.
One - first.
Different one - last.
So, there is no first and there is/are no God or Gods.
I think you are confusing discipline. Your description corresponds to philosophy rather than science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 13:05:51
Zero gravity for satellites? When?All the time; they are in free fall i.e. zero gravity.
zero gravity only means that velocity of light is not hindered by gravity.If that was true the speed in free fall would be infinite, and it isn't.
Zero gravity does not mean end of velocity and definitely not the end of satellites.Do you not understand that satellites have electronics and antennae and things that depend on the wavelength of the radiation they are using (typically microwaves and radio).
Antenna design is fundamentally related to the wavelength of the radiation.
The wavelength is related to the speed of that radiation.
So, if the speed changed, the wavelength would change.
If the wavelength changes, the antennae would not work.
if the antennae did not work then the satellites would not work.
You would not be able to get satellite TV signals for example.
But we can.
So you are wrong.
Please understand what you type.I do understand the things I am typing about.
You clearly do not.
Go and learn.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 14:02:24
Zero gravity for satellites? When?All the time; they are in free fall i.e. zero gravity.zero gravity only means that velocity of light is not hindered by gravity.If that was true the speed in free fall would be infinite, and it isn't.Zero gravity does not mean end of velocity and definitely not the end of satellites.Do you not understand that satellites have electronics and antennae and things that depend on the wavelength of the radiation they are using (typically microwaves and radio).
Antenna design is fundamentally related to the wavelength of the radiation.
The wavelength is related to the speed of that radiation.
So, if the speed changed, the wavelength would change.
If the wavelength changes, the antennae would not work.
if the antennae did not work then the satellites would not work.
You would not be able to get satellite TV signals for example.
But we can.
So you are wrong.Please understand what you type.I do understand the things I am typing about.
You clearly do not.
Go and learn.
Dear Friend, the so called zero gravity is not gravity = zero. Do you understand that?
Do you know Michelson–Morley experiment?
Do you know why the misconception that velocity of light is constant?
If someone is on the ground and someone on the moving train what we have is relativity... relative difference.
But, the moving train carries light source not light itself. Light is generated by source of light. The moving train carries source of light but not light itself. Michelson–Morley experiment shows that they measured velocity of light without the change in gravity. Mass of an object is directly proportional to acceleration/gravity and we do not consider energy in the proportionality. So, velocity of an object is directly proportional acceleration or gravity and its velocity is also different on ground and on a moving train. We observe relativity.
Velocity of light is not related to acceleration... why?? Because we can only hold source of light, not light itself.
Velocity of light is related to gravity. In what way?
When we consider velocity of light we not only consider its velocity but we also consider its energy.
C square/Energy is inversely proportional to gravity. Velocity of light is different on the surface of the Earth when compared to velocity of light on the surface of the Moon. Our Moon's gravity is less than the gravity of our planet Earth and this is why Velocity of Light is faster on our Moon when compared to Velocity of light on our planet Earth.
And, the gravity difference is not found for moving light on ground and on moving train.
Velocity of light is not constant.
Velocity of light is relative to change in GRAVITY.
My Friend, this is the case.
Post by: Origin on 01/02/2022 14:14:11
Velocity of light is relative to change in GRAVITY.You have said that several times now. Could you now please show that this is more than your hunch? Could you show some math backing that assertion?
This is certainly not enough: "C square/Energy is inversely proportional to gravity.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 14:34:54
Velocity of light is relative to change in GRAVITY.You have said that several times now. Could you now please show that this is more than your hunch? Could you show some math backing that assertion?
This is certainly not enough: "C square/Energy is inversely proportional to gravity.
Can I show some Math other than that particular essential Math? No. Why? I have Vascular Dementia. Celebration of being alive is my reality. Reason: I abused Sugar all my life.
Word of advice: That relationship is not only essential Math, it is fundamental relationship that dictates how light behaves under the influence of gravity. Gravity does not bend space. Gravity bends light. Length, area and volume, the three space dimensions of objects are relative. Space is emptiness that can be occupied. Space itself is absolute. Length is not. Length dimensions are relative. Gravity can not bend space. That is impossible. Gravity bends length dimensions and light. Gravity can not bend emptiness, that is meaningless.
That particular Math is the fundamental plus essential relationship between velocity of light and change in gravity.
Thanks.
Post by: Origin on 01/02/2022 14:58:29
Can I show some Math other than that particular essential Math? No. Why? I have Vascular Dementia. Celebration of being alive is my reality.I am glad that you are celebrating being alive in spite of your illness!
Unfortunately that particular 'equation' does not make any sense by unit analysis. Not sure exactly what you mean by 'gravity' in this case, but any there is no definition of gravity that has the units of kg.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/02/2022 16:33:01
Do you know why the misconception that velocity of light is constant?
It's not a misconception. It's experimentally verified to be true (and the Michelson-Morley experiment isn't the only one to have verified this).
Can I show some Math other than that particular essential Math? No.
So what is your evidence?
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 16:53:31
Can I show some Math other than that particular essential Math? No. Why? I have Vascular Dementia. Celebration of being alive is my reality.I am glad that you are celebrating being alive in spite of your illness!
Unfortunately that particular 'equation' does not make any sense by unit analysis. Not sure exactly what you mean by 'gravity' in this case, but any there is no definition of gravity that has the units of kg.
Energy = Mass . Length . Length / Time . Time
Velocity = Mass . Length / Time
Gravity = Length / Time . Time
Velocity of object ... V = Mass . Gravity . Time [ Velocity is directly proportional to gravity ]
Velocity of light ... V .V = Mass . Mass . Length . Length / Time . Time = Mass . Energy
Energy = Mass . Length . Gravity
Mass = Energy / Length . Gravity
Velocity . Velocity = Energy . Energy / Length . Gravity
Velocity . Velocity / Energy . Energy = 1 / Length . Gravity
When you consider velocity of light you must consider energy in the proportionality as light is a form of energy.
Therefore velocity of light which is a form of energy is inversely proportional to gravity.
As gravity increases velocity of light decreases and as gravity decreases velocity of light increases.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 16:56:38
Do you know why the misconception that velocity of light is constant?
It's not a misconception. It's experimentally verified to be true (and the Michelson-Morley experiment isn't the only one to have verified this).Can I show some Math other than that particular essential Math? No.
So what is your evidence?
Michelson-Morley experiment is not a misconception.
Concluding that velocity of light is constant is a misconception.
Velocity of light is not constant. Velocity of light is relative.
Post by: Kartazion on 01/02/2022 17:20:48
Where in the universe does this variation in the velocity of light apply?
...
Concluding that velocity of light is constant is a misconception.
Velocity of light is not constant. Velocity of light is relative.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 17:38:56
Gravity = Length / Time . TimeNo, it doesn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 17:39:59
I have Vascular Dementia.I'm sorry to hear that, but I think you should consider the effect it has on how likely you are to be correct when arguing against a set of scientists.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 19:02:07
Where in the universe does this variation in the velocity of light apply?
...
Concluding that velocity of light is constant is a misconception.
Velocity of light is not constant. Velocity of light is relative.
It applies in the entire Universe.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 19:02:51
Gravity = Length / Time . TimeNo, it doesn't.
That equation is for acceleration due to gravity. It is valid.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 19:11:36
That applies to any acceleration. but the formula for gravity is different.Gravity = Length / Time . TimeNo, it doesn't.
That equation is for acceleration due to gravity. It is valid.
f=G M1 M2 / R^2
It hardly matters; because the fact that satellite TV works proves that your idea about light and gravity is wrong.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 19:23:10
That applies to any acceleration. but the formula for gravity is different.Gravity = Length / Time . TimeNo, it doesn't.
That equation is for acceleration due to gravity. It is valid.
f=G M1 M2 / R^2
It hardly matters; because the fact that satellite TV works proves that your idea about light and gravity is wrong.
What do you mean? When did I say that satellite TV do not work? Simply because velocity of light is relative, it never means that satellite TV do not work. They work. Velocity of light is relative simply means that velocity of light is not same number everywhere in the Universe.
It means, in the entire Universe velocity of light is a slightly faster where gravity is lower in comparison with velocity of light on the surface of the Earth.
Current value of velocity of light is only applicable on the surface of the earth.
If we go to earth's moon then velocity of light is higher than current value which is said to be constant through out the universe. It is not constant value. Velocity of light is relative value.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 19:25:52
That applies to any acceleration. but the formula for gravity is different.Gravity = Length / Time . TimeNo, it doesn't.
It is the dimension of gravity, what ever the formula is dimension is same.
That equation is for acceleration due to gravity. It is valid.
f=G M1 M2 / R^2
It hardly matters; because the fact that satellite TV works proves that your idea about light and gravity is wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 19:26:07
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 19:27:16
If we go to earth's moon then velocity of light is higher than current valueAgain, we know that is wrong.
We went to the moon.
We took radio equipment.
It worked.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 19:28:26
We know that the speed of light is not affected by gravity in the way you said it was because, if it was then the antennae on satellites would fail.
I'm sorry, they do not fail. Velocity of light is relative only means that numbers will vary. They do work.
It is the dimension of gravity. Formula does not change dimension.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 19:29:51
If we go to earth's moon then velocity of light is higher than current valueAgain, we know that is wrong.
We went to the moon.
We took radio equipment.
It worked.
It works. Numbers change. They don't stop working. Value is different, that is all.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 19:30:02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B8mer%27s_determination_of_the_speed_of_light
Modern repetition of the experiments give the right answer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 19:31:41
Do you have any idea how a radio antenna works?If we go to earth's moon then velocity of light is higher than current valueAgain, we know that is wrong.
We went to the moon.
We took radio equipment.
It worked.
It works. Numbers change. They don't stop working. Value is different, that is all.
Do you understand that it has to be the right size?
That size depends on the speed of light (and the frequency you are transmitting).
If the speed of light changed the antennae would be the "wrong" size.
They would not work.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 19:41:29
Do you have any idea how a radio antenna works?If we go to earth's moon then velocity of light is higher than current valueAgain, we know that is wrong.
We went to the moon.
We took radio equipment.
It worked.
It works. Numbers change. They don't stop working. Value is different, that is all.
Do you understand that it has to be the right size?
That size depends on the speed of light (and the frequency you are transmitting).
If the speed of light changed the antennae would be the "wrong" size.
They would not work.
Velocity of light does change with gravity. On moon velocity of light is little faster than that on earth, this small change does not cause antennae failure. But, if you take it massive objects then the radio must face what you propose. And the measurements you talked about measuring velocity of light were agreed upon the value proposed by one guy and were dicarded which were proposed by other guys saying that they were inaccurate.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/02/2022 20:25:45
Concluding that velocity of light is constant is a misconception.
According to what experimental evidence?
Velocity of light is not constant. Velocity of light is relative.
According to what experimental evidence?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 21:27:34
Velocity of light does change with gravity.No.
It was measured in space, far away from anything withy much gravity, and the speed was found to be the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B8mer%27s_determination_of_the_speed_of_light
Why are you ignoring the experiment?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2022 21:30:47
On moon velocity of light is little faster than that on earth, this small change does not cause antennae failure.What you said was
Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity, iThe gravity on the moon is about 6 times less than on Earth, so the antennae would be the wrong size by a factor of six.
They could not possibly work.
Post by: Origin on 01/02/2022 22:11:47
Energy = Mass . Length . Length / Time . TimeThese are the correct units
Velocity = Mass . Length / TimeIncorrect, these are the units for momentum.
Gravity = Length / Time . TimeIncorrect, these are the units for acceleration.
Velocity of object ... V = Mass . Gravity . Time [ Velocity is directly proportional to gravity ]Incorrect, these units are for momentum again (assuming 'gravity' is acceleration).
Velocity of light ... V .V = Mass . Mass . Length . Length / Time . Time = Mass . EnergyIncorrect, the units of the speed of light is L/t.
Energy = Mass . Length . GravityCorrect, if 'gravity' is really acceleration.
Mass = Energy / Length . GravityThis is getting a little silly...
Velocity . Velocity = Energy . Energy / Length . Gravity
Velocity . Velocity / Energy . Energy = 1 / Length . Gravity
Post by: Halc on 01/02/2022 22:22:46
Well, if velocity of light was a constant, then if you could see me, then I couldn't see you since it would involve the light going a different direction, which is a different velocity. That's a pretty trivial experiment.Concluding that velocity of light is constant is a misconception.According to what experimental evidence?
Of course, we can assume jan19 is speaking of speed of light and not velocity of light, but he didn't actually say that.
Quote
So in Minkowski spacetime (no gravity), the direction that a particular photon is traveling is frame dependent. It might be going North in one frame and the same photon going East relative to another.Velocity of light is not constant. Velocity of light is relative.According to what experimental evidence?
Also, I think once again jan19 is speaking of the coordinate speed of light (as opposed to the speed of light which is constant), which varies with gravitational potential, not with the local gravitational acceleration rate.
So for instance, the coordinate speed of light on Saturn is higher than it is on Earth despite Saturn massing more and the gravitational pull there being 8% higher. Similarly, the coordinate speed of light on Mercury is the lowest of all the 8 planets despite the gravity there being the weakest on the list.
Post by: jan19th1980 on 02/02/2022 01:34:27
Well, if velocity of light was a constant, then if you could see me, then I couldn't see you since it would involve the light going a different direction, which is a different velocity. That's a pretty trivial experiment.Concluding that velocity of light is constant is a misconception.According to what experimental evidence?
Of course, we can assume jan19 is speaking of speed of light and not velocity of light, but he didn't actually say that.QuoteSo in Minkowski spacetime (no gravity), the direction that a particular photon is traveling is frame dependent. It might be going North in one frame and the same photon going East relative to another.Velocity of light is not constant. Velocity of light is relative.According to what experimental evidence?
Also, I think once again jan19 is speaking of the coordinate speed of light (as opposed to the speed of light which is constant), which varies with gravitational potential, not with the local gravitational acceleration rate.
So for instance, the coordinate speed of light on Saturn is higher than it is on Earth despite Saturn massing more and the gravitational pull there being 8% higher. Similarly, the coordinate speed of light on Mercury is the lowest of all the 8 planets despite the gravity there being the weakest on the list.
Light can not escape a black hole? Space is emptiness that can be occupied. Space is absolute.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2022 11:33:44
None of that makes any difference. If you measure the speed of light you always get the same answer- even if you are inside the event horizon of a black hole.
Light can not escape a black hole? Space is emptiness that can be occupied. Space is absolute.
Post by: puppypower on 02/02/2022 15:38:07
None of that makes any difference. If you measure the speed of light you always get the same answer- even if you are inside the event horizon of a black hole.
Light can not escape a black hole? Space is emptiness that can be occupied. Space is absolute.
This is true since the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. The analogy between any and all inertial references and the unique speed of light reference common to all, is the speed of light is like sea-level, while all the possible inertial references are like all the various elevations of the earth that will all see this common feature called c-level.
Their potential energy is in proportion to their potential with c-level. The black hole makes a core reference close to what we could see at the speed of light and SR. So it has little potential relative to c-level. According to both SR and GR inertial references in motion and/or due to local mass density are at different degrees away from the singular reference at c-level; the water on the mountains, hills or plains all flow to the sea. The black hole is a low lying plain relative to c-level.
In Special Relativity, there three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. We know mass becomes discontinuous at the speed of light since mass cannot travel at the speed of light. This would take infinite energy. The same analysis is also true for distance and time since these parameters use the exact same function, which leads to the same outcome. It would take infinite energy for space-time to sustain at the speed of light. Instead space-time will break down and becomes discontinuous. It changes things in ways not recognizable from space-time as we know it.
Space; distance, and time as we know it do not retain their traditional expressions at c-level. They lose their connection to the land of clocks and meter sticks, just as mass does not retain its inertial nature at c-level. Instead time and space will act independently of each other. One can move in time without the constraint of space or move in space without the constraint of time. These states have been historically called omniscience and omnipresence, respectively.
These extrapolated conclusions were inferred from SR. If we plug the speed of light into the equations for time and distance the math says the universe will appear to contract to a point-instant. As a point universe, our reference would conceptually allows us to be everywhere in the universe, since our reference would be a point that defines all. Since time also appears as an instant, we also become timeless, since the entire time lapse or any sub time lapse of the inertial universe, also occur in the same singular instant.
It is only a question of magnifying the point; with a microscope, to achieve omnipresence at any level of distance. A microscope does not change the properties of our original viewing reference. We are still be omnipresent according to the math. While a video playback using slow motion does not all alter our original time reference, relative to our instant view of the universe. Thus we get omnipresence and omniscience, relative to the full spectrum of states within the inertial universe we can see. This is not your Grandfather's perception of space-time, but theoretically can occur at c-level.
With time and space; distance, having these unique properties at c-level, the inertial references of the universe and their potentials; analogous to the mountain tops and the fruited plains, relatives to c-level, are actually relative to the dissociated nature of space and time, and not to space-time, which does not exist at c-level. The true potential is connected to separated time and space, and not connected space-time as we know it. For example, we get statistical results that appear not explainable by space-time moving in a connected way.
All the forces of nature, which lower potential, create accelerations which has the units of d/t/t. It is one part distance and two parts time. There is a second time vector beyond space-time; d-t1 plus t2. Singular time vectors are common to c-level. These extra time vectors have the properties of omniscience. This second time vector of acceleration make the forces of nature the same in all references, at all times and places in the universe. The laws of physics the same in all references; past, present and future, as well as here and there, requires both an omnipresent and omniscience type affect. C-level provides this.
Once you can think from the POV of C-level it is much easier, since that reference has a way to compact things; generalist, instead of infinite inertial specialist for dissociated reality.
Years back I developed what I called the MDT theory. It was a way to define inertial realty using only three variables; mass, distance and time potential. It was presented as group of diagrams that looked like old fashion circular slide rules, with concentric dials. One could dial in the answer to the most complicated questions, all based on using the C-reference as the ground state. It appeared in a vision which I drew in photoshop. However, I was not able to fully explain the needed physics at that time. The diagrams stood alone.
The logic behind its simplicity was connected to Special Relativity. If we traveled at velocity V, mass, distance and time will change. This is more pronounced as we approach the speed of light. As space-time and mass change due to relativity, the laws of physics will all adjust, so they can remain the same in all references. What this told me was these three variables; relativistic mass, relativistic distance and relativistic time, is all we need to adjust all the laws of physics so the final reference will see the exact same results. Theoretically, this meant, all you needed was these three variables; mass, distance and time potential, to these implied all the rest since they could make all the needed adjustments to all the laws of physics. I was too far ahead of my time in 2005.
I was trying to upload one of the diagrams, but my I-MAC will not give me a good local address to upload the image file. The pic file placeholder on this site will not take copy and paste from my harddrive. Some other time.
In the c-level model, our universe appeared from nothing; c-level, like a volcano that appears in the ocean and breaks the surface of c-level. It appears from nothing, in the sense of not originally being part of space-time; above the surface. Energy, like photons, have the units of distance and time or wavelength and frequency. However, as long as distance and time are separated, photons have no continuous sustained basis; zero point energy. Therefore as the volcano appears it will appear as though there is originally nothing in space-time, until the volcano breaks the surface of c-level and aspects of separated distance and time begin to overlap so space-time and energy can appear.
The volcano grows and then explodes; expands, seeking to return to c-level. This expansion boils the surface of the sea; photons, making islands; mass and matter. The goal of our universe is to return to c-level, since tour inertial universe and space-time appears from the free energy loss due to the lowering of entropy needed to create space-time. We go from the infinite possibilities of c-level, to a finite set of limitations; laws of physics within space-time. The second law is immediately in affect, due to the infinite entropy at c-level. The causes the universe to increase entropy and complexity as it moves back toward the maxima of entropy at c-level.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2022 16:30:05
This is true since the speed of light is the ground state of the universe.Why do you keep repeating this cobblers?