Well since everything is relative I will now relativize relativity. Maybe into something that is more acceptable to imagine.
Relativity says speed of light is fixed - c. But actually, what is fixed is that we observe it that way. When we shuffle the math a bit we can come to the conclusion that the speed of a photon is actually infinite. A photon arrives to any point in its existence in a single moment - as far as it is concerned. We COULD say that the dimensions, or distances contracted for it...or whatever. But that seems completely wrong for me. 3d space dimensions shrink&grow because you go faster? And all that is neccessary just to satisfy what we observed as the speed of light being constant?
So, a photon travels at infinite speed. Why do we see it travel at c? We can explain this again from a different perspective. A photon travels through space at infinite speed, but also travels through time at a finite maximum speed - the time/distance version of the c constant. So, we have an infinite speed through space and a maximum amount for which we can "skip time".

Anyway, imagine: a particle translates/moves through our 3 dimensions - it changes position. Changing positions - covering distance - causes it to "skip through" time. The more aggressive this change of position is, the more skipping of time the particle does. As its speed in 3d goes towards infinity, the skipping of time speed nears a fixed value - the time/distance equivalent of c - 1/300 000. that is: you(the photon :m: ) skip through 1 second of time for each 300 000 km you travel at infinite speed.

All this doesn't really beat or challenge the relativity theory. It just explains what we observed and what the relativity theory claims in a different way.

It also explains why you can't reach the speed of light - it is actually infinite. It also explains why time travel - to the past - is impossible - you can't go faster than infinite speed. Or in other words - you can only "skip" or go faster through time - to the future.

I am now wondering if this approach or view on things could change or affect anything derived from the relativity theory. So I throw it at the table for you to discuss

This my first contribution to science, heh so be nice.

Some kind of a craft could be equipped with a G sensor that would measure its acceleration and therefore the difference in speed before the start of acceleration and any point in time after that. Important thing is - the craft can measure its gain in speed since the start position in it's own frame of reference.
Let's say there is an observer on start point observing the action. The craft would start to accelerate/gain speed relative to the observer. There is nothing stopping the craft from accelerating beyond 300 000 km/s(except that we do not know of a technology to allow such acceleration). In such a case, the crafts G sensor will measure, beyond a doubt, that the craft has built up a speed beyond 300 000 km/s since it has started accelerating - but guess what - nothing really special happened - no traveling back to the past or whatever. It is also worthwhile to note that E=mv^2/2 and that equates to a final amount that would be expanded to propel the craft beyond 300 000 km/s.
Lets say the craft suddenly slingshots around a black hole, heh, and goes back to the observer and halts. The observers clock shows that the trip lasted longer than the crafts clock. So, the craft has skipped through the observers time. But even though the craft knows it went beyond what we consider the speed of light, it never got even close because the actual speed of light through space is infinite.

Point being, no there is no change in dimension when traveling fast, there is however a increase in speed-through-time. That is - everything around you happens faster for a factor. This factor is dependant on your speed and distance covered. So, the space dimensions remain fixed, so does the time dimension. One single thing that can explain all relativity phenomena is the "speed through the time dimension". Which is not so hard to accept - as we can have a vector through 3d space, we can have one through the timeline.

All this is not in violation of the relativity theory, it is actually based on it, but offers a different perspective into it, one that seems more reasonable - at least to me.

I would try to derive the formulae for the "time skipping speed" from actual speed(one that would be measured by a G sensor in our example and can be calculated from the lorentz transformations), but my head hurts A LOT so I'll leave that for later.

Also, if a photon is actually a line through time-space, what we see as a photon is just a point or a section on that line that exists in a single time frame. The nature of the passage of time may be able to explain some light phenomena when viewed from such a perspective.

If, for example, time propagates in waves and what we perceive as photons are cut-up sections of these "photon lines through timespace" that exist in our time this could plot a base some interesting theories. heh

I didn't get through much of this, but what's so broke' that needs fixing?
The speed of light for an independant observer is c!
Yes light takes no time to travel anywhere in its own reference frame but it also travels no distance in its own frame, therefor it's not travelling at an infinate velocity .

I didn't get through much of this, but what's so broke' that needs fixing?
The speed of light for an independant observer is c!
Yes light takes no time to travel anywhere in its own reference frame but it also travels no distance in its own frame, therefor it's not travelling at an infinate velocity .


Well, exactly what you said there. For a photon, the dimensions are supposed to collapse to 0 and - what's far more amusing - only in the direction of motion of the photon. And subsequently - there is no motion without the dimension so you get a 0/0. Isn't it more obvious and logical that the solution to the problem is that the speed of the photon increases to infinity(actually is infinity but observed as 300 000 km/s), rather than the dimensions compressing to 0. The speed vector of the photon itself is already directed in the right direction.
Consquently as a result of my version - a photon travels infinite distances in no time. And you have - a photon travels no distance in no time.

a photon travels infinite distances in no time. And you have - a photon travels no distance in no time.
Yes thats because you are not applying lorentz correctly. Both time and distance have to contract together, if time is contracted to a gamma of 3 so the distance is by 3. If t is contracted by a gamma of 10, so is d. If t is contracted to infinity, so is d.

I'm applying lorentz oppositely which yields no difference in calculations except the dicrete ones I explained above.

Instead of saying 'the dimensions contracted' I am saying 'the "actual" speed vector has expanded'. So, instead of contracting dimensions to zero I increase the speed vector to infinity. It is the same thing. Only I keep the dimensions fixed and the speed vector expands.

Neat thing about it is as I said: the actual speed of light is infinity. this is why it is constant to all observers - infinity relative to anything is infinity. it also doesnt allow anything to reach the speed of infinity. and it also doesn't allow speeds above the speed of light, as you cant go faster than infinity - so time travel to the past is not even remotely possible.

I think I know what you're getting at. If a spaceship leaves for another star at near light speed, from the point of view of the spaceship, length contraction can make the journey as short as you like (provided you can go fast enough).

However, from the point of view of those on earth, we see the shortening of the journey only as time dilation for the spaceship's crew. From earth's point of view, the speed of the spaceship can never exceed c.

So it's both at once. With sufficiently good engines, you can get anywhere as fast as you want (according to your perspective). But to the people back home, you'll never be able to go there and back faster than c. And most importantly, you can never send messages faster than c. So I think it's important to keep in mind the difference between relativity and true 'infinite speed'.

zephyr, exactly. What I'm saying is in no violation of relativity. It's just a discrete change in perspective.
We OBSERVE c as the maximum speed. But the true maximum speed is infinity. Unfortunately, by moving at maximum speed or close to it, we also move through time forwards, so while we reach our target instantly, we can not avoid the "aging" of the space around us. We fast forward through time as we cover distance with great speed. The world around observes us going at speed c. But that is because we leap through time while covering these distances.
In other words, we arrive at positions A, B and C instantly for us but at different points in time. The "stationery" observer has to "wait" to see us at each of these positions. And he determines that our speed was less than it actually was.

Point is, no dimension shrinking is neccessary to explain the phenomenon, but the same calculations(lorentz) will still have to be carried out to transform OBSERVED speed into ACTUAL speed. instead of transforming dimensions.

Yes it's all well and good but you are mixing reference frames. Light cannot travel ifinite distance in it's own frame because it's reality is it has travelled no distance at all. The fact remains that even in it's own frame light is not travelling at an infinate velocity. v=d/t in its own frame only.
This is gay.

I'm not mixing anything.

The contraction of length/dimension has never been proven and can not be observed. Therefore it is an uproven part of the theory of relativity - a result of mathematical calculations or in other words - something that must be in order for the rest of the theory to work. The mathematical calculation predict events correctly. But therein lies the probelm - they predict what we will OBSERVE not what actually happened. What actually happened can be any number of things which could be OBSERVED as same.

So you actually have the freedom to change the theory as you like. You can say dimensions contracted and that is why you observed something moving at 0.9c covered 0.9c distance in less than 1s. Or you can say that its ACTUAL speed was bigger and that's why it covered the distance in less than 1s. It is all the same and will produce the same results.

I'm not mixing anything.

The contraction of length/dimension has never been proven and can not be observed. Therefore it is an uproven part of the theory of relativity - a result of mathematical calculations or in other words - something that must be in order for the rest of the theory to work. The mathematical calculation predict events correctly. But therein lies the probelm - they predict what we will OBSERVE not what actually happened. What actually happened can be any number of things which could be OBSERVED as same.

So you actually have the freedom to change the theory as you like. You can say dimensions contracted and that is why you observed something moving at 0.9c covered 0.9c distance in less than 1s. Or you can say that its ACTUAL speed was bigger and that's why it covered the distance in less than 1s. It is all the same and will produce the same results.
Let me know where you arrive at this planet.

ok, let me draw this out for you.

we have the speed of light c which we observe as 300 000 km/s. lets say we have built a craft which when at full speed we observe is traveling at 0.9c

now lets say a person A uses this craft to travel 4.5 light seconds away from "the start" and then back. now, we have observed how fast this craft goes and we know it will take 10 seconds for it to finish this trip.

now, when the craft returns its clock will be "late". we can calculate how late it will be using the lorentz formulae for time dilatation. the crafts clock will show a time for the trip of 4.35 seconds if i applied the theory correctly. the person A in the craft will explain this difference through length contraction. he will say, i know they observed this craft travels at 0.9c, if at this speed and by my clock it only took me 4.35 seconds to make the trip then it means the distance has shortened for me to 3.92 light seconds. if we divide path with time we get a velocity 3.92 light seconds/4.35 which is 0.9c as a person on the 'start position' would see it. so, that's just neat isn't it?

all that is based on the assumption that we OBSERVED and noted the craft travels at 0.9c. BUT, we have also OBSERVED that the distance is 9 light seconds. Why do we cling so much for the OBSERVED velocity and so easily decide to shrink the OBSERVED distance? isnt the point of relativity that velocity is relative. shouldnt distance be fixed?
if distance was fixed, we would calculate that the ACTUAL velocity of the craft is the 9 light seconds we observed and take as fixed / time the craft clocked to accomplish it - 4.35s. which means it was ACTUALLY traveling at 2.06c. which we OBSERVED as 0.9c.
it also means that the craft has to accelerate to 2.06c to be observed as 0.9c. this means there is no 'relativistic mass'. mass remains fixed and the energy needed to accelerate should be simply calculated using this ACTUAL speed. obviously from these calculations one could never reach ACTUAL infinite velocity which would be observed as c. you would need infinite amounts of energy. while relativity explains this need for extra energy with 'relativistic mass' with my revision of the theory it is simply a case of E=mv^2/2 where v - the ACTUAL velocity grows into infinity as observed velocity grows near c and thus there is no extra play with relativistic mass absurdities.

both ways of calculating will produce the same results,
except my method doesnt imply that fundamental physical properties like length and mass change with acceleration, which IMO is absurd, but rather that any velocity has its complementing velocity through time. this relationship causes us to OBSERVE that these velocities are slower than they actually are.

Dont draw anything out for me dicksplash, just take a good physics class and stop being a moron!;)

unlike the normal relativity, these ACTUAL velocities i speak about can freely be added up and substracted without transformation as these are TRUE velocities and kinetic energy is calculated from them without 'relativistic mass' transformations.

Dont draw anything out for me dicksplash, just take a good physics class and stop being a moron!;)

well you explain just one thing that is wrong with my post above this quote of yours and ill take a physics class.

Dont draw anything out for me dicksplash, just take a good physics class and stop being a moron!;)

Despite disagreeing with the original poster, I don't think this post was called at all. It adds nothing to the thread that a more professional note or perhaps a link to relavent material wouldn't have done.

-AntonK

can someone please explain what's wrong with my claims. i'm not retarded, if i have misconceptions about something, i will be very happy if someone points them out to me and will write on a blackboard or whatever 100 times that im an idiot, if needed.

thank you

I thought speed was "movement in 3d"/"movement in time" (meters/seconds). How do you achieve "infinite speed", if you can only move so much in "time"? (4d thinking is hard..)

This kinda reminds me of the "coreolis force". The faster an object moves, the more it'll necessarily move in time? Which just reminds me about the time someone tried to explain how the 3d universe was curved..

imaplank,
Last I checked, you are in the
frontier physics, theory
section of the forum. Please don't say "go to school lol".

well in my theory only photons have infinite velocity - through space. if you were a photon, you would reach any point along your path and in your existence within a single moment. but, along this path you would leave your "mark" in different time moments. so when an observer looks at it - he thinks it took you time to travel.

in short, a photon does not experience time, it exists for one single moment from its creation to destruction as a line through space-time. as we move through space-time we experience and observe sliced up parts of this line as instances of a photon. a photon experiences distance as we do time.

both ways of calculating will produce the same results
I don't think so. You say that adding your 'actual' velocities can be done using the regular '+' operator and get the same result?

Suppose f(x) = x*(1-x²)^-1/2 where x and f(x) are expressed as fractions of the speed of light (e.g. x = 0.9 gives f(x) = 2.06 as in your example)

The inverse of this is f^-1(x) = x*(1+x²)^-1/2

I assume you claim is that f^-1(f(x) + f(y)) gives the same result as relativistically adding x and y. Or to put it another way,

f(x) + f(y) = f[(x + y)/(1+xy)]

Unfortunately, this formula doesn't hold; putting x = y = 0.9 gives
f(x) + f(y) = 4.13
While
f[(x + y)/(1+xy)] = 9.47

Or to put it another way, starting with the identity

f(x) + f(y) = f[(x + y)/(1+xy)]
let x = f^-1(a), y = f^-1(b)
f^-1(a + b) = [f^-1(a) + f^-1(b)]/(1 + f^-1(a)f^-1(b)]

tanh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_function#Relationship_to_ordinary_trigo nometric_functions) fits this definition for f^-1 perfectly. So the homomorphism f you're looking for is tanh^-1.

Now that we know the function we're looking for, a quick google for <i>tanh relativity</i> gives this page (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html) which introduces the concept of 'rapidity' which behaves almost like what I think you were looking for. And the mapping to 'velocity' from 'rapidity' is the tanh function :)

To quote the site:

"Sometimes physicists find it more convenient to talk about the rapidity r which is defined by the relation,

v = c tanh(r/c)

The hyperbolic tangent function tanh maps the real line from minus infinity to plus infinity onto the interval -1 to +1. So while velocity v can only vary between -c and c, the rapidity r varies over all real values. At small speeds rapidity and velocity are approximately equal. If s is also the rapidity corresponding to velocity u then the combined rapidity t is given by simple addition.


t = r+s

This follows from the identity of hyperbolic tangents


tanh(x+y) = ( tanh(x) + tanh(y) )/( 1 + tanh(x)tanh(y) )

Rapidity is therefore useful when dealing with combined velocities in the same direction and also for problems of linear acceleration"


This allows you to add 'rapidities' normally. But it doesn't square exactly with time dilation/length contraction as you suggested. ;)

yes, you are correct, i have tried calculating.

i have also fiddled with tan to get the values i want but failed. never thought of tanh..

i do calculate time dilation by using cos(sin^-1(v/c)) as it is faster to press on the calculator, heh.

anyway, im not sure why my addition of these true speeds fails to match lorentz addition. ill have to think about that. both never exceed c for the observed speed, but they dont give the same results.

if R is the "real" velocity, then observed velocity v is calculated from it as v = R/sqrt(1+R^2/c^2). it seems when you sum up two "real" velocities (a spaceship fires a projectile and a stationary observer observes this) and calculate the observed velocity of the projectile the stationary observer should observe, it doesnt match up with what lorentz velocity transformation predicts.

have to think about why this is so..

doh obviously this ACTUAL velocity of mine or rapidity or whatever, heh, is relative from frame to frame because of time dilation. so they cannot be simply added together... ill have to work out how to add them properly. shouldnt be a problem.

i also checked my claim about relativistic mass.
in my version of formulas we will replace m with rest mass and v with my "actual" speed.

p = m x v yields the same results in both versions. which kinda seems logical..

E = 1/2 x m x v^2 doesnt yield same results

however if you multiply E from my version by gamma we get the same result as regularly with relativistic mass. which implies that energy at speed is dilated/contracted/whatever which seems reasonable at first glance, although i have to think about what exactly are further implications of this.

btw. zephyr, thank you for taking the time to read my babbling :)

imaplank,
Last I checked, you are in the

section of the forum. Please don't say "go to school lol".
Huh? Whats that supposed to mean?

Well since everything is relative I will now relativize relativity. Maybe into something that is more acceptable to imagine.
Relativity says speed of light is fixed - c. But actually, what is fixed is that we observe it that way. When we shuffle the math a bit we can come to the conclusion that the speed of a photon is actually infinite. A photon arrives to any point in its existence in a single moment - as far as it is concerned. We COULD say that the dimensions, or distances contracted for it...or whatever. But that seems completely wrong for me. 3d space dimensions shrink&grow because you go faster? And all that is neccessary just to satisfy what we observed as the speed of light being constant?
So, a photon travels at infinite speed. Why do we see it travel at c? We can explain this again from a different perspective. A photon travels through space at infinite speed, but also travels through time at a finite maximum speed - the time/distance version of the c constant. So, we have an infinite speed through space and a maximum amount for which we can "skip time".

Anyway, imagine: a particle translates/moves through our 3 dimensions - it changes position. Changing positions - covering distance - causes it to "skip through" time. The more aggressive this change of position is, the more skipping of time the particle does. As its speed in 3d goes towards infinity, the skipping of time speed nears a fixed value - the time/distance equivalent of c - 1/300 000. that is: you(the photon :m: ) skip through 1 second of time for each 300 000 km you travel at infinite speed.

All this doesn't really beat or challenge the relativity theory. It just explains what we observed and what the relativity theory claims in a different way.

It also explains why you can't reach the speed of light - it is actually infinite. It also explains why time travel - to the past - is impossible - you can't go faster than infinite speed. Or in other words - you can only "skip" or go faster through time - to the future.

I am now wondering if this approach or view on things could change or affect anything derived from the relativity theory. So I throw it at the table for you to discuss

This my first contribution to science, heh so be nice.

First of all a photons are referred to only when we work in the fields of science that deal with Physics as if everything consists of Particles.

Basic Particle Physics is simply not good enough when we are dealing with electromotive forces and or the universes Mass, which facilitates all Physical Laws.

So let me interject the following.

Abstracts

An area “field” that is compressed with a certain outward potential towards unity has been defined by science as a Proton and or a Particle with a Positive charge.

The area that exerts an inward force to the above-mentioned Proton is simply the outward force/s from surrounding Protons via their respective velocity and or forces towards unity, to which science defined and calculates these areas as Electron particle/s.

And where all these unity velocities and or forces {defined as Positive and Negative charges} meet or enmesh to cancel each other out we deem as neutralized areas and or as Neutron Particle/s. "field/s" “Neutral charge”

Now –

Considering Near vacuum and or space... {Mass at near unity and or C^2}
The above statement infers mass or particle/s that should be treated as fields that has very little potential and or mass that has been allowed to spread out to where it almost has gained its maximum area to unity, but if such a field “Particle” experiences an increase in force to it "expressed as energy or charge" from a neighbouring field it also increases in potential and or charge that’s passed on to the opposite side of its field {noting changes of trajectories of a given velocity within respective field} to the next fields, and if we follow this rising and falling "charge" from field to field in a solid, we should note the fields here are compressed, "slower velocity to propagation of light or electron charge" but the areas still rise and fall with each exchange, but we should note it doesn’t traverse much distance per exchange of charge and or force for the same given amount of exchanges where if the fields are almost at unity “near vacuum” fields consisting of huge spans where we get a propagation of around 300 000 Kilometres second.

So this suggests quite a few things.
"c" can be used to calculate the maximum field area that a given mass can occupy.
The Universe has a certain Mass and a maximum possible Area.
The aforementioned Mass/Area governs maximum speed and or velocity.
The relative speed of light can never be violated
The Universe is not expanding.
The Universe is not condensing.
The Universe always existed.
The Universe will always exist.
The Universe is the purest closed system.

my babbling about realitivity in this topic is wrong. i have seen the error of my ways understanding the error led me further.

anyway, mass that has been "spread out" has huge potential.

distancing two bodies of mass increases the energy of the system. the two bodies will tend to attract each other over infinite distance and eventually rejoin. if they have been separated in such a way that they don't collide when rejoined - they will continue in the other direction and again attract over time, pass each other again and so forth INTO time. this describes a wave motion into time.
if they just miss each other they will alter each others path symettricaly but continue the wave and they will change the angle again each time they pass each other. their motion into time will look like an electromagnetic wave.

the amplitude of the twin mass body system is their maximum distance, the frequency also depends on mass of the bodies.
obviously when calculating the energy of such a system, the formula for gravity potential energy and the formula for the energy of a wave blend into each other.

the two masses can also be considered a particle/wave duality into time, to some moredimensional deity observing. overall the system of the two masses influences the surroundings as force from the center of their wave - the "almost" collision point. as they rotate their pulsing around the collision point and exhange directions they have a periodic influence on the surroundings. if they did it "really fast" - like the electromagnetics waves do, they might be mistaken for a single particle by someone observing. they also might be mistaken for a wave of exchanging forces.

if the two masses were in stable orbit they exert a constant force into time and would be mistaken for a constantly charged single particle.

unstable orbit especially involving more than 2 masses would decay after a period of time, but before that exhibit all kinds of possible harmonic behaviour.
a higherdimensional entitiy - deity that can see time and try to measure the masses position or moment would probably experience the same uncertainty principle as we do at the "quantum level".

speed c basicly describes the threshold energy level of a system at which energy jumps to a higher or lower number of dimensions. read the little story that could topic in which i flirt with the explanation of how energy jumps to higher dimensions.

i believe my theory begins to explain almost all wave and particle phenomena and furthermore it covers gravity and relativity and the beauty of it is that it's way simpler than any other theory i've heard of.

my babbling about realitivity in this topic is wrong. i have seen the error of my ways understanding the error led me further.

anyway, mass that has been "spread out" has huge potential.
Yes _ you are correct if we have an energy source that has not been accounted for to return the field to its full potential and or compressed state before it was allowed to gain a state of near Unity.

So lets say our model of potential was a wind up toy that has fully unwound as per above where mass is now near unity, all we need do is to wind it up or compress a field back to some potential.. this suggests of an undiscovered force, and I wanna know what this force is! ?


distancing two bodies of mass increases the energy of the system.
I was under the impression energy can not be created nor destroyed, where does the force creating this potential and or energy come from Vx220?
the two bodies will tend to attract each other over infinite distance and eventually rejoin. excuse my ignorance Vx220 but how does this attraction function? I mean what potential and or forces are driving this attraction?

if they have been separated in such a way that they don't collide when rejoined - I dont understand what forces you are suggesting that are responsible for first seperating and then rejoining whatever so I also am forced to ask what are we refering to? a field that has been defined as a particle or mass that pertains many fields ect?
they will continue in the other direction and again attract over time, pass each other again and so forth INTO time. this describes a wave motion into time. so are you suggesting some sort of inward and out ward momentum, and if you are what forces has caused this?


if they just miss each other they will alter each others path I dont understand this, can you please infer what force facilitates change of trajectory and or path if they miss each other?



symettricaly but continue the wave and they will change the angle again each time they pass each other. their motion into time will look like an electromagnetic wave.

the amplitude of the twin mass body system is their maximum distance, the frequency also depends on mass of the bodies.
obviously when calculating the energy of such a system, the formula for gravity potential energy and the formula for the energy of a wave blend into each other.

the two masses can also be considered a particle/wave duality into time, to some moredimensional deity observing. overall the system of the two masses influences the surroundings as force from the center of their wave - the "almost" collision point. as they rotate their pulsing around the collision point and exhange directions they have a periodic influence on the surroundings. if they did it "really fast" - like the electromagnetics waves do, they might be mistaken for a single particle by someone observing. they also might be mistaken for a wave of exchanging forces.

if the two masses were in stable orbit they exert a constant force into time and would be mistaken for a constantly charged single particle.

unstable orbit especially involving more than 2 masses would decay after a period of time, but before that exhibit all kinds of possible harmonic behaviour.
a higherdimensional entitiy - deity that can see time and try to measure the masses position or moment would probably experience the same uncertainty principle as we do at the "quantum level".

speed c basicly describes the threshold energy level of a system at which energy jumps to a higher or lower number of dimensions. read the little story that could topic in which i flirt with the explanation of how energy jumps to higher dimensions.

i believe my theory begins to explain almost all wave and particle phenomena and furthermore it covers gravity and relativity and the beauty of it is that it's way simpler than any other theory i've heard of.

I have more questions but if I am correct I have to insist magic and or miracle like forces simply is not possible.

increasing the distance between two bodies increases the energy of the sytem. this is a hypothetical situation in which energy is brought to state - increased so we can further describe what happens.

i am clearly not implying the energy has been created. if we assume, as all theories do, that the amount of energy in the universe is fixed, which also must be true because the energy conservation rule that all theories rely on and futhermore all experiments have confirmed - would be invalidated.

so, obviously i imply that something outside the system of our two masses has expanded ITS ENERGY into distancing the two masses which we then observe futher as closed system im my explanation for theoretial purposes.

the attractive forces are clearly there, depending on their dimensionality they manifest as something we perceive as gravity, electric and magnetic fields etc. the attractive forces between energies create what we perceive as the space and time between them. they are all one and the same.

furthermore, try to contemplate how relativity effects work:
we can only accelerate by expanding energy(ejecting matter into the opposite direction - pushing away from it). this expanding of energy reduces our total mass/energy which in effect reduces our "inertia". this reduction of inertia/mass causes us to gain more acceleration from the next matter ejection. this actually translates to contraction of space and time in SRT - relative to the start position.
our ejected matter together with us always totals to the same amount of energy. half of this energy is carried with us, the other half is carried by the ejected matter. obviously as we're not in a closed sytem, we couldnt care less what happens to the ejected matter and care only what happens to us.

obviously, we as sentient beings can induce such behaviour, by building a spaceship and ejecting matter into the opposite direction. in nature this behaviour is induced by interaction with other matter. energy is never created or destroyed.

There is no real speed or motion in the universe because all motion is relative, so everything travels at infinite/zero (any) illusional speed.

increasing the distance between two bodies increases the energy of the sytem. this is a hypothetical situation in which energy is brought to state - increased so we can further describe what happens.

i am clearly not implying the energy has been created. if we assume, as all theories do, that the amount of energy in the universe is fixed, which also must be true because the energy conservation rule that all theories rely on and futhermore all experiments have confirmed - would be invalidated.

so, obviously i imply that something outside the system of our two masses has expanded ITS ENERGY into distancing the two masses which we then observe futher as closed system im my explanation for theoretial purposes.

the attractive forces are clearly there, depending on their dimensionality they manifest as something we perceive as gravity, electric and magnetic fields etc. the attractive forces between energies create what we perceive as the space and time between them. they are all one and the same.
Let me interject briefly with my stance and reasoning where it has me convinced on the following models, proofs and or abstracts..

If we consider our atmosphere as a model of some of the fields we are dealing with where we may observe the following..

As an area is heated by our sun via electromagnetic energy gas that constitutes our atmosphere is excited and hence expands closer to unity via the release of energy and or potential towards unity, we should then experience an updraft via given perception of gas being lighter and or consisting with less force to its definition, the area with these gasious particles err~fields having expanded closer to unity and hence are now with less force or energy "MC^2=E" or we can visualize that these fields are really pushed upwards by gas that is cooler and or with more condensed fields defined with a greater force and really a higher energy and or potential towards unity, and as a result we now have the surrounding air "fields forcing them selves to some unity" and whats more we can even measure these high and lower pressures! so the next time you watch the weather I hope all will become a little more clearer with respects to these higher and lower pressures ect.

To the average shmo the above may seem like attraction is in action with respects to the area experiencing velocities towards the area with less pressure and or force, when really just like gravity and or electromagnetic force/s something else is really happening.. And my resoning has me convinced the underlying force behind everything is the return to Unity is the single driving force responsible for everything.

furthermore, try to contemplate how relativity effects work:
we can only accelerate by expanding energy(ejecting matter into the opposite direction - pushing away from it). this expanding of energy reduces our total mass/energy which in effect reduces our "inertia". this reduction of inertia/mass causes us to gain more acceleration from the next matter ejection. this actually translates to contraction of space and time in SRT - relative to the start position.

There you go! I see we agree that a force can only exert force if an opposing force exists to allow its exertion.. BTW I should point out many undergraduates make the error of treating "E" or Energy incorrectly and therefore I wish to point out energy should be treated as the sum of potential to do work via force and or electromotive potential and as energy is expended the area or quanta refered to, gains a state closer back to unity and or rest, suggesting the area has gained maximum area.

Having stated this we now should hold this reasoning at all times, noting as long as an area has potential and or energy it is able to exert force and or hold charge, and we can prove this by referring to
E = m x c^2
C^2 = E/m
m = E/c^2
our ejected matter together with us always totals to the same amount of energy. half of this energy is carried with us, the other half is carried by the ejected matter. obviously as we're not in a closed sytem, we couldnt care less what happens to the ejected matter and care only what happens to us.

obviously, we as sentient beings can induce such behaviour, by building a spaceship and ejecting matter into the opposite direction. in nature this behaviour is induced by interaction with other matter. energy is never created or destroyed.
And if we treat the whole universe consisting every where of areas with fields, even highly condensed solid particles as fields holding a potential towards unity and or with a given potential "E" we can derive what mass to whatever area via Energy = Mass multiplied by C Squared which if we note C^2 is equal to the maximum theoretical and relative area of a given field when it is at unity, noting all potential towards unity percieved as an outwardly spreading force has been expended for this state to be possible.

well there's nothing to say really, i agree with you except 1 thing.
unity is the point of time reversal (and dimension shift) and exists only for a single moment at which time is reversed and the dance of the stress points is repeated backwards.
for 3d space this is big bang. for my 2d tension points this is the center of the EM wave.

as in the case of two one dimensional "particles" or stress points that make up the electromagnetic wave.
the two points oscillate. they move away from unity at center of the wave. and then attract themselves to unity, at unity their time/attraction is reversed which is displayed as the opposite of the wave. dimensions are also shifted between x and y at this point. (whats funny, if the two points thought they were moving at constant speed relative to each other they would think space and time is contracting and would devise SRT, heh)
the two "times", + and - manifest as the electric and magnetic field of the wave.
electron is somehow the electric field part compressed into a 3d stress point and exerts the +time/attraction spherically into 3d. pozitron is the magnetic field compressed into a 3d stress point and exerts -time/attraction into 3ds spherically.

i figure they could achieve this transformation when the EM wave is exactly sinusoidal and the path of the stress points of the wave move at speed of light along a circle - circle 1 dimension(depicted in z-x or z-y plane of the EM wave) coordinates(something like spherical 2d coordinates, but this is 1d along a circle). a single EM wave will not manifest an electron-pozitron, but two waves will pair up and the stress tensors of each wave will pair up and compress into 3d electron-pozitron pair. something like that anyway.

i do really need to study the EM wave and electrons(and pozitrons) though because this is mostly just guessing...
that is the reason why im trying to present the idea here perhaps to someone to knows more about the EM waves etc.

im also unsure why scientists think that a half of the universe is not made of antimatter. the amount of matter/antimatter in a part of the universe may simply be dependent on direction from the big bang - as in one side developed more matter, the other developed more antimatter. im not sure how they think they know this is not so? antimatter would be hardly distignuishable from matter at at long range.
the electron pozitron pair clearly is created with the two going in opposite directions. afterwards when the universe expands a bit, the abundance of matter in one direction doesnt allow antimatter to exist and vice versa..

i do really need to study the EM wave and electrons(and pozitrons) though because this is mostly just guessing...
that is the reason why im trying to present the idea here perhaps to someone to knows more about the EM waves etc.



I agree, in fact I insist every one should gain as much knowledge about the Electromotive Force/s, because when it comes down to everything that is possible, Electromotive Force/s is the single driving force behind everything possible to our Universe.

my intent is though, to explain EM waves through relativity. and possibly explain gravity through EM waves.

my intent is though, to explain EM waves through relativity. and possibly explain gravity through EM waves.

Electromagnetic waves is the theoretical observation of a Proton being compressed and or exerted upon by a negative charge or we really should visualize another proton that has just been compressed to a higher Potential and or positive charge and or is now with a higher potential towards Unity so it is pushing or exerting with a greater force and or higher potential to its neighboring protons..

Put simply if we stuffed three pressurized sausage balloons snugly in a tube so that they all were in line inside the tube and then we proceeded to asserted a force on one end, the other end would reflect this negative assertion.

As for Gravity, my reasoning has me convinced Dark matter "mass that is NEAR unity" is actually responsible for asserting force that we still even today refer to as gravity being some attraction force.

um, i dont get the last part. dark matter responsible for gravity? earth has gravity, are you saying dark matter is here too but we cant see it?

um, i dont get the last part. dark matter responsible for gravity? earth has gravity, are you saying dark matter is here too but we cant see it?

First things first..

If we were to disect force, we must conced that force can only be possible on the premise of an opposing velocity is what facilitates it, so if we examine attractive force it simply hasnt a footing so to speak..

we know an outward force is possible, but the only way an inward force is possible, is if there is a surrounding force to facilitate it and the only way this is possible is via many outwards forces surrounding an area and by this simple analogy, we get the question yeah what do these forces exert their footing on?

Now!

Dark matter is mass just like all other fields of mass, but it is mass with very little potential Err~"velocity" and or outward force to it suggesting it is near unity and or near vacuum.

This suggests something is hindering complete absolute unity or a complete vacuum like state, and my reasoning has me convinced the closer we edge the edge of the Universe the closer to unity and or vacuum and in doing so the lower the possible velocity one can sustain because of the less opposing exertion one can obtain, one could say this area is a good footing because eventually distance travelled over time results as near zero velocity that eventualy exceeds the universes maximum potential.

So no matter what area in the universe we measure, the driving force is always a greedy gain of maximum area with as little compression to it. "Mass at REAL rest"

Around 90% of the universe consists of such mass in this state, and we must note just because this mass is near unity and or near vacuum it must have zero potential when in fact it does have some potential, so if we sum all of this potential force of cold/Dark matter and concede its this combined potential that hinders the 10% of compressed and or solid mass from gaining a velocity to unity, and we must also conced it must be responsible for the mass of fields to be exerted to other masses of fields.

i cant agree with any of that.

there is no unity. energy is the offset from unity. it can never reach unity. that would mean it would disappear.

if the dark matter compresses solid matter, what compresses dark matter, why doesnt it expand to unity?

you have very little rational claims, most if it is some kind of unexplainable intuition. you are imagining a whole number of things to explain observed phenomena. if you even try to begin to explain how this dark matter behaves you will run into serious problems and end up tuning something that can not be observed to suit your theories.

energy is like a spring. unity is when it sits still. when you stretch it - give it energy, it will oscillate up and down through the unity point. given there's no loss of energy to internal friction, it will do this forever.
when you stretch it and let go, it will seem it wants to reach unity, that it is attracted to unity. but when it does reach the unity point it will simply continue the other way and reverse the attraction again towards unity. this is how space works. it may be expanding now, but it will stop, compress to the starting point and repeat the whole thing in reverse. EM waves work the same. between every amplitude there is a point at which both E and B fields are 0, but they can not remain that or that would mean the energy of the wave disappeared. they E and B fields simply extend the other way and repeat the dance.

also, the whole concept of gravity being a "force" is wrong. there are no "forces". energy simply creates space time around like it does. energy IS the space time around it.

i also have to point out that the fact scientists think the universe should have another 80% of mass with they called dark matter is a very far fetched conclusion. the data they have and the uncomplete theories used to draw the conclusion make it obvious that it is more a publicity stunt to say such a think than a real scientific fact.
people like hawnkigs and some other scientist often draw publicity with retarded assumptions. there is always a small print disclaimer saying "based on current theories and observations".. which are very thin when it comes to black holes, big bangs, mass and size of the universe, speed of expansion etc..

i cant agree with any of that.

there is no unity. energy is the offset from unity. it can never reach unity. that would mean it would disappear. Exactly! thats why no matter where we go we will always measure near unity and never zero as you suggest is possible

if the dark matter compresses solid matter, what compresses dark matter, why doesnt it expand to unity? Its all in the ratios of solid mass to mass that is near unity, solid mass is around only 1% of the universe whilst near unity areas is around 99~99% of the universe and no matter where we go all areas are exerting outwardly

you have very little rational claims, most if it is some kind of unexplainable intuition. you are imagining a whole number of things to explain observed phenomena. if you even try to begin to explain how this dark matter behaves you will run into serious problems and end up tuning something that can not be observed to suit your theories.

energy is like a spring. unity is when it sits still. when you stretch it - give it energy, it will oscillate up and down through the unity point. given there's no loss of energy to internal friction, it will do this forever. Very good! so what you're saying is a toy car can go back and forward if we fore go some forces.. RIGHT?
when you stretch it and let go, it will seem it wants to reach unity, that it is attracted to unity. This is wrong because zero means No-Thing. Consider first what force is exerted to the spring and ask where does this force come from? naturally from a potential - Right?but when it does reach the unity point it will simply continue the other way and reverse the attraction again towards unity. this is how space works. it may be expanding now, but it will stop, Yeah OK but by what force?
BTW if the universe were expanding why isnt the constant "c" changing?
And why do we have areas that are still near unity? and or near vacuum?
compress to the starting point and repeat the whole thing in reverse. EM waves work the same. between every amplitude there is a point at which both E and B fields are 0, but no matter where we go in the universe there is always something with a potential so therefore that zero is a pseudo zero

lets say we have a wave that has a peak to peak near unity to say 1 joule and or 1 Nm we still have a wave form and the zero point in this case would be .5 of a joule. at this point I have to ask how is No-thing possible in the REAL world? I mean when does mass disappear and yet have the capacity to reappear?

but they can not remain that or that would mean the energy of the wave disappeared. they E and B fields simply extend the other way and repeat the dance.

also, the whole concept of gravity being a "force" is wrong. there are no "forces". energy simply creates space time around like it does. energy IS the space time around it.

i also have to point out that the fact scientists think the universe should have another 80% of mass with they called dark matter is a very far fetched conclusion. the data they have and the uncomplete theories used to draw the conclusion make it obvious that it is more a publicity stunt to say such a think than a real scientific fact.
people like hawnkigs and some other scientist often draw publicity with retarded assumptions. there is always a small print disclaimer saying "based on current theories and observations".. which are very thin when it comes to black holes, big bangs, mass and size of the universe, speed of expansion etc..

:rolleyes: lets stop and think and apply simply if we jump we gain momentum away from a point...lets say there were two of you in a pressurized suit to contain your outward expansion and you were in a NEAR vacuum and you were being forced together by the combined force of the whole universe where everywhere is exerting outward force perceived as an extremely low pressure to your given surface area and lets say you were standing on your other self as if your footing was your other you upside down to you and vice verse, and you both jumped to get as much area to call your own, so both of you are now at a velocity outward from a central point to gain as much area for your self as you can.

OK its your turn to explain how you can attract your self back?

and let me suggest that the only way that can happen is if their is a higher potential and or energy like yet another one of you heading towards you but at a slightly greater speed than you to bounce you back, and this would need to occur with your other original "you" as well!, only problem is when you meet whats going to happen? repulsion? to which I have just expalined electromagnetic poles requisits where if your other "you" hadnt been bounced back towards you the two of you would be seen as if there is some attraction was going on but only if the speed differnce was just enough so that when you connected the force from all other mass was enough to dissallow another bounce.

BTW notice how momentum can only be gained via some footing?

Exactly! thats why no matter where we go we will always measure near unity and never zero as you suggest is possibleIts all in the ratios of solid mass to mass that is near unity, solid mass is around only 1% of the universe whilst near unity areas is around 99~99% of the universe and no matter where we go all areas are exerting outwardlyVery good! so what you're saying is a toy car can go back and forward if we fore go some forces.. RIGHT?This is wrong because zero means No-Thing. Consider first what force is exerted to the spring and ask where does this force come from? naturally from a potential - Right?Yeah OK but by what force?
BTW if the universe were expanding why isnt the constant "c" changing?
And why do we have areas that are still near unity? and or near vacuum?
but no matter where we go in the universe there is always something with a potential so therefore that zero is a pseudo zero

lets say we have a wave that has a peak to peak near unity to say 1 joule and or 1 Nm we still have a wave form and the zero point in this case would be .5 of a joule. at this point I have to ask how is No-thing possible in the REAL world? I mean when does mass disappear and yet have the capacity to reappear?



:rolleyes: lets stop and think and apply simply if we jump we gain momentum away from a point...lets say there were two of you in a pressurized suit to contain your outward expansion and you were in a NEAR vacuum and you were being forced together by the combined force of the whole universe where everywhere is exerting outward force perceived as an extremely low pressure to your given surface area and lets say you were standing on your other self as if your footing was your other you upside down to you and vice verse, and you both jumped to get as much area to call your own, so both of you are now at a velocity outward from a central point to gain as much area for your self as you can.

OK its your turn to explain how you can attract your self back?

and let me suggest that the only way that can happen is if their is a higher potential and or energy like yet another one of you heading towards you but at a slightly greater speed than you to bounce you back, and this would need to occur with your other original "you" as well!, only problem is when you meet whats going to happen? repulsion? to which I have just expalined electromagnetic poles requisits where if your other "you" hadnt been bounced back towards you the two of you would be seen as if there is some attraction was going on but only if the speed differnce was just enough so that when you connected the force from all other mass was enough to dissallow another bounce.

BTW notice how momentum can only be gained via some footing?

you again insist on forces. i have used the spring to demonstrate the dance of energy.
force is something that we came up with, not a physical fundamental. it is very useful in newtonian and cartesian flat "world" to calculate stuff.

you need to forget about forces. forces are our (mis)interpretation of the world.

imagine that the spring in my example simply does what it does - it has been given energy(from a deity - us in this case) and it simply does what it does until a deity stops it.
the extension of the string and its momentum describe a sinusoidal, or better yet a circular path. energy is the radius of the circle. you can either extend the spring and let go to give it energy, or you can give the spring momentum at unity which is a bit more difficult if there is now weight at its end, but nevertheless possible. or you can combine both ways. in any case you will be extending the circle from 0 radius.

your perception is that there is some "force" that does this. but that is just our perception of extension and momentum circling.

now we can say that our basic units are length and time which are supposed to be constant and derive all kinds of calculations where we have velocity, force etc. but thats just helps us calculate stuff and it isnt fundamental to the world.
fundamental is the circular behaviour of energy manifestation. we can make what we want of it, but that is the basis.

your example of jumping from my twins foot is supposed to somehow explain that something else is responsible for the attraction of the two of me?
the mechancis of the dark matter you imply is responsible for what we percieve as attraction are hard to grasp for me.
this darkmatter is by your theory is basicly omnipresent. if it exerts outward force it would simply create extra pressure. there would be no reason why it would pressure you towards a planet or sun or whatever. pressure is the same in all directions. the dark matter would litteraly have to drag you towards a "gravity source".
in your example of me jumping from me, the dark matter-vacuum would simply fill in the space between us after the jump and would not provide the "attraction" between us by exerting outward force. and we both know there will be an attraction, even though very small.

further more, EM waves can CREATE mass, and EM waves do not have mass. so it would be very difficult to explain what the dark matter is in that context. mass that is near unity is something you very easily throw around. but what the fuk is it, is there any mass that is less near unity so we can see it? and possibly see how it becomes nearer to unity and suddenly becomes unobservable? or is it simply something that existed from big bang?

Well since everything is relative I will now relativize relativity. Maybe into something that is more acceptable to imagine.
Relativity says speed of light is fixed - c. But actually, what is fixed is that we observe it that way. When we shuffle the math a bit we can come to the conclusion that the speed of a photon is actually infinite. A photon arrives to any point in its existence in a single moment - as far as it is concerned. We COULD say that the dimensions, or distances contracted for it...or whatever. But that seems completely wrong for me. 3d space dimensions shrink&grow because you go faster? And all that is neccessary just to satisfy what we observed as the speed of light being constant?
So, a photon travels at infinite speed. Why do we see it travel at c? We can explain this again from a different perspective. A photon travels through space at infinite speed, but also travels through time at a finite maximum speed - the time/distance version of the c constant. So, we have an infinite speed through space and a maximum amount for which we can "skip time".

Anyway, imagine: a particle translates/moves through our 3 dimensions - it changes position. Changing positions - covering distance - causes it to "skip through" time. The more aggressive this change of position is, the more skipping of time the particle does. As its speed in 3d goes towards infinity, the skipping of time speed nears a fixed value - the time/distance equivalent of c - 1/300 000. that is: you(the photon :m: ) skip through 1 second of time for each 300 000 km you travel at infinite speed.

All this doesn't really beat or challenge the relativity theory. It just explains what we observed and what the relativity theory claims in a different way.

It also explains why you can't reach the speed of light - it is actually infinite. It also explains why time travel - to the past - is impossible - you can't go faster than infinite speed. Or in other words - you can only "skip" or go faster through time - to the future.

I am now wondering if this approach or view on things could change or affect anything derived from the relativity theory. So I throw it at the table for you to discuss

This my first contribution to science, heh so be nice.

The speed of light may not actually be the fastest thing in the universe, it's just the fastest thing we can see with our eyes. There may be dark matter, and types of matter which move faster than light but which cannot exist in our material universe because it moves too fast.

The speed of light can be increased or slowed down, even stopped, this is proven with holograms and cold light technology.

speed of light is our perception of light.

light actually lacks a dimension and is instantly at all points of its path. we see it travel at 300 000km/s, but it does not really travel in the way we see it travel.

so in that respect, light is pretty fast.

light can be slown down by means of medium that absorbs and remits light throughout it. this absorption and reemission takes time and appears to slow light down, but it is cheating in a way.
it is special though that we CAN have medium that does not reflect or stop light, but simply refracts it but allows light to pass trough. a very nice property which allows us to have windows, heh.

also, you are a bit condratictive. you say that light may not be the fastest thing in the universe. there could be all kinds of dark matter, but the dark matter can not exist in our universe.. that's kinda contradictory... if the dark matter can not exist then light still is the fastest thing..heh.

the term was created by scientists eager for attention that used very thin data we have collected on the far regions of space we can see and by using current theories which are obviously and admitedly incomplete.

in all the quantum experiments where energy is transformed from gamma photons to matter and antimatter in all kinds of combinations and producing all kinds of particles, i have never read that there was an unexaplainable leak or loss of energy. all energy is always accounted for. which means that in all quantum experiments we have never been able to accidentaly or on purpose create just a tiny fraction dark matter.

furthermore, if dark matter doesnt interact with matter, then it is irrelevant to our world. it is then also simply a dogma.

you can claim there are 17 universes and 3 halfworlds, BUT they dont intersect with ours.. you can also them claim you and only you have been given the power by advanced aliens from the 7th universe to visit the other universes mentaly and in one of them elvis is still alive and gave you the verses and notes to his next album or something..
its just b.s. nhf.

you again insist on forces. i have used the spring to demonstrate the dance of energy.
force is something that we came up with, not a physical fundamental. it is very useful in newtonian and cartesian flat "world" to calculate stuff.

you need to forget about forces. forces are our (mis)interpretation of the world.

imagine that the spring in my example simply does what it does - it has been given energy(from a deity - us in this case) and it simply does what it does until a deity stops it.


Forget force? That's insane! Force is the outcome from momentum and momentum can only be gained via two opposing forces!

So Lets take it nice and slow and examine your spring then....

Lets say we have your spring at rest...

My first question would be why is it so?

I mean no matter where we observe in the universe we have change and or motion, so how does no change to your spring come about?

The only proper and real explanation can be is that the spring must be in an area that is not exerting enough force to it anywhere.

Foregoing the forces that facilitates everything you have made a statement a deity magically and or miraculously has exerted changes to the spring and whats more with out any exertions of force exerted to it and to me that is insane!

By compressing "forcing" the spring we increase the springs potential back to how ALL involved forces were, and if we stretch "force" the spring out we are increasing the springs surrounding atmosphere and or respective fields potential, in fact when we observe the muscles that facilitate this pushing and or pulling "forces" we notice how each muscle cell contracts "force" and or expands "force" as energy or forces are transferred.

Have you ever considered that your mass doesn't really move but rather your whole collection of forces are merely transferred from field to field, and what I mean by that is if you look closely to your computer screen and watch some movie on it we get stationary fields and or pixels that replicate motion by exchanging a pixels state and or field to the pixel next to it, so on and so on, our whole universe works on the same principles "Light and or Electromagnetic waves are constantly changing every single thing at all times, even the kelvin and or temperature {colour} is constantly changing albeit almost undetectable in a lot of cases" so no matter what - If we have an event it changes the WHOLE universes mass in some way..

Getting back to your reasoning and if you are right - How does your attraction work? specially if there is no potential to be found anywhere to draw upon for the needed separate definitions taking on an expression of momentum to each other?

The speed of light may not actually be the fastest thing in the universe, it's just the fastest thing we can see with our eyes. There may be dark matter, and types of matter which move faster than light but which cannot exist in our material universe because it moves too fast.

The speed of light can be increased or slowed down, even stopped, this is proven with holograms and cold light technology.

I have bad news for ya,

First of all COLD/Dark matter is still mass or really it should be treated as fields of mass that is close to unity...
by that we mean the solid area referred to has been allowed to expand outward by losing all of its compression and or charge "energy" so it can take on the maximum area it can without becoming nothing, one should note even though it is near unity it still has some potential and or force to it, and if we consider the combined force of what constitutes 90% of the universe which is matter that is NEAR unity we must concede it is the force that is responsible for gravity, because attractive force simply is impossible!

Light is simply an Electromagnetic wave at a given frequency "much like radio waves only higher", and its propagation is dependant on the medium it is being propagated through.

The reason why Light speed is slower in mass that is compressed as in metals and or solids is because for each exchange of force and or charge to the next field within such solid areas is because its thousands of times smaller than mass that is near unity and or near vacuum "space" where each field of mass spans thousands of kilometers!

So for three exchanges in a solid to three exchanges out in space we get the reasoning WOW! Light sure travels really fast out in space! when the facts are the area involved is just greater.. In fact the maximum speed is due to the ratio of mass area and Energy and or potential.. via E=MC^2. noting we refer to a frozen moment and hence why there is no need to expand on the formula with relativity Ect.

further more, EM waves can CREATE mass, and EM waves do not have mass. so it would be very difficult to explain what the dark matter is in that context. For the life of me I don't understand why here you seem to understand basic principles of mass albeit in a rather confused logic and or manner..

So Lets clear things up...

Abstracts..

The universe everywhere consists of the same mass.

Science has defined given areas with given forces as different areas.

A change of force from one area to another defines one area from another as fields which can be elaborated over via E=MC^2

C^2 is a maximum area of a given field with a minimum potential or mass that is at a theoretical Rest.

Constructs

Now lets sample an area of C^2 "space" by encapsulating the whole area and squeezing it via applying a negative force to it so that we end up with an area that is the same size as a proton in a metal and then we shall place it with those other Protons that have been compressed via previous natural causes and then we are going to apply a current to the metal and watch our Proton to see what happens..

our observations will be as followed

As we exert negative charge and or force to the metal the first Proton will be compressed by it, its potential to unity rises higher than the rest of the protons in the metal so the force experienced is exerted towards our created proton which is still at the mediums general potential..

Our proton eventually gets compressed by this rising force and as a result gains a higher potential to unity and this higher potential is exerted and or released to protons that are still at the mediums general potential and or with less potential and or force to them, so on and so on.... "electron flow"

Having observed Electromotive forces in a solid, lets remove and place our created proton out in space where it now is allowed to expand back to its original area that it was before we compressed it, and repeat the same exertion to it and once again we would observe the same rise in potential and the release of it to protons with less potential in the same medium, but now for each exertion much larger changes are in play because we are dealing with larger areas with far less resistive force to any given areas "now seen as pretty weak fields" propagating ElectroMagnetic waves or Light, it still is the same electron flow but rather science treats it as Light because of the change of medium<-- I would like to suggest reading up on the exact meaning of what "medium" pertains.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium

Now tell me at what point is mass created by ElectroMagnetic waves?
mass that is near unity is something you very easily throw around. but what the fuk is it, is there any mass that is less near unity so we can see it? and possibly see how it becomes nearer to unity and suddenly becomes unobservable? or is it simply something that existed from big bang?



In answer to your question about what NEAR UNITY is, I suggest you would need to research in-depth into Electrical Engineering and Quantum Physics, I would also be reading up a little more on Space and or Vacuum.

Well you have some reading up to do too.
GR, the currently only correct theory of gravity, space and time - DOESN'T involve forces. It strictly implies what we know as force of gravity is a matter of space-time geometry - NOT forces - be it outward forces of "mass near unity" or inward forces of "solid" mass.
GR works, so obviously we don't have to treat gravity as a force to explain the behaviour.

I'm simply trying to extend the GR principle onto eletric and magnetic and other "forces" as they are pretty much the same in nature only shorter range. I'm pretty sure that is the key to a unified theory. Rather than inventing "dark matter" which conveniently does everything you fail to explain with observable matter, but can't be detected.

The deity and the spring - it's a matter of expression. It is the same "deity" that created all energy in space. I will not even begin to explain how all the energy was created as that's a religious question. I personaly deem it is eternal. As for the spring, since we theoretically discuss its energyless state and then "give" it energy which didn't exist in its system, we can say we are the "deity". If you fail to follow this I will explain nothing further. A deity in my statements is obviously an observer of an energy system and who has the ability to increase the energy of that system for further theoretical observation of the system - but in such a way that it still remains a closed isolated system. So, the system is closed/isolated, but the deity can chose to intervene and give it energy - it can "set" its starting position - energy amount. Other than that there is no interaction of the system with anything else. This is for theoretical discussions. I will not explain this any more as you should have understood it in the first place.

A system of two bodies where I jump from myself and gain velocity: If the system is closed - there is nothing else in the world, only me and myself. The system must be able to reach its starting position by itself if it has limitless time available. No "dark matter" involved.
Now this is a somewhat ungrateful example. As the starting position is a sentient being using chemical energy to jump and then after some time due to gravitation it gains moment towards the other twin which at point of collision can harldy be converted back to chemical energy again. But in reality the starting position is "big bang" - something much more basic. The universe is a closed system. It WILL iterate its existance with time constanly going through the unity point and the greatest extension point just like our spring does.

The propagation of EM waves through your proposed dark matter is interesting and offers nice possibilities, but you have still not explained what I inquired, how does it create the effect we know as "gravity".
Pressure can not create gravity. 100m under water you are just as heavy as 10m under water. This is pressure. Same is with dark matter. If it exerts outward force it can in no way create the effect of gravity. It can create pressure around solid mass. But it will not create attraction between two separate solid masses.

Also, you keep saying "attractive force is simply impossible" - just like that. You said it, so it must be so.
Futhermore, you seem to allow attractive forces between protons and electrons. How does that come about then? Or is that impossible too?

Anyway, that's an absurd statement - as there are more attractive forces in nature than outward forces.. you can't even seem to begin explaining just one - gravity.
You can invent all kinds of dark matter that "pressurizes matter" and "pushes matter together" to compensate for electric attraction and magnetic attraction and nuclear attraction, but doesnt that seem a bit silly? All you're going on is a "hunch" that attractive forces are not possible.

Well you have some reading up to do too.
GR, the currently only correct theory of gravity, space and time - DOESN'T involve forces. It strictly implies what we know as force of gravity is a matter of space-time geometry - NOT forces - be it outward forces of "mass near unity" or inward forces of "solid" mass.
GR works, so obviously we don't have to treat gravity as a force to explain the behaviour.

I'm simply trying to extend the GR principle onto eletric and magnetic and other "forces" as they are pretty much the same in nature only shorter range. I'm pretty sure that is the key to a unified theory. Rather than inventing "dark matter" which conveniently does everything you fail to explain with observable matter, but can't be detected.

The deity and the spring - it's a matter of expression. It is the same "deity" that created all energy in space. I will not even begin to explain how all the energy was created as that's a religious question. I personaly deem it is eternal. As for the spring, since we theoretically discuss its energyless state and then "give" it energy which didn't exist in its system, we can say we are the "deity". If you fail to follow this I will explain nothing further. A deity in my statements is obviously an observer of an energy system and who has the ability to increase the energy of that system for further theoretical observation of the system - but in such a way that it still remains a closed isolated system. So, the system is closed/isolated, but the deity can chose to intervene and give it energy - it can "set" its starting position - energy amount. Other than that there is no interaction of the system with anything else. This is for theoretical discussions. I will not explain this any more as you should have understood it in the first place.

A system of two bodies where I jump from myself and gain velocity: If the system is closed - there is nothing else in the world, only me and myself. The system must be able to reach its starting position by itself if it has limitless time available. No "dark matter" involved.
Now this is a somewhat ungrateful example. As the starting position is a sentient being using chemical energy to jump and then after some time due to gravitation it gains moment towards the other twin which at point of collision can harldy be converted back to chemical energy again. But in reality the starting position is "big bang" - something much more basic. The universe is a closed system. It WILL iterate its existance with time constanly going through the unity point and the greatest extension point just like our spring does.

The propagation of EM waves through your proposed dark matter is interesting and offers nice possibilities, but you have still not explained what I inquired, how does it create the effect we know as "gravity".
Pressure can not create gravity. 100m under water you are just as heavy as 10m under water. This is pressure. Same is with dark matter. If it exerts outward force it can in no way create the effect of gravity. It can create pressure around solid mass. But it will not create attraction between two separate solid masses.

Trust me, it is you who needs a lot more research, in particular with respects to force/s.. I also suggest you really need to research into what a closed system really means.. and let me suggest if we have an input and or an output to a given closed system it really is not CLOSED and hence can not be deemed as closed.

Most individuals are quick to over look the fact that 90~99% of the universe consists of mass that is near unity read that "near" word again, as this infers it is close to being No-thing, but because it is something it still has a small potential to it...

Now if we sum what constitutes 90~99% of Mass of the universe that is near unity and we exert this combined force to the surface/s of the remaining universe we get much the same force via a large mass of lighter Gas forcing a smaller amount of heavier gas together to form clouds in our atmosphere, and if given enough time those areas of clouds can even be compressed to areas that can become liquid and or even small solids the size of golf balls "hail" that is if the right conditions and or kelvin is availed to the area.

Also, you keep saying "attractive force is simply impossible" - just like that. You said it, so it must be so.
Futhermore, you seem to allow attractive forces between protons and electrons. How does that come about then? Or is that impossible too?

Anyway, that's an absurd statement - as there are more attractive forces in nature than outward forces.. you can't even seem to begin explaining just one - gravity.
You can invent all kinds of dark matter that "pressurizes matter" and "pushes matter together" to compensate for electric attraction and magnetic attraction and nuclear attraction, but doesnt that seem a bit silly? All you're going on is a "hunch" that attractive forces are not possible.

Let me clarify the theoretical Electron force... By drawing a heap of circles all close to each other, having done this we now draw from each circle arrows pointing outwardly from every circle to represent its outward and or positive force towards unity, now where those arrows meet a surface of another circle ask your self is the arrow facing inward or outward like a positive force? and what would happen if the arrow actually compressed the circle to increase its potential so that the force then would be transferred to other circles..

As you can see outward is what every proton will do if there were no other protons exerting an inward force to them and it is this outward force from one proton that is exerting inward to another, which theoretically is treated as Negative charge.. there is no attraction whatsoever...

I should point out my models are based on sound established theory and not some probability...

1. do you agree that GR eliminates the term FORCE in favour of non-euclidian timespace geometry?

2. you still have not explained how darkmatter pressure can create gravity effects. simply put, how are two completely separate and distanced solid objects forced together by the surrounding dark matter? why arent they simply forced apart. what gives them the tension, the potential to be forced together rather than apart? why would they be accelerated in any direction by the darkmatter pressure? you keep evading a direct answer to this question.

3. explain single proton-electron - hydrogen atom. do not complicate things with multiple protons. it is hard for me to follow and unneccesary, as the theory should work for the hydrogen atom as well.
the single proton has a single electron in orbit. how does that work? and ionized it may not even have the single electron in orbit.

your repeated comments on closed systems and deities are supposed to annoy me or are you really that thick? im sorry but it is really annoying, this is my last comment about this:

obviously i know that a closed system is not closed if we observe it or give it energy. this is why i invented the term deity for theoretical purposes. a deity can create the closed system with energy in it and it knows the system state without interacting with it. it is for THEORETICAL purposes only. in real world such a system is not possible even though we can try to minimize the interactions.

Have you seen this delighfully written paper by Levy-Leblond?

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=AJPIAS000048000005000345000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal

I think you'll find he has some interesting angles on your basic point about c. Please let me know whether it tracks with your thinking.

Cheers.

1. do you agree that GR eliminates the term FORCE in favour of non-euclidian timespace geometry?

2. you still have not explained how darkmatter pressure can create gravity effects. simply put, how are two completely separate and distanced solid objects forced together by the surrounding dark matter? why arent they simply forced apart. what gives them the tension, the potential to be forced together rather than apart? why would they be accelerated in any direction by the darkmatter pressure? you keep evading a direct answer to this question.

With respects to GR yes and no as such let me include answer for 2 as it all has to do with the absolute basics.

If we briefly refer to basic force by referring to Newtons laws, where a force can only exert force if some opposing footing of force exists so to speak...

Now this means to gain momentum we need to exert our feet on a given opposing force, if both you and the other force were equal both you and the other force you exerted upon will separate at the same velocity, from the point of origin this would be defined as an outward exertion... Positive force.

Now lets return to our Universe and lets say we have theoretically gridded it out so that every grid and or areas are equal to an area of around 300000 x 300000 x 300000 Klm and each area is as near zero force and or potential to it and then lets say somehow the Universe was compressed by 1~10% or even more being dependant on relativity...

BTW this is our current state of our universe, and is the reason why we have near vacuum "Cold and Dark Matter" occupying 90~99% of space, Gas such as in our atmosphere and solids such as planets, minerals, metals and atoms etc...

Solids are still the same areas as gas and or near vacuum only the area in question is what copped a lot more compression and that's why solid areas have more of an outward exertion than an area with little compression, only problem is other C^2 areas have been partly compressed together by the same exertion so the whole area stays relative as such, Now if the universe were open to return to it original state, we would have everything with an outward potential spreading outward back to its near vacuum state, but damn it! our Universe is as good as closed~ So therefore those compressed areas can only be shuffled Err~ exerted area to area...

why is our universe as good as closed? Because of the nature of near unity and or near vacuum near the fringes of our Universe, that and via a good understanding of relativity is the reason.

3. explain single proton-electron - hydrogen atom. do not complicate things with multiple protons. it is hard for me to follow and unneccesary, as the theory should work for the hydrogen atom as well.
the single proton has a single electron in orbit. how does that work? and ionized it may not even have the single electron in orbit.

Lets say we have a square tank full of hydrogen atoms at sea level.
most individuals would immediately have for every proton an electron in the tank and whats more they also would have a neutron for each pair of Proton and electron in there as well..

And I would agree with them yes indeed we have electrons and neutrons in the tank, but here's where I make a note that the electron and neutron are theoretical and or pseudo, they are not real!

If you want to watch a lecturer squirm ask him to depict the defining forces of a hydrogen proton and it electron with the respective neutron, and well my bet will be a whole lot of gibberish will spew forth..

you see the only possible REAL force is outward and when we place another proton next to another we have two areas exerting outwardly but inward to the other proton, a proton has a positive charge so the inward force has to be negative, and here we have the electron charge, and so where two proton forces meet we have neutron charge.

Have you seen this delighfully written paper by Levy-Leblond?

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=AJPIAS000048000005000345000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal

I think you'll find he has some interesting angles on your basic point about c. Please let me know whether it tracks with your thinking.

Cheers.


I tried the link but one needs to be a registered member to view the page..

In short what does it imply?

Yes thats because you are not applying lorentz correctly. Both time and distance have to contract together, if time is contracted to a gamma of 3 so the distance is by 3. If t is contracted by a gamma of 10, so is d. If t is contracted to infinity, so is d.

Which Lorentz?

Original Fitzgerald-Lorentz applied only to length and had nothing to do with time, and only applied to motion in an absolute frame of reference, not a Relative reference frame.

Well you have some reading up to do too.
GR, the currently only correct theory of gravity, space and time -

Sorry, Charlie: you have some reading up to do in the first place.

Start with the book "Gravitation". It is the size of a Chicago phone book and will lighten your wallet by over a hundred big ones at your book store. It describes a number of gravity theories claimed by their mainstream physics professor advocates to be even more correct than Einstein gravity. To your unread dismay, further investment of your research and reading time will uncover many more gravity theories of equally prestigeous parentage and of serious claims to be even more correct than E. g..

When you have finally done your reading up, you will then be in a position to authoritatively discuss just how uniquely correct GR is.

I tried the link but one needs to be a registered member to view the page..

In short what does it imply?

Sorry about that. I e-mailed the link to someone who isn't a member of anything and he was able to get to it. I wish I could attach the pdf, but it's slightly larger than the allowed 197 KB limit. (The pdf is in image format, rather than text, so zip doesn't help much.)

If I get time I'll write up a synopsis and see whether vx220 sees any resemblance to his original post or not.

Sorry, Charlie: you have some reading up to do in the first place.

Start with the book "Gravitation". It is the size of a Chicago phone book and will lighten your wallet by over a hundred big ones at your book store. It describes a number of gravity theories claimed by their mainstream physics professor advocates to be even more correct than Einstein gravity. To your unread dismay, further investment of your research and reading time will uncover many more gravity theories of equally prestigeous parentage and of serious claims to be even more correct than E. g..

When you have finally done your reading up, you will then be in a position to authoritatively discuss just how uniquely correct GR is.


Well, it may not be the only, but that still doesn't invalidate the point that einstein explained gravity phenomena without resorting to forces.

These others CLAIMED-to-be-more-correct-than-correct theories do not invalidate my point. It seems you require me that I pay respects to a whole bunch of different theories that CLAIM to get the same or better results as GR. But fact is, GR and SR are ACTUALLY used when people need to calculate/predict something for practical purposes. And it has proven to be up to the task so far. The fact that these alternative theories are always compared to GR actually proves the point that GR still sits on the throne of gravitation theories.

I don't really care about reading up on all the alternative theories. I'm sure smarter people than me are checking them out, and the scientist supporting them are doing experiments to prove them. I'm sure if an alternative theory is proved to be somehow better, the scientific community would aprove it as such and remove GR from its "throne". When this happens, I will read up on the new theory, until then - I will read up if you cangas for example pick one as your favorite or something and propose its ideas here.
I will not investigate a whole number N of alternative theories - because, well that just means that at least N-1 of them are wrong which means I wasted a lot of time reading up on a bunch of nonsense.