I have a question I've been thinking about for quite a while,and I appreciate any answers I can get. Preamble: In any book on relativity you will find the following example. We have 2 twin brothers on earth. One of them goes on a trip in a spaceship that travels at 7/8 the speed af light, the other brother stays on earth. After 20 years the brother on earth is obviously.20 years older, but the one on the spaceship (because time slows down when you move close to the speed of light) has aged only one year. My question is this; Since everything is relative.(there is no fixed point in the universe from where we can measure everything else) who is to say that it is not the spaceship that is standing still and the earth moving away from it at 7/8 light speed. And so the age of the two brothers should be reversed? It's sort of like the Olbers paradox, but unlike Mr. Olbers who solved his own paradox, I can't. Regards apolo Qoute: So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Albert Einstein.
This is known as the "twin paradox" and is only a paradox to people who don't understand relativity. Read up: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html - Warren
Re: Fairy Tales "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Phillip K. Dick - Warren
Mac Fairy Tales One need not read The Three Bears to know Goldilocks doesn't exits. <HR> What is the medium of light?
Speculation Light is energy packets released from the Chiral Condensate as a function of quanta of energy; hence the observers velocity is addative or subtractive from the condenstate carrier which causes light to "Appear" to remain constant but you are not seeing the same photon.
Ok... I am not seeing the same photon. I am seeing the same wavelength at the same speed from the same type of energy. It would be counterintuitive to suggest light has no medium, when all other wave forms we observe on Earth have a medium. What causes the harmonic resonance of light? There is a tensor argument k we have not defined, I don't believe anyway, that causes the frequency and amplitude of light.
Light Look at light like a rope with foot markers feeding through a slip clutch driving a tachometer. The carrier signal in the condensate is instantaneous or virtually so. the slip clutch is set to v = c. If I advance toward the light then I see doppler but I don't see a change in the tachometer because the rope is slipping. The energy trigger slips the production of light back toward the source. If you attempt to limit the slip velocity would change the veolcity of light and there would be no doppler. Harmonic Resonance?
theory? Look at light like a rope with foot markers feeding through a slip clutch driving a tachometer. <HR> Let's look at the windings of the rope of light as waveforms, they have a distinct sinotic pattern. Each wavelength has a different frequency and specific amplitude. The period of each oscillation is limited or defined by resistance. Resistance to what? Resonance is suggestive of medium. Sound requires air. Electricity, conductivity. Light? Space-time? The frequency and amplitude of light define the transverse or radial resistance component that describe the resonant values of space-time. And the speed, its longitudinal or tangential vector component of resistance, which I prefer to call time. The tensor argument in the function of light frequencies seems to be caused by the very structure of space-time. And, the limits of velocity are implied, in that no zero mass energy has been clocked at super-luminal velocities. However, the transverse component, or angular velocity, of a waveform can sustain super-liminal velocity. But, no energy has been transmitted, even though data has been transmitted through frequency manipulation and tunneling at significant multiples of c. This is not considered to be a violation of the laws of conservation, even though some messages seem to be completed before they were finished being sent through tunneling. If no energy has been transmitted, therefore no mass, no law of conservation has been broken. There is no suggestion of bi-location, because data by nature is replicated without the transfer of energy or mass.
Theory No big arguement here. The problem is you assume you know what light is. Assume instead that for example: When an electron jumps orbit (vanishes to appear in t=0 in a less energetic orbit) with the release of a photon to conserve energy; that what may infact be happening is that the electron becomes absorbed (mass into energy) into the Chiral Condensate. Viewing the condensate as a solid in another dimension, it then re-creates an electron of less energy at a Pauli harmonic and a photon at thesame time. If the condensate is actually a form of solid in another dimension think of a rod. Push this end the other end moves in t=o - even if the rod is 1,000,000 ly long (particle entanglement?). This medium may produce photons as an energy function and the observers velocity (energy) relative to the source would alter when and where photons appear - "Apparent" constant velocity. I'm not saying this is the case. I'm saying it provides better results than Relativity.
ok... If the condensate is actually a form of solid in another dimension think of a rod. Push this end the other end moves in t=o - even if the rod is 1,000,000 ly long (particle entanglement?). <HR> So, the photon is gone, but this 'rod' remains behind; For how long? From which instantaneous electron 'jump?' All the billions of photons jumping out of billions of atoms, and I can push on it, and the energy trigger sends the carrier signal back to light production from/to which atom? It sounds like there are some serious problems with this, if it has a million explanations and logical jumps to be comprehended: Do you think it stands the test of Occam's razor?
Razor Actually, yes. It would be the next sutiable harmonic in the medium. The rod was only a thought experiment, it would actually be a solid block but the vector of motion is simulated by viewing it as a rod. It is there all the time. Our existance, our universe would be like a hologram projected from the condensate. We already see virtual particles popping in and out of the vacuum.
MacM: You claim that "Chiral Condensate" theory provides "better results than relativity". Ok. Put your money where your mouth is an give us a tested example. BTW, please don't merely link me to somebody's long explanation somewhere on the web. I want to see your explanation, plus references so I can verify your information. Thankyou.
James R Response James R., Apparently in either yours or mine or boths haste we have different views of what I have posted. The Chiral Condensate is a fairly new area. As we speak the high energy labs are just scratching the surface. Even they do not know what is there yet. But what they have found so far is awsome and presents many new views. To my knowledge there are no views out there as to the implications of what they have found, only that the energy content is extra ordinary/cm^3. All implications posted are my free thoughts about how thing just might be and how they can affect our current view. All purely speculations. No tests, no proof and no references. The Chiral Condensate is another matter. Search that and you will find several thousand sites and a lot of technical test information, results and some speculation but nothing as pointed as I have been suggesting. And that is all I was seeking to do is to get people to consider some alternatives. There is nothing yet that one can put in their pocket and say Ah Haa about. But there is a whole lot we can be saying WoW What IF. Those What ifs just might open several new and useful doors. But slamming the door without looking to see who is outside just doesn't make sense to me and that seems to be the preference of this MSB.
James R Response James R., Apparently in either yours or mine or boths haste we have different views of what I have posted. The Chiral Condensate is a fairly new area. As we speak the high energy labs are just scratching the surface. Even they do not know what is there yet. But what they have found so far is awsome and presents many new views. To my knowledge there are no views out there as to the implications of what they have found, only that the energy content is extra ordinary/cm^3. All implications posted are my free thoughts about how thing just might be and how they can affect our current view. All purely speculations. No tests, no proof and no references. The Chiral Condensate is another matter. Search that and you will find several thousand sites and a lot of technical test information, results and some speculation but nothing as pointed as I have been suggesting. And that is all I was seeking to do is to get people to consider some alternatives. There is nothing yet that one can put in their pocket and say Ah Haa about. But there is a whole lot we can be saying WoW What IF. Those What ifs just might open several new and useful doors. But slamming the door without looking to see who is outside just doesn't make sense to me and that seems to be the preference of this MSB. I do believe that I have stated that these were my views of the importance of the Chiral Condensate. I don't believe I have once made a statement as being fact but merely as an alternate view. If I have done otherwise or anyone feels misled then you have my opology, that ws not my intent. I have made strong anti-Relativity statements and I stand by those but that is just an opinion.
Alternate or not, I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter, MacM. I tried to skim through stuff on your site, but there's something about MSN sites and me that just don't get along. Plus my first impression from your initial posts ware that relativity was out, no discussion or explanation, and you had a theory to replace everything that you couldn't get into at this time. Sounded pseudoscientific to everyone probably. Maybe if you had started off with "possible problems of relativity" rather than "relativity is bunk"...I don't remember the exact wording, but that was the impression, and of course you'll get defensive reaction from that. But the past is past...if you've got hard objections to relativity, right or wrong, no problems discussing them. Someone will earn something. And if you could leak a bit of the rest of the theories you have here to be tested, that'd be good as well. There's nothing wrong with "what ifs" as long as they are well grounded in science.
Alternatives Jaxom, You are right of course and I acknowledge that may be a fault of mine. But it also comes from many years not only pursueing UniKEF but from owning and opearating anR&D Corp. We were involved in many unique and novel things and at one point had 46 stockholders. We were always on the go to raise capital. So many of the things we wanted to do seemed so simple and obvious yet we invariably got "How do you know it will work?" My response became "Have you ever ran over a nail and got a flat?". When they answered "Yes" my answer was "That is how we know it works". Many things seem obvious to me that sometimes aren't so obvious to others and I am not referring to my view of Relativity but simple things involving steam power plants and new engine designs. So hopefully I can learn to express myself in a manner that doesn't rile the sleeping giants and might get a better hearing. Thanks. As far as what I have. I don't want to try to teach it here. It is far to lay overall. It does offer an alternative to Relativity "Assuming" it can be verified or its flaws can be healed. The only thing that has received actual mathematical treatment by professionals has been the view of UniKEF gravity. The rest is mere speculation but with reasonable assumptions and good agreement with observation for the most part in agreement with Relativity. The difference is that the agreement is in the observation but in UniKEF that observation is not reality. I'll give you one example. Relavistic mass. UniKEF developes a term I called "e" which is energy transfer efficiency. It is developed completely via geometry and trigonometry yet it produces the same relavistic mass curve from 1 to infinity (at v = c). The major difference is that it is energy transfer efficency that decreases and not an actual mass increase. It would still require infinite energy to accelerate a mass to v = c but there is no actual mass change, no Black Holes formed and no limit of absolute motion imposed on a body due the infinite mass conclusion based on a remote observers view point. For example a rocket. There is no relative motion between the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load. It follows that the rocket can continue to accelerate regarless of how many different observers are watching. An observer cannot affect the rockets physics. So what happens at v=>c? To the relavistic observer it ceases to be physical in our universe (Lorentz Dimensional Contraction) but continues to exist on a higher energy level (extension of creation). Our universe becomes a v = c limited bubble within a larger creation. I appreciate your interest. James R: I do not want to teach UniKEF on this MSB but for your and the members edification, in light of how this has all started, I ask your permission to cut and paste the UniKEF Introduction here. It is about two screens full. It is merely an outline of predictions which have come to be discovered and predictions yet to be seen or proven. Warren and the others will see that I am not a grand stander. Thanks MacM
MacM: I just searched for "Chiral condensate" on the web. I found various references in particle physics areas, but nothing regarding the replacement of the theory of relativity. Do you have any relevant links?
Replacement Theories James R., No. If you haven't read my earlier response please do. I have tried to clarify what I have meant by my posts. Since I have made another response labled "Alternatives" after my resonse to your prior question, the post is the one at 7:53PM. Thanks.
MacM: If the Introduction you wish to post is already on the web, please just link to it and we'll take a look. If not, you can post it here.
