0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The starting point for the concept is the idea that what we use as clocks don't measure the true time. Based on this idea, we can the define time as absolute and think that clocks don't measure the absolute time but they have a tick rate that depends on the speed relative to the flat absolute space.
), the centre of the BH would be precisely motionless in the absolute frame.
The BH are spinning hence the magnetic field:
Stopping light is impossible, that is why there is no singularity.
If you don't accept the BH interpretation then imagine the universe as a spinningring of matter. The centre of it should be motionless.
If the Universe is a super galaxy the center should remain in place. If we determine our universe as only the amount we can observe that could be a mistake. There is a distance in space where the spin would equal the speed of light compared to your observed position. At that point detail would become impossible. So it would appear as a potential BB with us in the center. When it is realized us being in the exact center is unlikely we would have to exist on a surface of a balloon universe. So everyone is in the center of the universe.
How much of the standard model are you willing to swallow and allow logic to reign?
The fixed reference point for this hypothetical background must be at the event horizon of every black hole since these are at a known universal value. However Einstein has blown your house down since all of these black holes will be moving with respect to each other and cannot be considered fixed at all. I have been down this road and discounted it as a viable possibility.
The fixed reference point for this hypothetical background must be at the event horizon of every black hole since these are at a known universal value
Waves exhibit a crucial behaviour. If you superimpose two waves (even mechanical waves) with opposite amplitude vectors, even if they cancel each other amplitudes, they don’t cease to exist and still travel at the same speed. That is the ultimate kinetic energy conservation.
A constant permittivity/permeability perfectly explains the relativistic experimental data.
However in this case, the magnetic field amplitudes add up and energy is conserved.
I think that in that portion of space where the waves E field cancel, the wave might become undetectable.
Now it is perfectly clear how kinetic energy is conserved.
QuoteA constant permittivity/permeability perfectly explains the relativistic experimental data.That is like saying the speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same. No different from the relativity postulate.Your not answering why its the same or why the electron and photon are confounded.
It is not quite the same thing because that means that one way speed of light gives c-v which is exactly what the only experiment done to test this, says.I've found something that explains charge generation mechanisms like I was expecting:
No, It doesn’t change the speed of light. However, Relativity says that no matter how you move you always measure the speed of light constant. Even if it is going towards you.
If the concept I'am promoting is correct, you don't need to apply relativistic formulas to electro-magnetism.
Also Quantum Field Theory should not be based on relativistic equations because the relativistic effects occur naturally.
That's because the electromagnetic field medium is the preferred frame of reference