Thursday, December 19, 2019
ENCYCLOPEDIA IST*
Inventive Science and Technology*
Thursday, December 19,
Problems and Solutions about Relativity, Why is General Relativity Incomplete?..
Here I want to talk of the considerations about La Sage gravity that have seemed to disprove it (i.e. about slowing of the field by friction) and a possible way to salvage La Sage gravity. Also I want to say about why large bodies might not augment a lot of mass with time as in Earth's gravity as Einstein predicted about the mass of old electrons being more and they weren't seen to change by the experiments as Einstein had believed. The augment of mass of the Earth would seem to need 2 Earth masses/second by the particle inflow needed to cause gravity as in Feynmann's calculation about this type of method (La Sage Gravity).My solution might be about how the particles and waves that guide them radiate in and about how at the right radius they would start to spin back out at the radius of the cog or com. This might also be how the cog of large masses act like a source of gravity even while the main cause or source of gravity are the "nonvirtual" quanta.The heavy quanta are unified by a common origin with gravity (if as I believe the singularity the black holes via super massive gravity is the source of the frozen quanta all around us, this would be why as Maxwell noted the uniformity of nature as far as we can see is evidence that the quanta around us are all manufactured not created and this creation of the quanta out of gravity in the singularity would also save energy conservation as others like t'Hoft have noted). The larger masses cog is a source of gravity by much the same method I invoke for the quanta, comparison of spin on both limbs of the spinning quantum or cog even while the quanta are more fundamental. Centrifugal force would compare the round path of motion to the constant Higgs' field and so the speed of light is constant regardless of motion. In this sense there is a quantum of inertia, the Low Energy Higgs' (LEH) even if at close radius for the heavy quanta. This would explain also with the constant speed of light why inertial forces have no source. The source is at close radius to the heavy quanta and the quantum is the LEH.
Here I want to talk of the considerations about La Sage gravity that have seemed to disprove it (i.e. about slowing of the field by friction) and a possible way to salvage La Sage gravity. Also I want to say about why large bodies might not augment a lot of mass with time as in Earth's gravity as Einstein predicted about the mass of old electrons being more and they weren't seen to change by the experiments as Einstein had believed. The augment of mass of the Earth would seem to need 2 Earth masses/second by the particle inflow needed to cause gravity as in Feynmann's calculation about this type of method (La Sage Gravity).My solution might be about how the particles and waves that guide them radiate in and about how at the right radius they would start to spin back out at the radius of the cog or com. This might also be how the cog of large masses act like a source of gravity even while the main cause or source of gravity are the "nonvirtual" quanta.The heavy quanta are unified by a common origin with gravity (if as I believe the singularity the black holes via super massive gravity is the source of the frozen quanta all around us, this would be why as Maxwell noted the uniformity of nature as far as we can see is evidence that the quanta around us are all manufactured not created and this creation of the quanta out of gravity in the singularity would also save energy conservation as others like t'Hoft have noted). The larger masses cog is a source of gravity by much the same method I invoke for the quanta, comparison of spin on both limbs of the spinning quantum or cog even while the quanta are more fundamental. Centrifugal force would compare the round path of motion to the constant Higgs' field and so the speed of light is constant regardless of motion. In this sense there is a quantum of inertia, the Low Energy Higgs' (LEH) even if at close radius for the heavy quanta. This would explain also with the constant speed of light why inertial forces have no source. The source is at close radius to the heavy quanta and the quantum is the LEH.
(The LEH was predicted by physicists and recently found by experiment. In my belief this is the same as Einstein's low energy particle he invoked to get around the Uncertainty problem. I think the Low Energy Higgs' may be important to both gravity and inertia, and due to Wilczek's nobel winning work, the high energy Higgs' may not be as important to us because Wilczek showed that most of the mass of the fractional charges in QCD wasn't caused by this higher energy Higgs' but rather by the back reaction to the field so it's squeezed out unlike the Low Energy Higgs' which doesn't disappear at the lowest energy state.)
Wilczek's ideas are about nature as a machine, so for example, what I consider Wilczek's idea he calls "time crystals" might be useful. Time crystals are where the quanta of a crystal are synchronized electromagnetically by entangling them to allow options like much faster computing and storage of data in the crystal. I had the idea of extending this perhaps to what I call a gravitational time crystal. My idea is that all the quanta of the Earth may be entangled by gravity and so we could set them all in one resonance at the "gravitational resonance energy" in order to do something like store a huge amount of data in all the quanta of the Earth just as Wilczik's idea would allow storage of a lot more data in a usual crystal. The resonance energy might be distinct enough from the electromagnetic entanglement energy to be useful because of the distinction between gravity and electromagnetism as I say.
It's been said that the great success of science has been about how it makes use of how things work and not so much why. But this isn't true because actually science is about alternation between this about how things work as in Special Relativity as well as why. A good method of science explains several events the earlier science doesn't, and it makes definite testable predictions.
It's been said the great genius of Einstein was that he didn't accept on faith that the ether exists as others had for what they considered to be good evidence. Einstein supposedly just ignored the ether and explained all the rest. Sort of, shut up and calculate all the way up to higher physics!
Einstein thought of himself as a traditionalist while all the rest thought of him as revolutionary.
I would say he was practical about the physics he used and they say that creativity is a build-up of smaller levels of value and not just one brilliant flash of inspiration.
So we can see why Einstein thought of himself as a traditionalist.
He was adding on to what was already there as he had read philosophy and science well.
I would hold that while he discovered a practical description of part of the physics, and about how Special Relativity worked, it doesn't mean that he described all of it. I think what's missing maybe about dark matter and dark energy and about the wave method of light or at least the wave method of these fields of which evidence shows are true.
Special relativity describes constant motion but not acceleration and it explains a lot of the physics but as I say it doesn't explain why the Earth falls around the Moon at a different rate than the moon around the Earth, or why there's mass augment near the speed of light, or why information about the wavelength of light can change before it reaches the high speed observer.
When we only describe how things work we can be sure that we don't have a complete understanding without also essentially understanding why.
We can say about Special Relativity, certainly it works quite well to explain how it works out if the speed light is constant. Change of mass and time with velocity fits well into the speed of light without asking why the speed of light is what it is. Certainly Special Relativity works well as far as it goes.
Even so Maxwell's ideas about the waves of light allowed him to predict exactly what the speed of light was and thus why it was what it was.
Certainly we can say the speed of light is constant in uniform motion but we can't pretend that acceleration doesn't change the wavelength of the distant light before it reaches that observer on the distant starship. Thus by energy conservation, changes are created and stored, so by the low energy field made of dark matter and dark energy, both changes of the wavelength and thus the information of the distant light is changed during acceleration by pressure on the field, but during uniform motion since the low energy field is under the quantum level the information is stored not absent about the momentum of the field as energy conservation requires.
Here I'll discuss a lot of things that can be explained by use of Maxwell's method, as well as predictions that might follow from it. For example while Einstein's idea allows the mass and time will change with different velocities of observers, because in Special Relativity the speed of light is accepted on faith, there's no reason to believe why this is so other than that the speed of light is constant. But if we allow Maxwell's medium then we can say that there's pressure on the mass as it accelerates even while stored in uniform motion. The pressure causes the Lorentz contraction and the relativistic increase of mass arises naturally from contact with the external field.
Mass and energy not being completely equivalent would have it where the energy of the light also stretches out as the mass is compressed by the Lorentz contraction.
If mass and energy were completely equivalent, both the mass by the contraction would increase and so would time instead of the opposite with the redshift for time.
You may say where is this field? Einstein said that if any change is found ever in the speed of light or if the low energy field is measured then his whole idea fails. The difficulty of finding dark matter and dark energy even while already it's been found that makes up four fifths of the mass of the universe by two separate lines of theory and experiment in a roundabout way doesn't imply that it's impossible to find.
But the change in the speed of waves other than light and their much higher speed that Einstein admitted might be possible, and around which all of relativity is founded, if we assume a simple phase change of the energy.
Another aspect of my idea is that by something like paramagnetism both centrifugal force and inertia and gravity are low energy fields of waves that wrap around the quanta as a sort of invisibility cloak in a way. And this would by why gravity and centrifugal force don't shield metal plates or the Earth.
If we allow these two options of what I call Line Removal, LR with the simple phase change then we can explain many more things that Maxwell and his generation of mathematical physicists were so interested in finding for physics years before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy and here I discuss several results of this, just as this about the redshift of light and the Lorentz contraction might fit with inequivalence with mass and energy, because for example it's much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa, and also why the Laurentz contraction exists as by pressure with the field.
Here I want to ask some fundamental questions about relativity and possible solutions by way of this use of extension of Maxwell's method..
If all masses fall at the same rate as Einstein held was the basis of general relativity, why does the moon fall at a different rate around the Earth than the Earth around the Sun?
Why indeed don't all masses fall at the same rate?
(My answer is the different masses like the Earth and moon fall at different rates because of the extra tensor that relativity doesn't describe.)
If the speed of light is so important, why doesn't everything move at the speed of light?
My answer is that by Maxwell's method the speed of light is about the wave with the resilience of the medium but this also works for many speeds and many resiliences..
If by the separate times method of special relativity due to the slow speed of light, with Alpha Centauri and distant points even farther than four light years away, how can time be unified with other time? ..and likewise by the slow connection there's a disconnection like particles of the gas so neither can space be unified with space.
(This would be solved in my idea GWD General Wave Dynamics, by the faster than light connection which once again gives a general simultaneously to the cosmos. Otherwise these problems about cohesion holding huge masses of huge size without them exploding is unviable, this is what Tesla believed.)
...If space can't be unified with space nor time with time then we can say that space and time can't be unified either...
Of course the equations for special relativity are well-founded and precise.
Even so the idea that there's an extra tensor for gravity that filters through the events of special relativity would allow the gravity to connect up and restore more distant simultaneous events.
You may say that relativity has never failed in symmetry theory in basic physics, but Einstein was much concerned about the speed of the collapse of the wave function.. and he said if one of his ideas go they all go.
(As I'll say below the speed of the collapse of the wave function may be important to the speed of protein folding seen in biology, so evolution may help us find disproof of relativity.)
Why if we move backwards through space with space and time unified don't we move backwards through time?
If motion through space unifies with motion through time and relativity and the speed of playback of the distant scene on the starship is controlled by the motion of the observer then why doesn't it control those events rather than just their speed for a complete unity of space and time?
My answer is that they aren't completely unified and so there is the asymmetrical arrow of time which otherwise has no cause by relativity. As I say below this might be solved by general CPT symmetry violation not just by the Weak Force.
Also by CPT violation, if mass and energy are equivalent, why is it much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass?
Why is mass conserved but not converted? We would expect it to be both if relativity is complete.
If relativity tells us that mass and energy are unified, motion of antimatter with spin reversed like a small clock if it is reversed through time might also move backwards through space and we would expect that antimatter would fall upward..
(My answer might be that due to a phase change gravity is a superfluid and so it only attracts by spinning in one direction outside the level of the quanta, as by Wilczek's Axion method so like gravity all masses attract. This was a problem Maxwell noted; if opposite charges of electricity attract, how does gravity attract likes to like?) My theory General Wave Dynamics GWD predicts that antimatter will fall down at slightly slower rate, as by the Japanese Physicists' experiments in the early '90s, where a high speed gyroscope in one direction weighs slightly less than in the other direction, as I will discuss. Relativity predicts that antimatter falls up but GWD tells us that it falls down and at what speed.
Why did Dirac's method of trying to unify quantum mechanics with relativity fail?
My answer here would be because relativity doesn't have time reversal but quantum mechanics really does at higher energy and short range..
If there are no privileged frames of reference, why is the earth more rest than the moon and the sun more at rest than the Earth and Moon?
I call these relatively absolute frames of reference because none are absolute like the lower energy field that Maxwell and the others believed in, but the more mass you pile on, the more it becomes a frame of reference worth considering.
Can we really accept The Lorentz contraction and the speed of light by axiom by Einstein's method when Maxwell's method gives the exact speed of light according to the force between electric charges and can readily explain the Lorentz contraction by simple mechanical resilience of the field while Einstein has no clue?
Why did Newton believe that his equations showed only distance, not motion changes gravity? And yet by motion the force between electric charges is changed..
My answer is that this is easy to explain if we assume the gravity is much much faster than light but if it's at the same speed we would expect almost the same change. The huger speed of gravity would take motion much faster than the speed of light to make any appreciable change in the pressure of those waves.
Relative to the motion of the planets gravity the field may be hugely faster so there's much less change (while not non 0, change which could be measured as if it were by Maxwell's method of the pressure though the much different value for the speed and thus for the density of the field that you could then measure the change of motion relative to. This would involve measuring the gravitational fields of small masses at near relativistic speeds and this would in turn take quantum sensors to find the gravity. The other possibility is by way of astronomical events for the gravity where it's so strong that it wouldn't take as much motion for the equivalent amount of change and pressure.
If gravity and relativity are the same it would take the same amount of motion to create the same change.
And since inertia and gravity are not completely unalike in my belief since after all all the fields are connected, the connection would be by way of Maxwell's method except for a much higher speed for the gravity.
This is another form of my other idea that if gravity was at the speed of light the x and y coordinates of a ballistic arc would be exactly the same due to the displacement of light which is at the speed of light. Yet the x and y coordinates are completely independent.
On this post I will attempt to answer some of these questions...
GRAVITY AND GYROSCOPES; WHY I BELIEVE INERTIA AND GRAVITY ARE NOT THE SAME
I disagree with Einstein about the equivalence of gravity and inertia. The equations for centrifugal force or inertia and gravity are different so I believe the reason inertia has no source is because it's comparing the round motion to the flat Higgs' field and so there's only one mass in the equation for centrifugal force but two for gravity and the constants are changed by 35 orders of magnitude. A small ultracentrifuge can exert millions of g's while the huge mass of the Earth can only generate 1g.
A gyroscope with huge inertial force by relativity should have huge gravity and where is it?
If LIGO measures gravity why does lIGO measure outward radiance but gravity radiates inward?
My solution would be that inertia radiates outward at the speed of light as LIGO measures, but it's only measuring inertia not gravity.
Sir Arthur Eddington and others noted that Einstein's prediction of the speed of light for gravity was not fundamental to his ideas about gravity.
It seems the main reason that Einstein predicted gravity waves to be at the speed of light was not because of his ideas about gravity and he based his prediction about the speed of gravity on the success of special relativity.and no more.
As I will discuss here, I believe that inertia being much higher energy is mediated by particles that radiate out like particles of gas.
This forms the classical electromagnetic field lines and then the gravity being much lighter follows these tracks in being much less dense by Maxwell's method, at much much higher speed. Gravity would need something important about it to radiate out to not violate cause and effect as I'll outline hopefully below...
First I want to review how I think of gravity about waves externally and yet with the need for discontinuity as you may have seen on my physics synopsis page if you Like (link is at the upper left of the ENC IST site).See below "SPIN OF LARGER MASSES" if you're aware of my Synopsis already for the main innovation of this post.
IN REVIEW.. As you see on my main site about my interpretation of Maxwell's idea about the speed of light I call General Wave Dynamics, or GWD, I believe Einstein's disbelief about the Kaluza Klein interpretation of the electron's mass was because of his union of both Relativity with the speed limit of the speed of light, and the Unified Field. I believe that these two ideas don't allow internal changes for the electron.
Relativity wouldn't allow the quanta to spin inside faster than light giving it the larger mass seen if mass is spinning energy and the more mass the faster it would spin as I believe for renormalization and inelastic scattering experiments, which show evidence for the large mass. The Unified Field also wouldn't allow the electron to spin faster than light because relativity would also not allow a faster spinning electron inside to connect to the outside by the unified field and the large mass would also be external.
I believe both that there is a shear force on the outside of the electron but that this change allows the faster than light spin inside without connecting up too much to the outside but still enough to add the force of tension to the external field.
When the universe was consulted while we weren't!..we could say that the general fields like gravity would hold it together but because of the Line Removal, LR the internal forces are only loosely connected to the gravity. Even so the quanta are always the source of gravity.
Relativity doesn't explain rest mass which would be spinning energy. The electron would spin faster than light by Maxwell's method of a more dense field which moves faster with more density he used to predict the exact speed of light and as with renormalization and deep scattering inside for larger mass caused by this faster than light spin than Relativity allows, this is the extra degree of freedom of the Kaluza Klein method by the disconnection to allow the spin to maintain the external tension Newton believed in for gravity or Maxwell and others believed in for the medium of light.
That mass is spinning energy also allows mass to move through time even if at rest in space. The spin of all the quanta are like small clocks, and this is one reason why I believe gravity is about the spin of the quanta. Gravity has momentum, momentum is always about spin even if at rest, the more gravity a mass has the more it tends to be at rest and the faster this mass tends to spin. This may not seem to be true for large masses like planets, but the more mass a quantum has the faster it spins, and it also has more gravity.
Spin would seem to be about time via the reversal of time for spin up or down, yet this isn't so. I was talking to an associate with rewind of my own time machine! about my idea like Einstein's that time is reversible by reversal of spin, and who with a whirl around said, "I haven't reversed in time!" And so I went back where I went before some machines weren't invented.. and considered about Line Removal. (LR is about where all the quanta around us are from the super massive gravity like the singularity. In my belief Einstein was wrong about this event being infinite so the LR makes the quanta out of "frozen gravity" by merely changing the spin inside the super heavy quanta of the singularity to Faster Than Light by the phase change and this causes enough centrifugal force to power the superluminal jets otherwise without a cause and also saving energy conservation since the mass isn't gone from the universe if much of it just removes out our way powered by the action reaction pairs inside the weak force radius by what I call superfusion. Some say gravity alone would power the huge jets yet if gravity only attracts this seems improbable and the evidence shows fusion isn't strong enough as the cause. The common masses around us would be fizzled out from the superfusion quanta and are only stable at near singularity density. Even so I believe this type of event of outward radiation of the superfusion would be the cause of the anomalous spectra of some superluminal events seen and not predicted by the standard model.)
One problem has been about why the jets are seen to radiate out from some accretion disks but some are seen without the jets.
I can imagine that the superfusion particles are more solid and so they can shield from each other's force, or perhaps the center of the singularity has superfusion heavy quanta while the outer shell of the singularity has the strong force quanta sometimes with a reduced mix of superfusion quanta, so as in the nucleus neutrons are often not radioactive because the strong force is too strong to let them radiate out. My belief is perhaps that sometimes the density is low enough outside of the singularity where the strong force particles are it actually can't compress the superfusion particles to radiate back out and power the jets.
These events may be evidence for a complex non-infinite singularity not as Einstein thought with gravity being simple.
Time is only always measured by periodic fluctuations.. Feynman believed time reversal, by spin up and down as by quantum clocks is only at short range.. Line Removal makes the longer range forces not time reversible. Mass is always positive on the outside and gravity only attracts and this would be because all the spins outside are one way which is the method agreed on by Wilczek and other scientists to be possible (the spin inside is up or down yet outside only one way.). This is how the Axion method, as named by Wilczik in the 1970's was used to try to solve why the strong force acts the same for either spin up or down and is spin independent. Gravity and the strong force both being the longer range attractive component of the two pairs of forces gravity/ electromagnetism and strong/weak force, might be generally the same because they're both attractive and by other unified events, so it might make sense that if the strong force has Axions as Wilczek believes so too might gravity.
Gravity in GWD General Wave Dynamics, by my explanation, is the opposite of relativity because it's an acceleration. It radiates in and light as in Special Relativity has constant speed with changing wavelength and reradiates. Since gravity and relativity are opposite in my formulation and gravity isn't so relativistic, gravity changes both speed and wavelength not just wavelength as light in SR since it's an acceleration by the extra tensor relativity doesn't account for.
Gravity around each heavy quantum would have different radii with masses since they interact where time is more or less reversible even for gravity somewhat, as well as conservation of information. This is a prediction of my idea about how gravity might work, (it may be somewhat time reversible depending on the radius).
Gravity doesn't mostly change with quantum spin long range because of Line Removal so gravity sees the quanta as spheres. A time reversed movie of the planets moving around the sun would look much the same because gravity is more slippery on the outside of the heavy quanta, while reversing the spins of more connected heavy quanta conserves spin and time the same way. More particularly because the gravity may spin around so fast being much lighter than light, the planets move much slower than this and so a huge number of oscillations around the gravitational field would only match one orbit of a planet if slowly moving in the opposite direction. So the spin in one direction is almost exactly equal to the opposite direction but not quite..
Actually a super high speed of the waves (by my hopeful extension of Maxwell's method that he used to predict the speed of light exactly based on the resilient medium and the force between electric charges) may be how gravity seems uninfluenced by spin. If the gravity field of a heavy quanta or gyroscope spins trillions of times around while the quanta spins just one time this ratio is indeed almost the same and gravity is with mostly only positive mass and not time reversible. This could be related to how Wilczics method might work for Axions.
As I say Einstein was much concerned about the speed of the collapse of the wave function, and if the outside of a hadron spins around at much faster than light with its dark matter field making up 97% of the otherwise unaccounted for mass of events like for the proton as has been established, the faster than light spin of that dark matter would likewise be mostly only in one direction. I believe this about the outer spin being only one direction if it's only attractive, which might be why the two Japanese physicists who did the gyroscope spin experiment in the early 1990's found a fast spinning gyroscope weighs somewhat less one way and the same the other way around.
The experiment turned out to not be repeatable. My guess is it's the right idea but the wrong level of spin. The much higher speed of the field predicted by my idea GWD General Wave Dynamics might tell us how to find this effect if it exists as I say on my GWD synopsis page (see link upper left of the web version of my site for more).
Because it's possible gravity might spin in only one direction being attractive, as with the Japanese experiments, when the gyroscopes are spinning with counterclockwise or clockwise rotation one isn't anti-gravity if it's hugely faster, with both spins positive and one just somewhat reduced over the other.
The Main Problem about Lasage Gravity And Possible Solutions
The problem Feynmann noted about the Earth gaining two masses per second by the particle method of gravity (Lesage Gravity) is solved in my idea, Modified La Sage Gravity MLSG, by the spin at nearer radius. As I say on my synopsis page link above left, the EPR type connection of all quanta would be like a rope that any vibration of the heavy quanta of the rope unifies to on the outside by the inflow of the LEH or any vibration would send the bunching up wave between the quanta increasing the tension and reducing distance between them and this would induce more of the Low Energy Higgs' (LEH) in from the outside and repeat the loop causing the acceleration. The outer low energy particles would cause the scintillation of the heavy quanta on the outside, and in order for the Earth not to gain any mass (as Einstein thought old electrons may weigh more and Einstein and experiment don't always agree!) the low energy Higgs' might circulate in loops, and this would seem to need spin, so at any rate at a near radius I believe even gravity is about spin to power the outside spin by union even if up and down spin are common for heavy quanta inside.
Mirsky et al note how some have asked if there are particles as Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein considered, it would seem there would be heating by friction of masses moving through the field.
If the Higgs' mediate mass in the outside of the heavy quanta this isn't disproof of the Higgs', rather it would seem to be a contradiction otherwise unresolved and need resolution perhaps by physics like Line Removal. LR is also known in other physics like paramagnetism and "invisibility cloaks" inventors have devised.
The LEH would have friction of the spinning quanta at "medium radii" but the entropy of friction is overpowered by the internal spin winding up the quanta.
This is to say there is more attraction holding the quanta together than reradiance of the quanta as Low Energy Higgs'.
To Mirsky and others I would say that we could remember that one type of experiment alone is usually not the basis of good science. Einstein's formulation of the relativity of gravity to me seems incomplete. About GWD the mere evidence that something associated with gravity moves at the speed of light by LIGO to me is not overwhelming proof of Einstein's idea about gravity.
Other physicists such as Sir Arthur Eddington noted that Einstein's idea that gravity fits the speed of light doesn't arise naturally from his theory. I would hold that since the speed of light is not even derived at all from any other principle in special relativity where the speed of light is constant, with the changing speed of light measured for gravitational fields, it's going to be even tougher to derive it by axiom alone.
All the proofs supposedly of General "relativity" are about changes in acceleration of gravity, bending of starlight frame dragging, change of mercury, etc. These are about changes in the speed of acceleration, not uniform gravitational fields, there are no uniform gravitational fields so all masses and quanta around us have a field of changing gravity, not Einstein's theory of relativistic basis where different masses fall at the same rate.
By Einstein's measure, The motion of the field upward to somehow meet the masses fall is to be the same speed as if the Earth was rushing up as if powered by huge rockets at 32 feet per second in equivalent motion. To me this doesn't sound like a logical conclusion because if we all reach the speed of light with a comfortable acceleration of 32 ft/ second in less than a year, there would also be the problem of huge mass augment as we accelerate up!
Or just that with the equivalent motion of the universe according to Einstein and by the Earth spinning around, to say the universe spins, not the Earth, means huge centrifugal force for the universe spinning hugely faster than light, a contradiction of relativity by relativity!
And I would also reply that an entire generation of mathematical physicists, including Maxwell himself who Einstein admired the most, devoted themselves to the waves of light including all the experiments that show that the waves are not absent, an event which is directly opposite Einstein's idea that in special relativity in order for light to have a constant speed it must be a particle and thus uninfluenced from radiance to the sensor.
Another truth is that above all else, no matter what, the speed of light is the foundation of special relativity itself. To me, like Telsa because of the non 0 permeability of the low energy field to light, I believe this seems to imply superluminal effects around the light with the waves.
The speed of light is an assumption, as axioms often are! And this seems simple. If it's true that this can be so, not by assuming what you're trying to prove, that the speed of light is given but rather by a simple phase change so that the dark matter and dark energy flux is in the gaps between the lines of the inertial field (the same as classical electromagnetic field lines) this idea could be improved by way of Line Removal and a simple change of phase.
Einstein didn't believe that faster than light was impossible. He believed that if something was always faster than light it could continue being faster than light so the speed of light barrier was more like a sheet that could be influenced by events on the other side than a wall. This relates to my idea about how the electron may be spinning faster than light inside. In order for energy to be conserved there would still be a connection so that the spin doesn't become infinite and also that it can connect to maintain external tension of the field, it being a source of gravity and electromagnetism.
As I say here there is the problem about finding where the center of mass of two spinning bound bodies would be and might involve the buildup of the field and since this is not found I think this might be solved by the LEH inside the Radius Of Action converting to waves externally that define the com by mere change of phase of the waves at the com.
The energy of the friction of the LEH for spinning masses still would have to go somewhere and this would be connected and overflow in and out as loops to the com and back around. This overflow might be why Einstein's idea that old electrons don't weigh the same as new electrons is wrong, like a cup by way of Line Removal that fills up at super high speed with the field as it flows past when the electron is first created and then can hold no more. There is an adjustment here to the gravity but I think it might be much faster than light.
This is testable if electrons change their mass when they're created by the slow speed of light as they absorb the energy as they fill up or by the field flowing through them as Einstein thought but at much higher speed.
The waves might be set at each quanta so that the particles radiate out and in mostly in loops created in pressure by the waves on the outside. The negative (attractive) entropy inside the heavy quanta would have the phase change to keep the quanta spinning and the LEH on the outside have friction but not enough to reverse this negative entropy even with friction. This is how the tension on the field would be maintained by the common source of the heavy quanta both for gravity and the light also. Einstein has no cause because he doesn't even admit there is a field to be maintained. The cog and com of a mass are often at different points and they would be the same if gravity and inertia were the same.
Gravity outside for massive bodies has more waves and while some particles are needed outside to stabilize the field for energy conservation, particles are unneeded for the gravity of the Earth as Feynmann believed if in GWD they're mostly inside the ROA of the heavy quanta. Astronomers have evidence that gravity is seen to interact with itself a bit and this would be the degree the LEH are needed to stabilize the field over distance like gyroscopes.
When they asked Emmy Noether the great mathematician why gravity didn't become infinite, she replied it becomes finite if you choose a large enough area.
This seems to me like saying that larger areas of mass create less gravity and they actually cause more.
Jupiter's mass has more gravity and this tends to attract more mass.
One problem I considered about the faster than light spin inside the heavy quanta that might wind up the field and keep them spinning indefinitely is about this idea of Noether's.
What's to keep masses from becoming infinite as in renormalization? Dirac was asking this question, and Einstein asked the related question of "why does the electron have the mass and charge it does?"
I tend to reframe this question by asking if renormalization involves two different infinities one for the in waves and one for the out waves of the electron, why there seems to be nothing to keep one of the Infinities from winning out over the other. Since special relativity is so much involved with energy conservation as with the question they asked Noether, this is a related question to the more rapid FTL spin of the inside of an electron.
If by line removal it's partially removed from the external field by the phase change, there would seem to be no limit to more and more spin of the electron inside just as Noether considered the same possibility essentially for gravity.
In other words if the universe is winding down by entropy and something must be winding it up like gravity or this change of phase inside the heavy quanta, what's to keep it from adding more and more acceleration of its own if it's got the phase change by Line Removal? By this it would seem to be separate, and it may seem to have its own sort of power source.
I don't agree with Noether's idea, and Einstein's and Fermi's solutions aren't available at the moment!
It's inconceivable to have a field without both centrifugal and centripetal force so I believe that there are the small waves and particles that makeup the substructure of the quanta at super-high speeds and low energy like the LEH and in order to make it so that the field changes in the relationship between these waves and particles I invoke another use of another of Wilczic's ideas he used to win the Nobel prize by assuming that the fractional charges in QCD are with overlapping bosons and fermions with the right ratio to cause the amount of traction and spin that we see experimentally for the fractional charges with the changes in radius to match the experiment.
(Wolf believes, the infinity of the charge inside electron is an artifact merely of the calculation but I disagree here because deep inelastic scattering experiments also show a large amount of energy inside the electron and this of course wouldn't fit with relativity if inside the electron has faster than light spin than Einstein believed as I say. So far it's the second most well proven idea in physics
numerically and so I would hardly call this an artifact..
(after the physics called general relativity which I think are only general, but not relativity.. the predictions like about changes in the bending of starlight are correct, but that light doesn't change speed in the gravitational field is incorrect and doesn't fit relativity because this measures a change in the rate of fall of the light while the relativistic basis Einstein hoped to use for gravity was based on constant rates of fall. The predictions are correct but they can't be based on the equivalent relative motion upward as the masses fall down at the same rate. It's arbitrary to say masses have to fall at the same rate because if we use the same force applied to two different masses launched upward the masses go to different heights and fall downward at a different speed. The moon falls at a different rate around the Earth than the Earth around the moon and this isn't what relativity predicts!)
Instead I invoke my use of Wilczek's idea to give a continually gradiating field as for gravity and it doesn't become infinite because it's a related field and connected to the ones outside the heavy quanta that obey energy conservation. The small overlapping waves with the LEH are with the extra degree of freedom that is sort of a takeoff of energy conservation that's still bound by it and this is also the extra tensor of gravity that relativity doesn't describe.
Like in the stock market where some things overbought are undersold it runs out of buyers and so while more energy is used out to wind up the fields and violate energy conservation somewhat, the overall result is that there's no more extra energy than the amount measured even though it's more than relativity would tell us is there..
This would seem to solve the problem about why gravity doesn't become infinite Noether's method doesn't solve.
The Snapback And the Tension of Light
If you have 3 common masses on a T shaped boom, the center of mass or gravity is offset in the direction of more mass by the tension in the field. As Maxwell believed there is tension, even so it was realized before relativity there would still be the problem that if light has the tension to propagate, it has huge snapback because light is fast, and huge tension of the dense field wouldn't allow the planets to move by without any sign of slowing. This is a related problem about friction of the LEH both about plowing through the LEH in uniform motion and what keeps the quanta spinning.
You see diagrams of how the Higgs' would give mass to the heavy quanta. They bunch around the quanta..the more Higgs' the more mass there is but they need waves to hold them to the quanta and a way to not have large friction immediately stop the spin of the heavy quanta by friction.
If you have an electron and the positive charge and the distinction between them (one has more mass and less energy and vice versa and not the equivalence of their mass and energy as in relativity) this creates the snapback of the light by the force between the electrons and positive charges. I believe this could be achieved by first of all each quanta having a special "constellation" of the LEH low energy Higgs particles, this will be inside the Radius Of Action and it controls the waves on the outside. But there are few Low Energy Higgs' outside the radius of action even while they encode and stabilize the waves.
The waves themselves may be much faster than light and they may more than make up for their super low energy by being much higher speed. When they reach the light as waves however they reach its radius of action and due to the large energy contained in its high speed of motion it causes the large snapback of the light even if it's short radius. We can imagine these waves going through something dense like a planet or a star and like the neutrino not interacting with a single atom and yet still entangled with just that light on the other side.
The planets would plow through these waves without much interaction because of Line Removal in the invisibility cloak and yet just that quantum of light knows the electric charges on both sides. So the dark matter and dark energy wouldn't interact with anything quantum except by entanglement mostly. The light is resonating with the two electric charges on both sides by way of the special code of the LEH each quantum has.
The electrons and the light resonate like two fans..one is spinning with the other except unlike the fans they don't slow down or wear out because of the internal gyroscopic separation of the field inside the electric charges by line removal and the phase change to faster than light.. we might say they might be like two tiffany fans because they have this special resonance of only those fans. The spin down always finds spin up when changed and this definite resonance would be why the planets could plow through the waves the quanta are connected up by without much interacting even while the waves cause light's
super high snapback speed.
So dark energy and dark matter are difficult to find essentially because of the way that entanglement causes attractive force only for masses like these quanta in the cosmos.
1/5 of the sun's energy output is actually neutrinos and yet the planets move through them with no appreciable resistance either. Van Flandern held that the gravitons he believed in moved through common masses without much interaction because there were small holes in them much as the neutrino might.
As they say however one problem with particles is that they would cause heating of mass and so common mass around us might show heating that hasn't been found. Instead of the holes I believe that line removal combined with a much faster ability to change phase of the waves may give them their super permeability without friction problems. It's been noted that matter would have to be hugely permeable to the waves or the particles of Lesage gravity. But there are good reasons to believe that dark matter and dark energy exist and if they are of this form the permeability might be solved by their much more pure wavelike nature combined with their super high speed.
The idea of these low energy waves under the influence of the LEH quanta inside the ROA might in essence give us the equivalent of the particles without the friction and resistance of motion of bodies through them and also problems like why the quanta don't stop spinning by the LEH.
The light has the huge snapback, it's indeed entangled but externally all we find or may find are the dark energy and dark matter waves which may be much faster than light.
This would also explain why the dark energy and dark matter have been so difficult to find directly because we're measuring quanta with quanta and Maxwell believed that the energy field can't be particulate because it would be like a gas and we can weigh it. In essence my scenario would be a sort of quantum leap to waves that is another sort of reasoning that isn't like as much the circular reasoning of relativity.
Because there's no been direct evidence of faster than light motion this doesn't mean that it's not possible or at least I think this is possibly how dark energy and dark matter might involve the resilience of the medium that Maxwell and Tesla and others believed in.
About the Infinities of Events Like the Lamb Shift of Hydrogen.
Charles Lamb won the Nobel Prize in the 1950s by use of his idea that the low energy virtual quanta that like with Feynman diagrams can have self reinforcement loops as observed experimentally with the shift of hydrogen.
This lead many to ask what keeps the low energy field from having these same kind of loops and when you go to shorter and shorter radius or distances to measure the field you go to infinity of mass by the Uncertainty Principle and where is this infinite mass?
. I think of what Einstein thought of as space and time as really being the interaction of the quanta with the dark matter and dark energy fields.
And if you have the electrons only interacting with that light it's entangled with by a special resonance and it's balanced on the other side by the phase change of the faster than light motion inside the electron to stabilize it like a gyroscope.
So because of the phase change and lack of interaction of the dark energy and dark matter waves and if they are special to the code of that particular electron proton and light or etc they also don't interact with any quanta other than the ones that are entangled, and while other people originally thought there was no field there anyway after relativity became well known it seems the field is there just that it's really highly inert to interacting with heavy quanta.
So while it seems that there's nothing there in most of the mechanical or electromagnetic senses even while the light goes on with the huge snapback, Newton with his belief that mass has tension, Maxwell, Tesla, Van Flandern and an entire generation of mathematical physicists and myself may have a more useful idea than Einstein had even while his ideas were indeed great.. and because of the phase change Line Removal and the special resonance of just the entangled quanta there's no huge density of the field either.
Why doesn't the light fizzle out with distance?
This is one of the problems relativity supposedly solved. Light has infinite range because there's no medium like with the sound waves where they lose energy with distance by friction with the air.
The dark matter and dark energy as I and Tesla believed in flowing between the classic quantum field lines would be a super fluid mostly and so they don't have as much friction. And also because light is a quanta there's more holding it together than radiating out.
The quanta of light have more holding them together than radiating out so while they're under the quantum level the dark matter and dark energy is at a different level of energy and it's still interacting with the light as I'll say below in the experiments that have been done about negative probability where the light seems to be influenced before it reaches the target in laboratory experiments.
Boat & Stream, A HYDRODYNAMIC METHOD OF EXPLAINING EINSTEIN'S IDEA ABOUT THE UNION OF INERTIA AND GRAVITY
Gravity and inertia may be explained by what I call the Boat in the Stream method. Centrifugal force radiates out by random motion and as I say on my synopsis, this might be explained by the radiance of the LEH since particles have sides. This would be what LIGO may have found. Mach like Einstein held that the speed of light, by being a particle unchanged from radiance to the sensor was constant, and that gravity was essentially the same as inertia. Even so the speed of light waves or waves of the LEH while essential to relativity wouldn't be the gravity waves, which, being much lighter may be much faster than light by my use of Maxwell's idea. The particles radiate out yet gravity radiates in and this is why waves may also be needed, not the speed of light inertial events about LIGO. (As I say the inertial lines radiate out and the gravity may follow them back in but they're fundamentally distinct or distinct enough to need other physics I think to describe gravity. To say that inertia is the same as gravity I think can't be made precise enough to predict that gravity is the same speed as inertia because they're only loosely connected).
The Boat in the Stream is about the LEH particles.. The particles would cause centrifugal force and inertia by radiation pressure. And since gravity and inertia can be loosely unified not exactly as in relativity the particles could also be about gravity.. The particles also cause gravity by flowing with masses like the boat yet when you shake the mass even if in fall it exerts pressure to the sides (another example of the distinctions between inertia and gravity) or just moving around the room yet not if the mass isn't in motion around as it falls. The change as you fall would be like particles with sides as you fall in the flow, like a boat in the river (actually a Sieve in The River since it doesn't shield).When you're at rest on the surface of the Earth the "boat" is at anchor and the LEH exert force like particles as they flow past you. All this seems to fit inertia and gravity well with a quantum like the LEH.
The particles of Modified La Sage Gravity MLSG would be only at a near outside radius of the ROA Radius of Action. Even while at low energy and high speed the waves between the heavy quanta would have almost 0 entropy and while the planets would move through the waves, the wave connection is fundamental to conservation of momentum of the fields yet they allow easy motion of masses like the planets without the resistance in constant motion even while they conserve energy. The waves carry the same energy in this model as the LEH which would act by proxy to the waves but the waves are of much higher speed yet also with much reduced friction. Evidence for the particles is much easier to find since the waves are superfluid but the waves are used to connect up and this would save energy conservation. At near radius of the light the low energy higher speed waves convert to LEH and cause the large snapback.
In my interpretation of Einstein's high speed inertial elevator the information about the momentum of the field is stored not absent, so the moment the rocket motors are turned on they have something to press against and the force is felt by way of pressure against Maxwell's resilient medium.
In my idea the waves allow easy travel of the heavier quanta and are maintained in resonance by the particles around the ROA and they are only evident in acceleration because as in uniform motion by Maxwell's method the plus and minus charges that give the speed of light are in balance like the weight and counterweight of an elevator. So the Earth doesn't put on weight at the gym or a mass in motion doesn't have friction due to the overall negative entropy of the particles and waves if there needs to be more keeping the quanta spinning and this is why the Earth doesn't have the large mass augment by particle implosion Feynmann believed was needed to fit LaSage gravity.
In my belief the waves would flow in and out and a certain small percentage would interact with the mass causing gravity even while being difficult to detect as dark matter, but the particles would actually exert the force on the side of each heavy quanta and like the light with the electrons for the snapback by Maxwell's method they only exist within the ROA by way of the LEH. The snapback will give them larger mass but they stay inside the ROA.
As I say, Line Removal may be created by gravity in supermassive fields so all the heavy quanta around us are manufactured, not created as Maxwell noted by way of common laws of physics we see around us. LR means all gravitating masses will have the same spin for that radius and for any mass in the universe the attraction would be about how one side of the spin compares the other, giving the acceleration of mass for that quanta.
EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES AND SPIN
The galaxies are all spinning faster than they should by way of the centrifugal force and, even more audacious, they spin as solid bodies. This has been well known. I've had two possible solutions. In the milky way there are estimated to be a billion or more black holes so my idea before was that the black holes lined up more pole to pole in the dust lanes inside each of the spiral arms of the milky way as it evolved, like other galaxies line up with larger fields of the cosmic filaments. With time there would be fewer and fewer spiral arms as it evolved by the fusion of more black holes in multiples of two for the spiral arms since the line of force through the middle usually would balance on the other side.
This might also explain the giant dim galaxies with much wider distance between the spiral arms by the centrifugal force of the black holes in the tube of each spiral arm setting them more offset. This otherwise has been found to have no explanation by usual ways used to solve the observed evolution of galaxies.
A Galaxy would evolve and the spiral arms would unify, since the barred spirals with the later phase of the evolution of the Galaxy would be a conglomeration of black holes down the line on both sides.
Barred spirals seem to be spewing out mass and energy at the end of each tube and the flow of the sigmoid curve always follows not leads the motion of the spinning galaxy.
This would seem to imply that if the black holes are in the spiral arms that they are more electromagnetic generators than they are about gravity or more particularly the electromagnetic forces (radiant outward jet flow forces) may be even stronger than the gravity long range.
Black holes are well known to be prodigious electromagnetic field sources so my belief is the central large black hole is pumping out the mass and energy and then those black holes in the tube of each line of the outward flow also are lined up and serve as accelerators of this flow outward.
The observed flow could be used to prove or disprove if the black holes have much to do with the spiral arms before they become more advanced in age as the Galaxy evolves.
The idea of the tubes of black holes in the spiral arms also is seen in how galaxies align their jets with the cosmic filaments of dark matter. Even so the tubes of black holes don't seem to fit elliptical galaxies, large rounder galaxies like the sombrero galaxy which have no visible spiral arms instead it has a much rounder aura of lighter gas and stars. To me it seemed the black holes would align up and this wouldn't fit a round mass this way (other than if by a constant force of outward radiance causing the round geometry but this seems a bit improbable. Spin creates flatness since gravity and centrifugal force aren't the same and the black holes would align in that flat disk in the arms by simple evolution and by its simplicity be common to all the galaxies but if exceptions like the elliptical events exist they might have to somehow be amended to fit this method like by radiant alignment of the black holes from an inside strong radiant source so that it still spins as a solid body, the solid body being itself being derived from the strongly electromagnetic power of black holes at long distances balanced by their strong gravity nearer in.) More recently I've seen evidence that even elliptical galaxies have jets when you look at them in another wavelength of the radiation.
Or if exceptions that don't fit the black hole arm method are observed, it might have to be discarded.
So my alternate idea as on this page is that all galaxies, spirals and round also would have stronger faster than light flow of inertial waves in and this induces the outflow of the more inertial particles out.. and the gravity waves out which would be made stronger would also be balanced by this stronger centrifugal force, causing the mass to move as a solid body. This seems like a simpler idea as Tesla believed that gravity is more centered than it should be by relativity with less displacement not more if gravity moves at the slower speed of c and is disconnected and uninfluenced from source to the other mass. Einstein so often held that the speed of light is constant because light is a particle uninfluenced from source to observer, yet gravity changes speed as it moves and is continuous with change, so I believe it can't be a particle like this and this is why the displacement of gravity for all the galaxies would be stronger than relativity allows and the induced stronger centrifugal force to also make the galaxies move as a solid mass because it's inconceivable that there could be radiance out without reradiance or centrifugal force and if by the above there would be a good reason to believe in particles and waves for both gravity and inertia, and changing one would change the other for the galaxies.
One idea here is that the center of the galaxy since it's moving as a solid body is actually moving slower because it has less distance to travel around and so it has less centrifugal force and thus less radial lines of centrifugal force out to make it spiral a bit more near the center than it would even while the galaxy is moving as a solid body and this spiral is what we might expect to see even if the galaxy is rotating more as a solid body.
So while all galaxies move as a solid body by way of stronger centrifugal force, the spiral also has a cause.
Even so this would only be a loose association about gravity and inertia or centrifugal force unlike GR, and while an ultracentrifuge with millions of g's obviously doesn't have huge gravity around it sending us sailing off by the equivalence principle and relativity, I believe like the spinning cosmic masses, that a spinning centrifuge might have a bit more gravity. This is nowhere near what relativity would predict and neither are the spinning cosmic masses lined up with Einstein's method. Even so it might fit a loose association between inertia and gravity. The great distinction however would be the faster than light speed of gravity and its tendency to be non relative. The Earth is more at rest in GWD than the moon because its greater gravity makes it more valid and more privileged than the moon. The Earth is a more valid frame than the moon because it has more mass, and mass is the currency of the cosmos, not so much mass and energy both as in Relativity or especially with gravity.
As I say I believe that the galaxies tell us that gravity and inertia are not equivalent, so the disc of the Milky Way which would be under the influence of Einstein's idea of dark energy or inertia, is only a thousand light years thick and flat while the the gravity of the halo of dark matter is 100,000 years around.
I think of the lines of centrifugal force as radiating outward more and more in a radial way with high energy.
The lines of the virtual electromagnetic (or relativistic inertial) field would actually be moving inward and the particles of inertia like centrifugal force would be induced outward where the radius of action of each inertial particle converts and exerts the centrifugal force.
Since inertia and gravity are not really equivalent, the inertial force is hugely stronger than the gravity and so it becomes more quantized and polarized.
If we think of the cosmic acceleration outward that Einstein might have imagined, if it's indeed caused by inertia and inertia is so much stronger, once in a while the inward radiating inertial waves of dark energy would induce more of the particles outward to cause the cosmic expansion as they convert more from waves to particles than gravity might.
So inertia or centrifugal force might thus operate more by the more quantized nature of inertia.
This might fit with the measure of degree of cosmic expansion by dark energy.
It might seem to be caused by the huge magnetic fields between the galaxies but as I say because of the slow speed of light where you can't know what's before or after at a star like Alpha Centauri, the classical electromagnetic force between masses is much reduced by relativity and the "slow" speed of light over great distance because the light acts like a particle without connection and it would radiate outward like a gas.
The greater the distance between masses like the galaxies the less the connection by the light or the magnetic fields and so the small force of the low energy Higgs' could have more influence than the Hubble constant causing the cosmic acceleration.
ABOUT CPT VIOLATION AND THE MOTION OF GALAXIES
CPT violation which has been found in the weak force has been a conundrum and one of the unsolved mysteries of physics.
The weak force can't really be unified as well with the other forces if it's got the spin asymmetry more in one direction than the other in the metabolites as has been well known.
I consider this also to be a problem about relativity because of Einstein's belief that space and time are unified. You can't really unify them because of the slow speed of light between here and a nearby star like proxima centauri (or we hope another Earth like world or so!) the "slow" speed of light means you can't tell what's definitely before or after between here and that star for about 4 years. So you have separate times and also with this you have separate space because no force can connect them up with a strong connection if relativity is true. (Einstein says repeatedly that in special relativity light is a particle unchanged from emission to absorption and the speed is constant. Particles are discontinuous and so there is no force of gravity by this method to cause the force without the connection. This seems especially problematic for relativity because how does the Galaxy hold together by this method at only the speed of light if gravity is only moving at the speed of light..
If we can't even unify points of space and we can't unify times then we can't expect a unified space and time because, if you move backwards in space you will move backwards through time and this is not so.)
Spin would always reversible not like with the CPT violations of some types of radioactivity and if spin isn't reversible time is not reversible either as by relativity.
By relativity CPT violations should not exist.
My belief is that because they do, they may not just hold for the weak force but they may hold for any spinning body to some degree.
But instead of it being caused by the electric or magnetic field for electric charges, I believe CPT violation may be more fundamental. Mass may be spinning energy by GWD which relatively doesn't explain about rest mass (if it's not faster than light then the speed of light sets all the rest masses at one or minus one with all the quanta spinning at integer or half integer spin, about the speed of light with the unifying electric charges and the constant speed of light, instead there's a rainbow of masses for the quanta, this is easily explained by the dark matter wave component of each heavy quantum spinning at different speeds and all of them faster than light).
If mass is spinning energy, CPT violation, if it's about spin itself which is something more fundamental, may be more general and may have to do with the matter waves of QED like for the spin of charged particles.
If these matter waves are about dark matter and dark energy (and the same centripetal and centrifugal force) and they are spinning at much faster than light as with the Japanese physicists and the spinning gyroscope with weight somewhat changed in one direction than the other, so too I believe that there may be a slight violation of CPT with the spins of electric charges and also for bodies like a gyro spinning in more common events around us, except with much lesser degree than for the weak force but with the much higher speed dark matter and dark energy fields as necessary to maintain the asymmetry of time and space and thus of mass and energy or mass and inertia that relatively tells us otherwise must be true.
Van Flandern wondered how the particles of the LaSage method could be causing both centrifugal force and gravity and yet we can't find them directly. He invoked small holes in the field like for the neutrinos so it goes through a lot of matter before it interacts. My solution is about Line Removal as I say, but also I believe that dark matter and dark energy may actually move in the spaces or tubes between the electromagnetic field lines. This would solve an important problem about the field lines..
why don't they attract each other or repel or kink up.
To me this seems to be related to the problem of why the quanta go on spinning and never stop. The dark matter and dark energy may have a FTL change of phase and so they're much tougher to find than the heavy quanta because they're super high speed and mostly wavelike but the inertial lines seem continuous if measured by the slow speed of light outside like for electromagnetic fields as in special relativity.
This would be important because they would be higher energy (if the constant for centrifugal force is so much stronger than for gravity and the effects of special relativity are easily measured in quantum mechanics, while gravity is much tougher to measure to find) and they would lay down tracks for the gravity waves to radiate out between the tubes which would induce the gravity waves out and induce in the gravity particles in. I think what LIGO has found is only the speed of the inertial particles radiating out which will fit the speed of light of relativity but not the evidence that gravity is much much lighter than inertia and that it radiates in not out. In my belief the speed of gravity is much much higher than the speed of light to hold the galaxies together and the real speed of gravity may await future telescopes of lower energy and higher resolution than LIGO.
The problem this idea solves would be about why particles go on spinning. The dark matter and dark energy would be sort of like a sort of cosmic oil that keeps all the planets moving around and the particles spinning without much friction so it's a well-oiled cosmos and perhaps more like physics of the clockwork cosmos of the 1700s...
The particles need to be able to have tension to keep spinning by the phase change inside the quanta but they also have to have some kind of "oil" to continue to spin.
Low energy particles and waves are needed in my opinion because The field needs both to be able to compute and store the results of the computations for energy conservation to always balance... More about CPT violation below...
Masses Fall at Different Rates in a non-relative way. How The different rate of fall of the Earth and the Moon relate to the way that the galaxies are all Rotating faster than they should; Creation Of Dark Matter.
General Relativity has two general predictions. One is that mass falls at a different rate like the the shift of the parihelion of mercury, and the other evidence like frame dragging.
While Einstein also turns around and makes the opposite prediction that different masses fall at the same rate, I would think that one of the other are these two is true and while the shift of the perihelion of mercury is good evidence but it's not based on relativity.
As I hold that gravity is not relativistic since different masses like the moon and the Earth fall at different rates unlike the equivalent motion upward and downward of the field that Einstein invokes to make it so that gravity is the same for all masses.
Here Einstein says that we're accelerating upward in equivalent motion and "accelerating through time". Yet with a comfortable acceleration of thirty two feet per second we would be at the speed of light in less than a year and so on.
If one or the other is true or not that different masses fall at the same rate or different rates, I would hold they don't fall at the same rate.
This is expressed in how fast the galaxies are spinning as they spin much faster than they should.
A new theory says dark matter creates more dark matter out of usual mass.
As I say I think of the galaxies as having radial lines of the lower energy radiant electro magnetic field with lines of the inertia that the gravity waves then follow outward by induction. But the spaces between the lines for inertia are getting wider and wider and so the gravity waves can add extra acceleration more than by relativity or classic mechanics.
So the dark matter really can create more dark matter out of itself. If we try to bring it down to the solar system we might say that all those changes in the rate of fall in general relativity like the shift of the perhelion of mercury are evidence for this effect on a smaller scale.
And as I say the evidence for the change of the rate of fall contradicts Einstein's other idea that all mass is the same, as far as by gravity.
Therefore the changes of rate of fall of what's called "Relativity" of gravity would also be changes in the rate of creation of dark matter itself as seen in the changes of the rate of fall of the galaxies.
So too the moon falls around the earth in a different rate than the Earth around the moon in a non-relative way, and if extra dark matter might be being created to some extent we would expect there to be slight changes in the rate of fall of masses.
We lift the two masses with a different amount of force to the height where they supposedly fall the same rate, even while the moon falls a different rate around the Earth, which is not what relativity tells us about how Einstein believed mass is simple about gravity and how gravity treats all mass the same.
This way of hopefuly matching up the galaxys rate of fall to the mass around us would be small or would already have been found. And when you take two small masses and drop them with different weight Einstein's idea may seem to fit pretty well, but here too a super small amount of extra dark matter may be being created. And this might be changed by the degree the Galaxys are spinning at a different rate except much scaled down because the space between the low energy lines of the field are without so much extra distance between them and stronger force of the gravity and stronger centrifugal force of the more cosmic events of the galaxies to multiply up the field which otherwise is more common.
One way I think we might multiply up this effect is to take two different masses and launch them with the same force so they rise to different heights and then measure their changes in the rate of fall which would perhaps be multiplied up compared to the like rate of fall of masses as in what has actually been considered to be evidence for the relativity of gravity.
If gravity and inertia were completely equal by relativity no matter how much you increase the potential energy you would increase the inertia that much also and if you exert the same force on two different masses they would move at the same speed. Because they have a different amount of dark matter halo around each when the force is applied to different masses they move at different rates.
This is in accord with f= ma not E mc2 which would not be as general for gravity as Einstein thought because you can have any ratio at all of dark matter to conventional matter and so the moon with the lower energy dark matter halo falls in a different rate around the Earth then the Earth around the moon.
One problem here might be about what keeps the creation of dark matter from creating more dark matter and accelerating to infinity.
Unlike Noether's answer when asked this, as with Wilczek's method of explaining why the strong force in QCD actually gets less strong with the reduced radius, I think there may be small overlapping gravitational and inertial waves and particles and they essentially overlap each other enough to cause something like a change in energy conservation, yet as the radius changes they don't go to infinity because of this shielding effect.
Noether's reply was that if you have a large enough area the gravity becomes finite.
My belief instead is that if you have a small enough area, Line Removal combined with overlapping of the small waves and particles by Wilczec's method prevents the infinities for the gravitational component of the field. If by Noether's method you pick a larger and larger area it's going to have more mass on the average and this would increase to infinity instead of decrease.
Even so the idea in classical physics that the greater radius has more and more potential energy would lead to infinities with enough distance. So if a short enough radius is reached, Gravity becomes finite and also with enough distance.
This is my belief, if gravity is to have the extra tensor not caused by relativity you need a way to limit it from becoming infinite both internally and externally as by Noether's Method.
This seems like the question of why the planets as with Bode's law increase in distance with a regular rate from the Sun like the planet systems of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn. There's increasing distance of each orbital radius as well as decreasing mass density with increasing mass and increasing radius up to a point and then it starts to decrease.
This would be because gravity is not simple and what's called gravity is actually a combination of inertia and gravity so that the stickiness of the field of inertia causes the notches that the smoothness of the gravity couldn't maintain.
In the gravitational field, mass has a certain distance that it can fall with increasing radius but beyond that on the average the internal random motion of atoms or molecules makes mass expand outward like a gas so because of inertia potential energy doesn't increase to infinity, and the planets don't increase to infinite mass.
CPT Spin Parity Time violation may be why observations show by count the galaxies spin more in one direction than the other in a ratio of four to one as has been seen by cosmic assays based on the WMAP survey.
I think most of this may be caused by the huge cosmic magnetic fields that may be causing most of the cosmic acceleration.
Even so here I invoke the possibility that the CPT may not only be involved for the magnetic field itself as I say above but also for a higher energy version of the Japanese physicist's experiment with the gyroscopes.
That is, if a Galaxy spinning one direction weighs a certain different amount from than the other direction then it's going to move outward with the cause of acceleration but at a different speed in outward cosmic radiation also according to its mass and also according to this about the magnetic field.
Also the Milky Way seems to have its spin axis anomalously almost completely aligned with the cosmic outward expansion.
I think there might be a weighted gravitational version for the galaxies as with the Japanese physicists experiment and these different weights will give the results when you combine together to predict the actual speed of the galaxy moving outward and also which direction it will spin. This wouldn't be a simple cosmic acceleration event as Einstein thought about his idea of the low energy radiant electromagnetic field and it may use old-fashioned magnetic fields but I think there may be a place here for gravity as well as the CPT violation for the centrifugal force.
If gravity is indeed faster than light then we could say that it's always going to outdistance the short range fields like the strong force or electromagnetism with their radiance.
If gravity were not faster than light the light would be able to escape the cosmos and this would violate energy conservation.
Actually I think it's possible that if some of the light could escape the cosmos this would lighten up the cosmos and so it would have less mass attracting and this would boost the motion outward with cosmic acceleration, actually powered by the huge magnetic fields combined with the reduction of mass. That the cosmos might be violating energy conservation is not impossible like about the Big Bang.
Even so I tend to favor energy conservation as the foundation of cosmology, with a circulating vortex cosmos.
In this view the area of the cosmos we happen to be in would be one of the cosmic jets like the jets of galaxies but on a huge scale and this would circulate the fields indefinitely like for other bodies like the electric and magnetic fields of the Earth with energy being neither created or destroyed. So I don't favor the possibility that the universe is fizzling out by slow gravity with the light radiating out and reducing the cosmic mass, to me faster than light gravity seems best. (That we're here in our area of the cosmos at one of the cosmic jets with the universe not yet showing signs of it in observations doesn't mean it never will... To me it seems it's possible the cosmos might be so huge it seems isotropic without improved sensors yet. While Tegmark and others have noted that the large round circle found in the Wmap images might be evidence that our cosmos has bumped into another and I note that this might be evidence just that we're at the center of one of the two cosmic jets. I wasn't able to refind this evidence and this would not yet be enough to base the vortex jet cosmology idea on, even so I think it's possible. As far as it goes even this far however I favor it over a Big Bang cosmology because it has the major advantage of not violating energy conservation. It also would seem superior to multiple universes because it's based on energy conservation and it would explain the polarization of the galaxies as well as the expansion of the cosmos observed and the round circle. The idea of more than one universe by Tegmark doesn't explain anything we already don't know, and I don't think it makes any predictions we can measure.
It's been noted about the anthropic principle that if we change all the constants together then there's a new balancing point where the computations can take place for life. For this reason and that the anthropic principle would be unparalleled in the history of science with so much evidence in favor of a non geocentric cosmos like special relativity and also that we're not special in our place in the universe as far as science has said, I don't believe much in the anthropic principle or more than one universe yet. Right now at any rate there is one thing that might fit Tegmark's idea of multi-universes about the giant circle found by the Wmap survey, a circulating jet cosmology fits energy conservation... expansion in general, would explain the polarization and acceleration of the galaxies and one of the predictions of the idea of cosmic jet cosmology might be that if the universe is a giant circulating body like a Galaxy it might also have a cosmic spinning belt like the tropical zone one of the Earth and with the two jets at the North and South Pole and we might see this with more advanced observatories.)
I was always of the belief that if the universe was infinite in extent it would have infinite gravity and we couldn't be here. Just as with the Earth, which has more gravity holding it together than radiating out, it's simple to see that the cosmos may obey energy conservation which is more well-proven than Big bang cosmology.
If gravity was at the mere speed of light, then as with the distance problem about the speed of light limit for distant masses where you can't know what's before or after, like for the nearest star where it takes 4 years to find out what's before or after by relativity, so too the universe would be fizzling out, so without GWD, energy conservation would be disproven and mass energy would be being destroyed by being removed from the universe.
SPIN OF LARGER MASSES AND HOW THE COG MIGHT BE OF VALUE TO LASAGE GRAVITY
Heavy quanta are the fundamental unit of gravity in my description of the dynamics by way of Line Removal and common source of origin in the singularity, because the hadrons and leptons are always sources of gravity. Even so by resonance, larger masses have a net external spin and between two bodies like the three masses on the t shaped beam, the stretch of this vortex has resilience about gravity even if mostly made of the inertial waves. So the vortex for the Earth moon cog is spinning and the Earth moon system seen by other masses acts the same to it as if with quanta of the right mass and distance. So masses like the quanta attract by their cog to larger and larger systems like moons and stars by the common code and cause of this method. If by General Relativity all masses would unify and fall in by the rubber sheet Einstein uses, gravity wouldn't be stronger at the com if there is nothing there. I propose instead that the com is blueshifted because gravity unifies masses so instead of the redshift, here we might find gravity blueshifted in it's own as yet unseen wavelength, the wavelength being also unlike that of light which is used in Relativity to measure it by what I consider "received knowledge" with overlapping changes in wavelength and speed. If gravity has much different strength and acts unlike light, it has other causes and I think isn't measured by it (other than how it generally affects the quanta by the changes we can measure on the quanta by the slow speed of light and the received knowledge by relativity).
What holds the Earth to the rubber sheet? Nigel Calder in his book Einstein's Universe says that masses in orbit "lay down tracks" they follow as they accelerate around masses like the Earth.
Like Bode's law and the l5 Resonance of gravity To me this seems to be explained by the cohesive resonance of a much higher energy field than the gravity that Maxwell and many other physicists believed in before. Waves at this level of energy will be What LIGO has measured because this is evidence of the inertia that keeps the planets stable while the gravity being only a continuous acceleration with overlapping speeds and wavelengths would not allow.
To me this seems to be the same kind of problem that arose in the early finding about classical physics: the electron in its orbit about the atom would rapidly become unstable and so the idea of the atomic quantum orbitals was invoked.
And I think of the orbits of the masses like the moon or satellites around the Earth as having the same problem is gravity as simple as Einstein believed.
He said that all his castles in the air will fail including mass and motion without his idea of complete continuity of the field. Just as quantum waves and particles are at different energies, It seems logical to believe the planets are going around in notches, or resonances of the much higher energy field of inertia, and without this essential non-relativistic discontinuity of the field, the planets couldn't even continue in their motions through the heavens.
Einstein's rubber sheet method of describing gravity seems to be maintained by an
arbitrary vertical force so the motion of the Earth is just so to keep it from falling in. But gravity isn't vertical. It radiates between two bodies by the spherical law of radiant energy. The equation for gravity has two terms and centrifugal force has just one. Gravity isn't independent of the motion because the Earth is more at rest and more valid to be the source of the influence than the moon and so is the sun or the universe as the foundation of validity.
The LEH which had been predicted, has been tough to shake loose and find in the lab away from the quanta in experiments before it was actually proven. This might be because there are few external particles of this type (LEH Low Energy Higgs') and so while a larger more massive body can act like a large quanta, the "unit of gravity" is the quantum due to the cosmic importance of the balancing point of the ROA Radius Of Action, even while most of the LEH are around the ROA, and larger masses would have lower mass density than the heavy quanta. After all, gravity would be much stronger at near radius and have quantum numbers and shielding if it didn't have Line Removal.
The supposed empty space of Relativity of the T shaped boom with the masses is a function and behaving in a regular way and so Einstein's idea about the field being empty and unchanging would be wrong since it's needed for energy conservation and the snapback of the light to give the correct speed.
Even so I wondered how does the com of the spinning machine "know where to center?" And I considered the method above by particles radiating out for centrifugal force or in with gravity. Yet there seems to be no field change at the com for centrifugal force even as the field com acts as the unchanging cog to distant gravity sources.
If we have gravity particles, the Low Energy Higgs' exerting the inward force, radiating in to the cog like with the Earth they would reverse and change phase at the cog or com and become more wave like perhaps at this point so it can radiate in and out in loops so there is no overall change in mass if the field circulates.
I propose experiments like sending interferometers, atomic clocks, or heat sensors to the cog of the Sun Jupiter system which is outside the radius of the sun. I believe General Relativity fails to be the cause by way of gravity like a bent rubber sheet. (For example how can there be two different accelerations through the same point for like Jupiter and one for the Earth and the Sun. How can a rubber sheet be stretched two different ways with positive attraction on the outside at the same time yet be only positive with acceleration both in and out if gravity only attracts?)There is no explanation for the tension yet by LR and the evidence about the Kaluza Klein as above this is viable, and by GR the rubber sheet is large and that of the Earth is small. At the area of the cog there is a larger slope down to the sun so it wouldn't be stable there like the L5.
The idea of the rubber sheet seems like a top in the study of gyroscopes. It's not got equilibrium if you balance it on its tip without spinning yet if you balance it on the level upside down it won't fall over. A mass on the rubber sheet is not in equilibrium yet if we take the top and tie a line between it and another top and toss them in the air they fall neither out or in. This is more like a line of force as Newton believed, not a rubber sheet.
I want to note here as I say on my YouTube Video (under the search like "Relativity and the Right Hand Rule" Encyclopedia IST Video) a gyroscope obeying the right hand rule seems like the inflow and outflow of the field like a line to hold the gyroscope so it doesn't fall as you hold it sideways as it spins. The line in the pole of the gyroscope is linear, gravity is round. The more speed you add to a mass in the gravity the straighter the line. The right hand rule is the same as the displacement of light in SR yet gravity as in the ballistic arc is completely independant, so it's something else. The right hand rule would be derived from the displacement of light at high speed or energy so the spin lines up and has one out and one in pole giving the torque along the pole not sideways (with the force out from the disc of the gyroscope as we might otherwise expect buy the centrifugal force). Gravity isn't the same as inertia because the source of inertia of the gyroscope would be the same as the displacement of SR, by electromagnetic light but due to the lack of unity of gravity and inertia, the gyroscope has one out and one in flow at the poles. Even so the cosmic jets of massive bodies with strong gravity have two out jets not one like the gyroscope so gravity and inertia aren't the same as Einstein believed.
I believe the resonance of the L5 or ratios like Bode's law are evidence against GR because there is supposed to be nothing to resonate or stretch and no ratio of resiliency to non resiliency the resonance is made of.
Gravity seems far too weak to be fundamentally involved in creating inertia like Einstein believed. But inertia may influence gravity. If the inertial particles radiate out and the inertial waves radiate in at higher energy than the gravity waves and particles the inertial wave could compare itself to the LEH constant Higgs' field for general metrics and this higher energy inertial foundation of the geometry may then give a sort of guidance for the gravity to radiate inward.
WHY PI IS NON RANDOM
My mechanism for centrifugal force would use the inner roundness of the quantum or a wheel alike to compare to the flat Higgs' field of the LEH. This involves wheels of all types from quantum to cosmic. The constant Higgs' low energy field is always constant so it may fit most spinning masses. Even so pi has been found to not have complete random numbers and has antipattern events so a 1 is 60% reduced for the next prime or pi number. This would be caused by the edge of the Higgs' blocks being a bit jagged. Remember hi def radio?
So as a physicist in 1800 watching might have said no frame of motion can remove the round spin of the wave used in the bucket and the bucket knows if it's spinning or not. And so I think it might be possible that centrifugal force isn't 100% the same all the way around the spin of the mass in motion. If space isn't completely smooth as Einstein believed so much there might be slight instability around the spinning mass as it goes round for some areas of the arc.
The edge of the box is a line while around the rest it would be more uneven causing the area of something like the constructive or canceling interference of the electron orbits around the atom. It's at just this zone and so the basic comparison of pi might allow this if pi is from the Higgs' and light method. Research is being done with large interferometers to see if there are any basic changes in the field. Since a gyroscope only shows force with change in spin not linear momentum I believe we might find the change in the experiments if they are used with centrifugal force and might show up if we send the light through the inside of the gyro. The Higgs' field is constant and so no change is seen with uniform motion of the gyroscope. Only changes in torque with spin are seen.
The cause of the Lorentz contraction would be by way of impact of the weight (outside) field with the external field. Even so this is not as efficient as complete mass energy equality would allow. If mass and energy were completely the same it would be just as easy to convert energy to mass as mass to energy and this isn't true and this would also be about CPT violation. The inefficiency here by way of Line Removal also not only would give the tension of the field by spinning faster than light inside the fermions with the extra degree of freedom, also it disconnects the field and this is the cause of entropy. So there would be a delay in the Lorentz contraction when force is applied from the outside. Even so it would be considerably faster than the speed of light for the adjustment for the fermions and only at c for leptons since the fermions being massive unlike leptons would spin faster than light inside. The total time of adjustment for fermions may be less than for bosons by this distinction of mass and energy relativity doesn't allow for fermions and bosons. This may be provable with machines like a cathode ray tube or my invention I call the RWT Relativistic Wind Tunnel where we might see the Lorentz contraction. (It's not been experimentally seen even while the rest of SR fits it well. The RWT would involve speeding the field like light past a mass like a small starchip at high speed in relative motion to finally perhaps see the Lorentz contraction and prove or disprove more about Special Relativity. Relative motion in SR itself is a well based idea as Einstein said and establishing SR that it doesn't matter if a magnet or the wire moves to create the current it's just the relative motion that counts here.). See my other links for more. If mass and energy were completely equivalent they would be almost 100% efficient as in well proven matter and antimatter conversion yet by Line Removal nuclear reactors are only 5% efficient and this seems to be in disagreement even with SR.
GWD has a mechanism for the Lorenz contraction by way of the resilience caused by the impact of the LEH at the ROA for which relativity offers no solution for motion from non motion. The changes in the field are also stored as we might expect for the computer of energy conservation by balance between the electric charges as Maxwell believed because the force between the plus and minus charges like the weight and counterweight of an elevator can store changes in the motion of the elevator. For gravity the same spin as in Coulomb's law gives the tension to create and store the changes. Energy conservation needs a way both to change and store the changes in the field like a computer. So the opposite charges may allow balance and the waves' connection stores the results.
The light doesn't fizzle out like sound waves due to the random motion of the molecules of the air between an observer and the train with the Doppler shift and this has been held as evidence that Einstein was completely correct about relativity.
In this view light is a particle and it's constant in speed because it's uninfluenced from emission to the observer.
But if the light has a "snapback" my solution here is to use Maxwell's other idea that the low energy field is not made of particles because if you weigh it it would have weight.
So it's not like a gas but if we say it's like a superfluid then we can allow it has negative entropy because superfluids can do things like flow up the side of a jar that holds the super fluid or flow through tiny gaps without friction.
Indeed this might be the source of the attractive forces of the cosmos and so it may have negative entropy and be mostly made of waves that would snap back the light with the faster than light connection.
Recent experiments have shown that when light is aimed at a target the influence of the light changes before it reaches the sensor and this actually has negative probability.
Negative probability is disdained by physicists because you never find this in common physics. The power of positivity right!
If you assume that the light is only at the speed of light by its internal matter waves then this seems to be a conundrum but if we simply allow the snapback to be holding the light together since it needs something to hold it together or it couldn't maintain its information over billions of years like light from a distant star, the faster than light negative entropy snapback of the light in the experiment is simple and easy to explain.
Thus there's no fizzling out of the light not because there's no matter wave there but only because it has negative entropy.
Einstein holds that there's no field there unlike the sound with a medium because essentially the light is not interacting with the plus and minus charges which seems to me improbable.
If the light is interacting then it will be interacting by a medium and Einstein holds that there is no medium there.
It seems the information about the momentum of the field is stored, not absent. It seems to be invisible in uniform motion or at rest, but if you turn on the rocket motors the force with which they press against the field and the force felt both are seen and relativity has trouble with non uniform motion.
You may ask "if light is at the speed of light, and the superluminal matter waves are connecting the light and the electric charges why can't we just change one of the electric charges and then right away a year away measure a change in the light without waiting?"
First of all note that if there is any connection between the light and the electron and the positive charge at the limit of the speed of light it cannot definitely influence the light in any way like the experiment with the light moved toward the target. If we assume it's faster than light though we have a good explanation as I say by the snapback on the sides of the light before it reaches the sensor.
And if any change at all is possible between the light and the electron like by Maxwell's method of assuming the snapback is proportional to the force between the electric charges by way of the resilient medium,
It must be by faster than light.
This is because as the light moves outward from the electron it's already at the speed of light so any signal or any influence whatsoever from the electron will never reach the light.
And from the positive charge if it's traveling in the opposite direction then it's going at twice the speed of light to reach the light.
Any influence of the electric charges by the light would be by relativity being wrong.
As I say on my other post about LIGO Ice Cube and the speed of gravity, special relativity works fine for uniform motion, but once the engines are the rocket are turned on and the speed is changed, during the acceleration the distant light is changing its wavelength like it's red shift before it reaches the ship.
So here we have a change in the speed of the shift and a change in the distant wavelength of the light before it reaches the high speed observer.
This is easy to explain if we assume that there's something between the light and the observer that's connecting and sending the information about the momentum of the field.
Even if the speed of light is constant the information about the wavelength of the distant light is not.
So I would hold that if you have 20 different wavelengths for the light with 20 different speeds of the high speed observer, in a non-trivial sense you have 20 different speeds of the momentum of the light as it spins.
Sure you can lock in the light's wavelength at any given constant speed of the starship, but with any acceleration the light's wavelength is changing!
You might say that this has never been proven against relativity but this experiment has not yet been done. It's not yet known what the range of quantum entanglement will be.
I believe this is not impossible, and a good experiment might involve entangling the electron with the distant light.
Of course you can't measure the change till you collapse the wave function.. but this itself is only because it matches up to the quanta, the changes are internal and this is not an objection, because the collapse of the wave function that Einstein's so was spooked about is actually inside the quantum "atmosphere" and by quantum computing, and outside by way of the dark energy that itself is not that much important to the electromagnetic field lines themselves. And events like the folding speed of proteins and biology seem to be evidence that is contrary to relativity.
First we might entangle the light with the electron perhaps, then we send them on their way and we collapse their wave function at both sending and receiving area.
If it's super fast it's not two events happening in the same time at two different places as some have held, but rather it may be genuine disproof of this realm of relativity because of my definition of information or a signal as a change in one place mediated by energy between it and another that's also associated with a change in another place.
By this definition since the communication is finite even if it might be much faster than light, it doesn't have infinite speed but because the EPR is constant with distance this may be evidence that the constant Higgs' field is why the effect doesn't lose energy with distance.
So entanglement may be evidence for my idea that the constant Higgs' field there is indeed what the light is constantly comparing itself to. The field may have value both for continual collapse of the wave function for quanta to hold them together to cause evolution of systems through time and the asymmetry of time that relativity doesn't allow
we see all around us, and for effects like the non randomness of pi that has been found..
The entanglement of light with the electron or proton might also be the answer to whether superluminal information can be sent at longer distance than just the collapse of the wave function.
The unevenness and the fundamental roundness of pi works for buckets of any size. (The non random antipatterns of pi are in all bases (said to be more fundamental like geometry than numbers)). But on the larger wheels the nonrandomness of pi has been seen to be reduced with what would be "reduced teeth size relative to the roundness" and this would thus be my prediction with centrifugal force if it is indeed based on quanta or wheel comparing its spin to the leveled out or beveled out Higg's field. To me the infinity of pi is due to the fundamental distinction of linear and nonlinear motion. The opposition of relativity and acceleration is the cause of the infinities when the equations of QM are plugged in the gravity equations. The space of SR is constant yet gravity is non uniform and has more privileged frames of reference.
Mach and Einstein believed since the motion of the bucket and the cosmos was completely equivalent if somehow the rest of the mass of the cosmos was removed the bucket isn't moving relative to anything so the bucket won't have the concave surface of the water.
But if it's comparing itself with the Higgs' field as Newton might have believed all observers agree the water of the bucket has parabolic flow, and no frame of motion can transform it away as Einstein might have said so it might need a bit of jagged edge of the flat wheel to cause the force.(If the Earth's gravity or equivalence of our motion upwards as if being boosted by millions of rockets in equivalent motion we would be at the speed of light in less than a year with huge mass augment here also. Einstein's ridiculous method like expansion theory was actually used in comics as a comedy before Mcutcheon did, but then so was Dogecoin! Even so I have respect for Mcutcheons work and at any rate I consider him a teacher who has enlightened me by some of his writing events.)
If as by Mach and Einstein's belief the bucket is somehow connected to the rest of the cosmos the low energy waves would be how. The equation for centrifugal force has only one mass term however so it doesn't mention what the other mass is even if it's the cosmos or the mass of a star or the Earth or the Moon. Save on travel wherever you go where you are without the Travel station!
One mass term for centrifugal force or inertia means that it doesn't matter what the outside mass is. But by Einstein and Mach's idea, since it's moving relative to external mass it would matter what that mass was and this would change centrifugal force in a strong way with the second mass term that isn't found in any equation for centrifugal force or inertia. While Einstein believed that strong gravity changes inertia here again if inertia and gravity were equivalent there would be small changes with gravity. Gravity is not super strong and inertia is not super weak.
Yet if the spinning mass is comparing it's spin to the much more powered Higgs' field this might act by gyroscopic stability and indeed near a gravitational mass a gyroscope has a much stronger force for its balance than the gravity.
Some like George Ellis the English scientist believe the cause of time is by the edge of what might be, or what actually is is determined by the collapse of the wave function. Others say they don't know what might cause the collapse enough to cause this.
Ellis considers the distinction of gravity between the floor and the ceiling as the cause but I don't think so because time goes on much like in a distant starship with no gravity around. Others hope for some unknown influence in the outside field to cause the collapse of the wave function. My belief is the jagged edge of pi with the Higgs' and the round wave of the heavy quanta might be the cause.
This method of describing the basic geometry of space also allows for the famous laws of radiant energy. Why radiant energy by Newton's law of the spheres of radiation?
Light divides out just so, because here too the light quanta or low energy quanta as seen by LIGO are comparing their spins to that of the constant Higgs' field as they radiate out one distance of radius just as with centrifugal force.
I agree with Robert Sungean that LIGO may merely have found something related to gravity like inertia and not gravity. You can see that the light can radiate out in spheres by simple comparison of their spin with the constant Higgs' field. There is no need for a connection of the mass of the light to its source beyond radiance with anything other than the nearby LEH field.
Gravity needs two masses by Newton's method. It is compared by two sources. When the force between the masses connects it's not just nearby and it's an acceleration. More so the light doesn't change speed as it radiates out but gravity changes more constantly. I think of this as the scintillation of the sides of the outgoing light by the LEH. But this isn't gravity radiation outward as in LIGO because there's no gravity needed for a lot of the masses with centrifugal force we see around us and in astronomy.
About spins of mass as above, you can't have the mass build up in the center of mass yet it acts as if it's the source of the gravity. So my belief is that this is "virtual" for centrifugal force (comparing just the spins on the outside of the heavy quanta or the com to the level Higgs' field) and "real" spin about gravity, it's got a much different energy so it's got a much different size of the spinning field. As above, wheels of all sizes accelerate round. So wheels of all sizes can measure motion by it.
The moon or masses on the beam would cause the centrifugal force or inertia in SR by comparing the field nearby on the outside much nearer the Higgs' field of the LEH near the moon or Earth. The moon and Earth combine as by the spin of the masses on the boom and by here too comparing the two spins from the outside a net acceleration is seen by the field by other masses.
So if this is a way centrifugal force might be of more worth there would also be no connection of buildup of mass by the LEH at the zone between the spinning masses. This allows small masses to bind by gravity and also not lose coherence since the waves would need a common way to resonate. This was a problem I considered about how the gravity waves don't just fizzle out like most common quantum waves do if gravity has both changes in speed and wavelength and this will be a source of randomness unlike changes only in wavelength held him by the quanta both of the light and the electrons in special relativity..
(At shorter range this quantization of the electromagnetic field would still be present even if the charges cancel out like for neutral heavy quanta. This is one of the reasons that Einstein and others believed that mass is not electromagnetic. As Maxwell was noting about what the low energy field would be like the electric field will be part of it but it's more defined externally by the low energy field.)
The radiance outward of the gravity as in what LIGO has found may only be about Einstein's low energy reradiant electromagnetic field he believed in for the cosmological constant even while it's inertia and radiates out like centrifugal force. First the inertial particles would radiate outward inducing the inertial waves inward. This would then cause the gravity waves to radiate outward which then would induce the gravity particles inward causing the force of gravity.
As Einstein believed gravity and inertia have something to do with each other, and this could be that the same energy Higgs' particles cause both the gravity and the centrifugal force but under the influence of the different inertial and gravitational in and out waves. The inertial LEH radiates out to influence the inside of the heavy quanta and the gravitational LEH would radiate inward.
Note that this would explain how you can be weightless in orbit because even though there's a force of gravity moving right through you the LEH are balanced on both the inside and outside. And this really isn't electromagnetic because it doesn't change the chemical or magnetic properties of the masses involved.
Radiation of gravity outward as in LIGO has the problem of the necessity of radiating inward more and gravity seems to be the same as Coulomb's law of electric charge and with the same general form. So I think of gravity as inertia inside out. If gravity radiates in and it obeys the inverse radiation law of all radiant energy, I believe it may also compare itself to the Higgs' field as the inertial particles of what LIGO may have found radiate out by radiation but beyond a certain level the field reverses and a much much FTL gravity wave also reradiates out (not just the inertia of LIGO). This would then induce the LEH in and cause the gravity. The inertia is much much stronger, and the geometry of comparing itself to the constant field would be the basis of gravity, in some ways more important as in relativity to the degree that SR is also. Gravity attracts not radiates out only as we might believe if Einstein and Mach's belief that gravity is inertia instead was proven.
THE PROBLEM OF CAUSALITY ABOUT GRAVITY
If the outward inertia field induces the inward wave (at 10 to the 37x the speed of light for the inward gravity wave in GWD because gravity is that much lighter than light by Maxwell's method if you lighten up and go fast) this may solve what I call the causality problem with gravity mostly radiating in even with LIGO and its radiation out. (This value for gravity is like Van Flandern's calculations.)
This problem about causality... if you drop a rock in the lake and it oscillates the wave, the wave won't radiate in from the outside of the pond in reverse time and then move the stone you tossed in the pond. Inertia is with us as Einstein believed and so gravity may be based on inertia.
You may see my video where I made the claim that gravity propagates faster than light before LIGO and my belief now is that the LEH of inertia move out from a source at c. This is partly induced inward by the inertial waves moving faster to convey the information and the gravity waves are also induced out much faster than light by these same particles. .. Since it's inconceivable there is centrifugal without centripetal force and energy conservation seems to need the waves to connect both the gravity and inertial particles or definitely at any rate for the gravity particles as by the boat and field method as above, all points of the field might have the two sets of particles and waves both for gravity and inertia.
The causality problem of the waves for gravity starting around the outside of the lake and somehow reversing in to the rock then dropped is solvable if the inertial field first lays down the tracks outward which gravity then follows in...
Why doesn't an airship way minus 5 tons.
The airship rises if it has faster molecules of the gas inside and this in turn comes from the sides of the particles exerting pressure outward from the outside.
The gravity is still positive on the outside of each heavy quanta of the gas in the airship because it's faster than light and it's a wave but it's not particulate so it doesn't exert outward pressure.
The idea that inertia radiates out as by pi as above by comparison of the level Higgs' field with the spins of these to compare the round to flat geometry would also induce the other waves and particles in and out. And as I have held, LIGO has found something about gravity. If these particles and waves are somewhat independent of the source by the comparison of the flat to round inertial stronger flux outward as above, this might solve the causality problem.
In this method first the LIGO inertia LEH radiate out as in relativity at c while they compare to the constant Higgs' field giving the round sphere at the same time the inertia waves are induced in. The gravity waves then might move much faster out to move the gravity particles in only after radiating out and this might solve the causality problem. Even so if there is no centrifugal without centripetal force we might still be well able to say that while inertia and gravity are set up this way for us to solve the causality event, since the sphere is round and the disc of a mass like a galaxy is caused by the inertia or centrifugal force, it would have such a loose connection without faster than light (gravity) out waves, all the information inside the sphere would allow no change inside so it conserves information and a connection to the external masses without the value of FTL outwardly radiating gravity waves.
Even if Line Removal simplifies all this information in the heavier quanta before it interacts with the gravity on the outside there is still the problem of conserving information to also conserve energy about external motion of the heavy quanta like for the electric fields. So while Einstein's idea that gravity is simple and a smooth round sphere that would fit the causality solution if we sort of assume that no force is acting and so there is no real causal problem about the reverse motion inward, I find it still is lacking about "outside" energy conservation and there is no way to know what is before or after the events at a nearby star by the slow speed of light so as Van Flandern says if the escape velocity of black hole supermassive events are at c no change inside can connect the outside and essentially without a faster than light union of the field, like a distant star which can't conserve energy or at any rate by the fizzle out to lower density of entropy by relativity alone, I associate it to thermodynamics by way of the ("thermodynamic") speed of light so important to relativity.
More to the point the gravity particles would move in at only the slower speed of 32 feet per second near the Earth so the particles would move only as fast as a falling body so no force is felt as in the boat in the stream... as above gravity waves would move much faster to connect up the particles since particles "having sides" would otherwise radiate out not in for gravity.
But in the radiant sphere, the gravity is accelerating as it moves; it too is comparing the spins of the particles and waves around it. But if it finds change at point a and moves to point b inward at any speed at all with change, the inertia is merely moving at c as LIGO has found. Since information is being exchanged this seems like evidence that the in and out waves are moving relative to each other at faster than light and relativity of gravity is incomplete and an important idea about gravity is that its essence is about GWD.
As I say on my post "LIGO, Ice Cube and Gravity Wave Telescopes", I look for evidence that gravity is faster than light in events like the zero displacement of gravity towards the Sun which caused Newton and others to believe that gravity might be of much higher speed, or even infinite speed.
Van Flandern also notes this and this also holds for electric charges which see each other where they are "now". Einstein tried to fit this to relativity by saying that there is an effect called the velocity dependent effect, so the Earth is surfing on this gravity wave that is displaced back magically to zero.
Yet there's not a single Wikipedia entry about this and as I say on my other page this will cause problems like displacement of light where we could easily find it, and since the electromagnetic field is so hugely stronger than the gravitational field, this version of the velocity dependent effect would change every chemical or nuclear or electrical event there is.
When the moon spins around us the gravity between us speeds up at the cog yet is super fast and continuous and the particles don't build up large mass by the method of the ROA being where most of the LEH particles stay. So it acts like La Sage Gravity without the friction problems and this problem of mass augment of bodies with gravity may be solved. The causality problem is solvable and while gravity may depend a lot on inertia gravity still isn't inertia, in GWD it still moves faster than light and it still allows other than absolute relativity. In GWD the x and y coordinates of a ballistic arc are still independent, the jets are still too strong of cosmic bodies, and evidence for the collapse of the wave function, and tunneling, may be superior to relativity.
Van Flandern wondered about problems with La Sage graviton friction causing heating of planets with his "exploding planet" hypothesis. But we would find much evidence for this in astronomy or in common heating in masses, as in the lab, around us. Even so La Sage gravity is the only mechanical method for this that's been seriously considered by science geniuses like Newton and Maxwell. Maxwell considered the LaSage method and Newton disagreed since the LEH would radiate out since the LEH are particles and have sides so they would radiate out like common radiant energy.
Note that the cog and com can be offset by changing the gravity or the masses of the spinning bodies and this would seem to fit the idea that both gravity and inertia are comparing themselves to something on near terms (although not like in relativity as I say on my synopsis; relativity is about Emc2 not the more general F= ma of GWD where the ratio of mass to inertia is a constant function not a quantum like the light in the equation of Relativity. With relativity you have a complete union by the quanta but with GWD they aren't so unified because there's a smoother more wavelike connection between gravity and inertia).
COMPARISON OF SPINS OF LARGE MASSES And also How Quanta are able to overlap spins at different angles..
This is a use of my idea that gravity has different speeds and wavelengths combined with line removal..As I say the attraction of gravity or its acceleration might be ultimately by the unit of the quanta. They compare the speeds on both sides of the spinning quanta or any mass by wrapping around the outside for the net acceleration of that mass by gravity and both Line Removal and the changing speed of gravity in ways that relativity can't solve.
If you think of gravity at the speed of light and fitting relativity, it has a quantum but the whole idea that you can have overlapping angles of the spin of a mass like the electron, also is non quantum.
You might say right but the quantity really controlled as in the Bohmian pilot wave method.
This is the most generally accepted idea about what quantum mechanics is about, and I'm a fan of this method.
The idea as in the experiment where it's been found the light is influenced by the target before it reaches it, is the idea that the waves are around the outside of the quanta of the light, sort of guiding and shaping the paths of the quanta.
It's interesting to look at what Bohm believed when he said that he thought it never would really disprove relativity presumably because the quanta are still in control so much in special relativity.
But his comments about the waves seem to be not completely so sure that relativity is absolute.
When you have the quantum wave and the faster than light information never makes it through even while the wave does, this might at first seem to be true if we have the low energy waves and particles of dark matter and dark energy moving between the electromagnetic field lines, if they always stay between them then the wave makes it through to influence the field lines but because of the quantum nature it would seem they would never actually be able to send information.
But my idea about the high-speed observer's wavelength of the distant light changing with the changes of speed of the observer and also the fact that in the experiment the light is changed before it reaches the target, this might mean that in essence the information does get through. So while some experiments may seem to show that it doesn't and of course most of it would still be confined between the electromagnetic field lines, a certain percentage of it could make it through.
As I say the unit of gravity, the heavy quanta may transfer their spin to the larger center of gravity of the gravitational field of a mass like the Earth or the Moon by the two quanta spinning at the center of gravity with a swirling vortex and this can then compare to larger and larger swirling vortexes like that of the Earth by the same method of comparing their spin on both sides. Yet if all the spins were at one speed and and gravity is constant as relativity says there would be no way the internal vortex of the Earth could influence the outside vortex of the Moon if the bent rubber sheet of gravity is only positive. Yet by allowing different speeds of the spins of the vortexes there's unlimited ability to influence the outside mass essentially by the extra degree of freedom which is to say two different acceleration speeds at the same time by the low energy waves which aren't quanta so they can superimpose their quantum (wave) state and by Line Removal the vortex moves inside the Earth since gravity doesn't shield and there will be no need for an external wrapping around for the gravity to cause it as Tesla believed. The heavy quanta are ultimately made up of gravity by common creation in the center of the massive source like AGN events and like gravity have an attractive component to hold the quanta together. The superimposition would also be how an electron can have more angles than one of the spin. I don't believe what Einstein thought that what is essentially between those quanta of light with gravity is an imponderable medium.
Dark matter is not imponderable because we already have evidence for it.
Research is underway to try to use giant interferometers to see if there are small fluctuations in the low energy field.
If gravity is the same as dark matter as some believe, or much involved with it this might be the way in to find out what dark matter is. I believe at high speeds and low energies we might find it. And this might be really valuable for communication as we would have a faster than light signal if we took two of these giant interferometers and perhaps use something like the Xeno method (where they twist light to measure energy far below the quantum level) or quantum sensors to much multiply up the resolution and once we find the basic change we might then measure its speed even if really fast by moving the interferometers far enough apart.
Relativity tells us that there is frame dragging and this given result like the shift to the perihelion Mercury or frame dragging I think doesn't follow directly from relativity, since Einstein's basis of the relativity of gravity was that all bodies fall at the same rate. That's Einstein's theoretical basis for Gravity based on the equivalent motion upward of the Earth's field supposedly to reach the two falling masses at the exact same time, as in inertial frames in the inertial elevator, even while at the same time Einstein predicts changes in the rate of acceleration for all these "proofs" of general "relativity".
I think of the vortex of the center of gravity of the Earth as being slightly different on one side compared to the other and this is the net acceleration of gravity but it also relates to the fundamental distinction ultimately between mass and energy or gravity and inertia in my belief, just as there is a distinction between relativity and gravity. This could be why a spinning mass in one direction might weigh slightly less than in the other direction as experiments by two Japanese physicists in the late 90s seemed to prove.
So one application of this idea is that since one limb of the vortex of the Earth spins at a different energy than the other while the vortex is the same (as relativity measures but not describes the cause of) so too there will be a slight leaning of the angle on one side more than relativity predicts of a mass in the angle of the vortex spiral relative to the surface of the Earth towards the moon. Here you could have frame dragging perhaps but you can't have this effect if gravity and inertia or mass and energy are completely equivalent.
WHY THE SPEED OF THE ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY IS DIFFERENT for different masses
The different speeds and energies in the different vortexes would always fit the mass of whatever is attracting. The quanta combine to the Earth's vortex, that combines to the Earth/Moon's vortex which then combines the Earth Moon vortex to the sun's vortex. Different speeds of the field would allow as many speeds as there are masses and each mass has its own speed relative to the other mass of its spinning vortex.
Relativity tells us the bent rubber sheet is round and not why the galaxies or the ecliptic of the solar system are on a flat plane. By comparing the disc to the spin of each mass like for the ecliptic of the solar system it's easy to see why they aren't spherical and this would be by the comparison of the discs of each vortex for which relativity says there is no disc or vortex there.
Where is the change in the speed of light that fits GWD and not relativity?
Essentially due to the phase change and Line Removal most of the faster-than-light motion like of the matter waves would only be found at energies other than light. Because the quanta are as they are, and they're stable the matter waves like with the EPR don't actually have influence till they're measured.
They're underneath the quantum level so you don't see evidence for them other than when the wave function collapses.
I think of this like in a boat in a river the boat is the quanta and the current underneath are the EPR matter waves.
The boat has an anchor so that when the current is changed the boat isn't changed much even though there's pressure on the side of the boat. The boat can be synchronized with other boats by the waves between them but this isn't measured directly because it may be like pressing against the wall and no work is supposedly done, while most other than physicists, may not think so! Even so, when you cut the line on one boat like the collapse of the wave function it will start to move under the influence of the change of the current which already had changed it before. The degree to which the pressure of the waves exert force on the boat at anchor is the degree of the reliability of the connection of the EPR.
This doesn't rule out that the waves may be much faster than the boat nor that they don't exist because we can only measure the boat directly so far (other than the evidence for the for speed of the collapse of the wave function or the speed of tunneling or as I say the experiment where the light is influenced before it reaches the target.)
The boat is not both anchored and not anchored at the same time. It's only that the change in the waves that take place relative to the boat are not yet directly measurable, and this doesn't mean they never will be so I agree with Einstein that other physics may be involved than relativity.
We see the quanta and the masses around us like boats that we could hardly doubt are immersed in a low energy field like gravity.
I tend to believe that LIGO has found the speed of inertia not gravity because inertia like centrifugal force is so hugely higher energy and would be easiest to find.
This is one reason I would agree with Einstein that Schrodinger's cat isn't both alive and dead. The quanta is a bit too stable to measure it as both a wave and a particle at the same time, but the change takes place at the level of the matter waves even while the quanta will not show the change other than by a roundabout influence.
Special Relativity is quite well proven as far as it goes and yet we also have Maxwell's triumphant success in predicting the speed of light exactly.
I think of the quantum of light as Einstein did and they are a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption so the speed of light is constant indeed.
Yet in the interstices of the quanta of light there would be the dark matter for attraction and dark energy for inertia and centrifugal force and this may be why dark matter has been so tough to find because it may be a much faster than light superfluid and it may be both about gravity and inertia.
Van Flandern asked questions about particles and how they wouldn't shield like gravity or inertia and he invoked small holes in the field like the neutrino.
Instead I believe the phase change that allows it as dark matter or dark energy also essentially removes it to the outside and the spaces between the bundles of the force.
And this could explain the cosmic acceleration that's been found because as you widen the areas between the bundles of force of the light the inertial waves moving in the opposite direction speed up.
Note that the inertial waves are hugely stronger than the gravity waves,
and so at enough distance and speed it becomes somewhat like a quanta and this exerts gas pressure outward and this would cause the cosmic acceleration by use of basically Einstein's radiant low energy electromagnetic field.
For the galaxies, gravity is a sphere so gravity basically has changes in wavelength and speed both and there will be a certain amount of change of also of the speed of light of great enough distance because the light is controlled by the snap back of the inertial waves moving inward and the gravity has both changes in speed and wavelength and isn't this quantized and merely follows the lines of inertia more often.
This is important perhaps because if gravity has overlapping speeds and wavelengths, we wonder how it could remain coherent over distance and still exert the force of attraction.
The gravity waves and particles would be mostly induced by the inertial waves and particles and while the inertia particles would radiate out and the gravity waves would radiate out, in order to reverse them inward and for them to remain coherent, they would have to constantly compare themselves to those lines of the electromagnetic field as they move also at much faster than light.
A short-range reversal of entropy here is the only way I can think of that a field that's constantly changing in acceleration like gravity as it moves could remain coherent and still exert the force.
So relativity works as well as we see... Even so, I agree with Maxwell and Tesla that relativity is incomplete and so Tesla was noting that the non-zero permeability of the field to light is important for the possibility of superluminal waves around the light.
If the inertial waves might radiate in as the light radiates out I think of them as having negative entropy and this could make the light essentially have the snapback by attraction.
Maxwell believed that the light was based on a resilient medium, more attractive than radiant. But with relativity and no waves there is no attraction at all.
If LIGO has found a "speed of gravity" that is the constant speed of light, experiments have found both gravity and light change speed in a gravitational field. We might say that if gravity is just at the speed of light if the light slows down near large masses as has been seen, the gravity is still at c and it merely changes wavelength and is still at c so relativity isn't disproven. But I believe any change in the speed of light implies "outside influence" if it's already at c. If gravity changes both speed and wavelength as it moves because it's an acceleration this is not as much about "gravity wave astronomy". If LIGO is about gravity you get changes in speed with changes in distance from the source of gravity.
It's believed that LIGO may be able to not only sense gravity, it may be used as a source of gravity waves. The force would be far far lower energy than being able to move a room size mass around us yet it's believed this is possible. If LIGO hasn't seen gravity, a prediction of my idea is that if the waves are about inertia the outward force would either not move a small quanta passing by or even cause it to radiate out. While usual masses wouldn't be easy to find the event, I believe new quantum gravity sensors may be of value.
Einstein was particularly concerned about the speed of the collapse of the wave function. He believed it seemed to be evidence against relativity if it's faster than light.
Einstein never defined a signal or information in relativity even while he said no signal can move faster than light.
I define a signal as a way to change one event with another at some distance with a delay between the events with the finite change of the information as I say. By this definition the collapse of the wave function is indeed superluminal and real.
Some have held the solution to be that nothing moves from the wave to the definite point of the mass of the quanta after the wave collapses. Only probabilities are exchanged. This is like regarding the wave before and after the collapse as a black box. In this scenario, in the inside of a cloud if we can't see the lightning it has no cause. To me this seems like saying because there is no easy way inside a black box anything is possible for the cause of its speed even while the outside motion of the box is well defined. "Because we can't prove its speed from the outside then it must be at the speed of light" or "Because we have no evidence it must fit other evidence."
Einstein was aware of this and I agree...because of my definition of a signal and information it "is faster than light". Einstein might have believed that just because we couldn't yet find the cause doesn't mean we never will. To me this is not a black box.
Recent low energy quantum experiments seem to prove Einstein was at least partially right. When they send a quantum "mouse" past the "cat", the mouse's path will show if the cat is alive or dead, even if you can't see the cat.
More to the point if there is change from the outside of the wave to the collapsed quanta and you reliably can make this change take place a to b then a signal is sent and since the distance is enough and the change is fast enough, the speed is superluminal and relativity is disproven. Recent tunneling experiments show it to be faster than any speed yet proven. With its higher density GWD gives the predicted speed.
The idea that no motion or energy is exchanged in the collapse of the wave function has been supposedly proven by way of this method;
Bob and Alice have suitcases moved apart as in common EPR events. Two high speed observers move toward Bob and Alice from the outside. The argument is that because even if Bob opens the box a bit before Alice this time order can be reversed simply by speeding up the observer nearby and the same goes for Alice. There is no before or after and so there is no information sent, nothing faster than light. But as in tunneling there's evidence this may not be so.
I agree with Einstein here about his concern about the speed of the collapse of the wave function because to assume there is no higher speed connection also is essentially assuming there is no time sequence of anything around us, this is the general idea. It seems as easy to assume based on the evidence that there may be a higher speed connection and while the outside observers can change the duration between cause and effect with a connection speed much faster than the incoming observers it can't reverse cause and effect any more than in usual events around us. This may be caused by the much higher speed connection of the EPR which would restore order.
In Special Relativity with the speed of light the observer's speed changes only control the "speed of playback" of the events of the other distant high speed traveler, not the events themselves. This isn't complete control as we might expect if Relativity is complete. By Line Removal the time is more separate.
All held the same, each observer always has some will of its own at any rate. You can't control events inside just by sight or outside motion. Both inside influence by LR and outside influence are seen. To me the outside influence seems more improbable. The resolution would be to restore not the observer's right to say the cosmos spins around the Earth at hugely faster than light each day with huge centrifugal force but rather that while the observer has rights by the speed of light, so do other observers. Life around us is always a combination of inside and outside influences. We don't find huge changes from the outside by all high speed cosmic observers.
No doubt this idea itself isn't proof Einstein was right or not about the speed of the collapse of the wave function. If you assume the speed of light limit you can reverse time order this way, and you can't as easily by a superluminal method and this is itself assuming what some try to prove by this method. As I say, a fast signal connecting two events may be the resolution of this, not that Faster Than Light for the EPR is completely in evidence by this about simultaneous events of Bob and Alice.
ABOUT MASS INDUCTION
One question we might ask is if we have two masses and we move one, why doesn't the other also resonate?
I phrase this question in the form of the two electric charges resonating with the light as Maxwell envisioned.
We have the huge snapback that is just right for the speed of light.
As I say it seems like the waves like matter waves between the light and the electric charges are going to have line removal so that gravity and inertia like centrifugal force don't shield metal plates.
So we can say that the waves are like paramagnetism and are also superfluid and this is why it's so tough to find them in our search for dark energy and dark matter. But there's another problem here.
If you have an electron and the light on the other side resonating between it and these waves are so strong that they have a huge snapback why don't the planets show the sign of this event, they move through it without apparent resistance..
My solution would seem to be that if the EPR involves entanglement then we have this problem also for the EPR because it doesn't show the influence of matter between the other entangled quanta.
I once thought of the light like a thin high note guitar string that has a high speed of snapback and yet it doesn't have external influence because it's got less mass to resonate and snap back and forth.
This is sort of a method of lightening up the light so that it doesn't have the wave problem of no mass induction usually seen..there's already evidence for low energy mass induction like for gravity of one mass moving past another with influence which can be easily measured in the lab and also for electromagnetic mass induction like one antenna resonating with another.
My belief about why the intervening planet doesn't interfere with either the EPR or the light between the electric charges by Maxwell's idea, is by my mechanism of entanglement itself.
This involves resonance just like other electromagnetic induction.
And my model of entanglement is to use the low energy Higgs' which have been found as had been predicted by experiment recently.
As I say particles seem necessary yet there will be problems about friction so I relegated them into the realm of the Radius Of Action, ROA.
And by putting the LEH inside the Radius Of Action around the outside of the quantum as some of the LEH have been found to be, the friction problems are not as common with particles and yet it has the advantage that particles have sides so as I say when you're falling in the field of gravity and you move your arms around you still feel the force by the pressure of the sides of the particles and so to the force of centrifugal force will be exerted by particles as if by radiance outward of the gas.
The EPR would be the resonance by the waves between these
LEH.
This might be like taking two fans and setting one spinning and the other then starts to spin.
Unlike a usual fan though if you remove its power source it'll stop spinning by friction and instead the internal high speed spin of the quanta by the phase change gives the field tension.
This would be how attraction actually works.
More importantly for this type of method just as with induction of the more common type between electric charges, the mass induction of the light only resonates at a specific frequency like two antennas.
And this might be why the two electric charges give the huge snapback of the light, and yet we see no mass induction for masses between the light and the electric charges. This will be because for the EPR to work the fans may have to be at about the same energy of resonance.
Moreso about the EPR, it's specific to the quanta entangled.
If you have a spin up quanta and they're entangled only the other quanta on the other side will resonate with it to give spin down. This is one of the special things about the EPR. Only the entangled quanta is specific to the collapse of the first one with a second. No other quanta show the effect other than the quanta being entangled in the experiment. This is sort of a higher degree of freedom of the resonance idea.
But if we think of the electrons and the light as entangled, then we can see why there's no mass induction for other masses nearby.
This could be why as you drive on the road and your SUV the Chevy in the other lane doesn't show the splash of the matter wave from your machine as you go by.
Each + and - charge with the light entangled would only have that specific small constellation of all the LEH around them inside the ROA the number of each LEH may be really large and so like two crystal Tiffany fans as they might spin only those with that particular combination resonate.
While this seems to tell us quantum cryptography is secure, My belief is that while the light and the electrons may have a large number of combinations of the code it can't be infinite.
And I believe Einstein's idea that a low energy particle like the LEH might get around the Uncertainty Problem is possible by making what I call a Higgs' laser.
As I say elsewhere this might involve making tubes of atoms that resonate with the LEH enough to create a coherent beam that might be able to go under the level of the ROA and change the Configuration of the LEH possibly without even collapsing the way function as Einstein himself believed. This is why I believe it's not a good idea perhaps to find the entire future internet on quantum cryptography.
This type of laser is a theoretical possibility which would make it so that we could sort of extend the tube of the area otherwise inside the collapse of the wave function to the tube of the atoms that it funnels down to resonate.
The advantage of this would seem to be that we could make the LEH become more monochromatic like light in a laser and control where it goes into the quanta that we want to change to change the constellation of the LEH inside, perhaps realizing Einstein's idea that we could use a low energy outside quanta underneath the energy level of the collapse of the wave function. I would think the reason these low energy quantum experiments don't completely validate Einstein is because the quanta are both waves and particles partially even so.
While validation of Einstein's idea would render quantum cryptography unviable, I think of it as if we could take two quanta and entangle them or a large number of them and then separate them as they are entangled.
Then we might take the low energy Higgs' laser to change the energy of our quanta we have "here", yet not collapsing the wave function yet, changing the more distant quanta that are entangled with it.
And on the other side we might simply reverse this process by using the Higgs' laser to read the changes in the codes between those entangled quanta.
I originally envisioned using this method by first entangling quanta we have with other quanta we want to send to a distant realm to control the distant events by collapsing their wave function.
The problem I noted was about how you would have to continue to always send entangled quanta to then collapse in order to maintain the signal.
So the quanta would be used up by reading them and sending the signal, without the use of Einstein's idea of a low energy quanta perhaps like the LEH to go underneath the energy of the collapse of the wave function.
But while the quantum cat collapse of quantum cryptography would not be viable by Einstein's idea this could still give us a really good way to send information to distant places, and perhaps at hugely faster than the speed of light, and this may only necessitate that we stay below the energy of the collapse of the wave function for the entangled quanta. It might even take no energy to send the signal other than just encoding it and decoding it at the distant machine.
So by the above method we have the super strong snapback of the field as by Maxwell's idea, and it doesn't shield metal plates or larger masses and yet it still exerts the force on the light to give just the right speed of light without much mass induction.
The LEH here may have their value for both gravity and the EPR and yet without the problems of heating with LaSage gravity like for the Earth as Feynman calculated.
EVIDENCE AGAINST ABSOLUTE RELATIVITY BY CELLULAR BIOLOGY
The Wikipedia Unsolved Problems in Physics page says that folding of proteins with coherence is unexplained because the speed seems to be fast, of nanosecond or picoseconds for the event and proteins are like 90% of what we're made of physically and so evolution would have found this use of folding a proteins only at short distance and not longer distance where relativity holds.
Some are saying quantum computers won't be viable because of randomness. If evolution had found this method, this may be strong evidence they're wrong and we can also compare these natural systems essentially of quantum computing with the machines and learn from both.
It's been found from the brain research from the 1920s on that each neuron has all the memory of the entire brain in it. Carl Pribram used this with his hypothesis of the holographic mind in the 1970s.
(A hologram has all the memory of the entire image in each photographic unit or dot.)
For a neuron to hold this much data perhaps a quadrillion bits doesn't imply a common quantum method of storing the memory, while faster than light computing or the collapse of the way might do quite well, and if this is possible we assume evolution would have found it in the foundation of its survival value.
FORCES AND SOURCES What's wrong with The Relativity of Gravity
Einstein starts with the observation that different masses fall at the same rate near the Earth, then notes that since in SR all observers are equivalent, he asks why can't we assume the Earth moves upward at just 32 ft in General Relativity and so it's equivalent to say all masses in all gravity move at the same rate?
Newton, like most believed gravity is a force. If all forces or observers are equivalent there should be no source if as Einstein and Maxwell believed, gravity and inertia are essentially the same thing. This source event is derived from the inertial uniform motion of special relativity.
Inertia has no source and can be transformed away by choosing the right frame of motion and not so with gravity. The more gravity you have the more you have yet. Mass, more than the energy energy equivalence of picking up energy from motion through the field of SR seems to be the cosmic currency.
The more mass you have the more it tends to center on the source of the mass.
The more gravity a body has, the more privileged its frame of rest tends to be.. So relativity tells us a swinging weight won't center at the near earth radius as it stops at the base.
Both the LEH and the faster low energy waves may explain a lot more than Special Relativity since GWD explains all of SR plus all the wave experiments relativity can't claim, perhaps 70 things.
Stokes, the great 19th century mathematical physicist, believed that the low energy events like for inertia had the same medium Maxwell believed in and his idea was that the medium was like the great 19th century commonplace, sealing wax...
Stokes believed the medium like sealing wax was strong under short term or high pressure but that it flows freely under low or sustained pressure.
This seems like a fluid like water that gives way if impacted at high speed like jumping a lake from above, but flows well if you move slowly through it. The medium has the huge snapback of the light like water would if it were high speed but the problem might be that unlike water it shows no friction for the sustained motion. So the idea of particles like the LEH at close radius to the heavy quanta combined with the lower energy much more fluid waves between the quanta might fit Stokes' and Maxwell's method best. The particles at close radius would exert pressure on the heavy quanta when moving forward and the waves would also transmit the force but mostly they would wrap around the quanta and give way as by Stokes method.
Even so the LEH and the low energy waves would interact well enough to transmit and store the changes in the field outside the quanta. Neither the waves or the particles alone might give the resilience yet reduced friction at longer radii but rather the combination of both.
There is no frame of rest of the medium at absolute rest but only relative degrees of rest due to the high level of superfluid modulation of the medium. More gravity means on the average the mass is more at rest. (The low energy field was believed to be at rest after the early 1800s because of the displacement of light. This has been likened to having an umbrella in the rain and the faster you move the more angle the umbrella is displaced. To me this wouldn't seem to be evidence that the air is at rest indeed it's only evidence that the waves are fluid and not particles like Einstein thought. The reason there seems to be no need for waves in many of the experiments like this about the stellar displacement of light would not be because waves are not there just that they're removed by line removal from some events.
I believe the waves are there but they're not at rest by most measures and instead they move fast and so efficiently...for now, they still have the more stubborn to find events of dark matter and dark energy.
ABOUT THE PILOT WAVE PHYSICS METHOD FOR LIGHT
Einstein repeatedly tells us that light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption, so the speed of light is constant.
At first glance this seems logical because it seems to explain why e.g. light doesn't dissipate with distance.
In contrast sound moves through the air and it dissipates because of torsion and other forces like these.
So comparing sound with light seems to show that light would dissipate if it was moving through a medium as it dissipates to lower and lower energy, then fizzles out.
Einstein was the discoverer of the wave particle duality itself.
While he repeatedly says light is a particle in special relativity, he also alternates with much thought about the doppler shift which is a wave phenomenon.
We can imagine the particles of light as they would carry themselves and the only way this could always fit the waves would seem to be by way of the pilot wave explanation or more particularly the particles drag along the waves around the outside of each particle of light.
This would give us the result that the light is still a particle and the particle method holds sway, even while there would need to be an explanation for how the waves are involved in any way at all in special relativity and especially if the Doppler shift is so important.
This is my own idea that the particles are in their rest frame and they drag along the waves so that it still fits.
But the problem would seem to be that if the waves are being dragged along with the light they're going to have friction like any kind of wave.
Here we have to reintroduce the problems that waves have anyway back into special relativity or it seems that way to me.
My solution here again is that the waves are indeed there.. The waves themselves are made of matter waves and these are superfluid so this solves the problem of the wave friction otherwise ignored by Einstein... we could hardly say the Doppler shift doesn't exist, especially by relativity doing so well by many experiments thus far, other than about waves.
Even so as I say there would seem to be the need for something to keep the lines of the bundles of force of the electromagnetic field from kinking up and something to lubricate the particles flow so they don't stop spinning by the same types of friction events and particles.
All that special relativity explains is completely dependent on the constant speed of light.
So I consider that if we have waves flowing between these field lines that could be much faster than light as Tesla believed, and with negative entropy like gravity to hold the waves of light together with the snapback, this extra degree of freedom with the waves having negative entropy and being attractive more than radiant, and faster than light and more like a super fluid might be the solution to the problem about the waves on the outside having friction otherwise.
LINES OF FORCE, AND SPIN
The galaxies all spin as a solid body and are too fast for conventional gravity as astronomers have noted.
My belief Is that the dark matter is about gravity and the dark energy is about centrifugal force and inertia.
When the Galaxy spins faster, this straightens out the radial lines of the centrifugal force.
This is by greater induction of the interaction between the virtual and higher energy light.
The snapback induces the waves to straighten out the lines of the light, sort of like how at high energy electrons line up their spins and motion..
The dark energy would radiate in made of these low energy high speed waves in the area between the tubes of the electromagnetic medium. It's not limited to the speed of light so it can add more force than relativity tells us for the massive bodies like galaxies.
Also at the same time the gravity is increasing because the gravity waves of dark matter are radiating out as the inertial waves are radiating in.
And the gravity is also getting stronger than it would by conventional methods because it also is moving faster than light between the areas of the electromagnetic field.
This might be why the dwarf galaxies have been seen to have thousands of times more than the visible mass.
Gravity and inertia are definitely not the same thing or not exactly because the galaxy has a spherical halo of dark matter or gravity while the disc of inertia of centrifugal force is level and more solid.
This would be because inertia is more about special relativity and the lines of light being higher energy. So in this sense because they are more fundamental and higher energy they also lay down tracks the gravity follows not vice versa. This would be how even a low energy mass can still have a definite gravitational force even while the gravity is much lower energy.
At higher energy the wavelength changes but not the speed, as much of the wave is like light but gravity is being involved with the changes in wavelength and frequency because it's an acceleration unlike in special relativity.
So by inertia the disk is solid and flat but the aurora of dark matter or gravity is a sphere, because the gravity waves are lower energy and have overlapping wavelength and frequency.
They don't polarize like the light, so they tend to be a sphere like the Earth is round even while by relativity there would be no explanation for this even if the planets also rotate on a flat disk.
Van Flandern believed
in La Sage gravity, which is called push or particle gravity, and the main problem as I say about particle gravity is about friction.
Van Flandern hoped to solve this by the idea that there might be small holes in the field.
I would think the pipelines of both dark matter and dark energy between the higher energy electromagnetic lines in the field might be more valuable to solve this.
And as I say the particles of inertia would be radiating outward under the influence of the inflowing waves of dark energy, while the inflowing gravitational particles are under the influence of the dark matter waves which would flow outward.
COHERENCE AND GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION
The reason I say that the electromagnetic lines set the tracks for gravity was because I considered how overlapping wavelengths and speeds for the acceleration of gravity would become incoherent over distance.
By flowing in the tubes between the electromagnetic field though, the gravity would be under enough influence to not become incoherent and also find the source of the gravity which is the quanta.
One question I would ask is about why if gravity flows in these channels it wouldn't also be strong with enough energy to have the problems as I note that it would have shielding and friction.
Here I think there might be a partial solution of a combination of both the field line removal method combined with the tubes.
After all, if gravity is spherical and the disc of the galaxies are flat we would say that not all the gravity is flowing in the flat disc.
But my main solution to the problem about the huge snapback of light and this about particle gravity is that the waves of dark matter and dark energy are both just waves except when they finally reach the inside the Radius Of Action.
This could be why dark matter and dark energy have been so difficult to detect even though just moving around the room and changing direction seems to show that they're real, as Maxwell Tesla and many others believed..
TIME
It's been said that there is no good way of proving what time is; Where is the present, the past and the future in the mere collapse of the wave function?
I hold that the future is energy coming in either from the sun or for internal radioactivity energy that has randomness.
The future hasn't happened yet because the energy hasn't reached the area of the computation yet.
The present is the area where the quanta like of the earth change their energy by that randomness to compute by changes of the in-and-out radius of the quanta.
The past is actually the stored record of what happened in the present moving into the future along with the computations of the present. Here the past is eroding in the present because it's stored only in the present as a record.
The most probable things to be stored are those that most fit what the quanta or other physics are about.
Like wealth, the higher energy events are more likely to be stored, but soaking the rich of more value also may be of worth some say!
To me the particles are like the rhythm of the cosmic song and the waves around the outside are more like the music.
The music is higher energy resonation just as we at higher energy are mortal but we're more inefficient in many ways than mere energy conservation.
More to the point higher energy information can be created or destroyed;
A wall can become a sofa or a shelf and thus our higher information like the music of time can rise and fall even while the more basic information of the spin of the quanta is neither created or destroyed.
Einstein's idea that time didn't exist would only hold for the mass fields because this is short range where the quanta spin, and spin up is equivalent to spin down.
While this is true for the inner or mass fields, the longer range fields I call the weight fields are not reversible as much. You can't change the mass of a system but you can change the weight by moving it away or towards the Earth, this is why we're mortal because we're made more of the weight field than the mass field.
This is my belief about how time is not reversible for many events around us and yet it's easy to see that time is like particles that spin like small clocks. All time is measured by periodic fluctuation. By energy conservation where special relativity has worked so well, we see why Einstein believed that time could easily be transformed away.
Basically the mass fields which include the heavy quanta are commutative and reversible. This is more where the definite past present and future come from and they're non linear.
Even so I don't agree with T'hooft (the Nobel laureate) and others that non commutative events are really the foundation. They're a new event in physics that science may improve but time is also old.
More particularly I believe that the mass fields are more fundamental as Einstein believed. Even so, while non reversible physics are not as fundamental they are indeed interesting...
And so we ask here if this is the cause of the arrow of time, does this mean that energy conservation is violated? This was what they asked Noether about gravity.
And like the music of a song the music has to match the rhythm for a real result that sounds like music and the result is asymmetrical at any rate at increased radii of the quanta.
A musician can play a song and a wheel can be made into a shoe with the same materials without violating energy conservation.
So the real sense that the weight fields are non-commutative is in the extra degree of freedom that makes it so that it has a different event just as the rhythm is much different from the music of a song while it obeys energy conservation.
I believe the collapse of the wave function is not fundamental to time as Einstein and others believed because it's only a short range event. I would ask
where all the infinite worlds Einstein considered are?
More recent experiments have shown that Einstein was partially right about there being a lot of options with the collapse of the wave function but they aren't infinite. After all we couldn't even be here for anything like an infinity.
I've always been averse to the idea of infinities other than as an idea like a plane in math and this holds for Einstein's idea about the singularity being infinite and you can measure the mass of a black hole quite readily without any kind of disproof of physics.
To me an Infinity anywhere seems like a doctor saying hmmm,
which just means luck of the Irish and the doctor doesn't know what's beyond the event being considered.
The history of physics has always shown that there was something beyond us that we just don't know what it is yet.
To me a singularity seems to be Einstein's way of just saying who knows? Which doesn't seem like Einstein..
He was good at physics but he made a lot of mistakes and he himself said the first 99 times he gets it wrong and the hundredth time he gets it right. Old 101stein!
ABOUT AGN EVENTS
If we assume the red shift of these objects is due to motion they would need an even huger source of power to be seen from the distance they seem to be than if they were nearer.
If we assume these radio sources are nearby with a gravitational red shift then they have so much gravity they should implode by relativity into the black hole and disappear.
But if we use the idea that there's a phase change to cause what I call superfusion at the singularity which is supported by the faster than light motion of the spin of these quanta and the motion outward can be radiant, powered by Line Removal and the faster than light radiance outward then we can explain these events where relativity fails..
ABOUT TIME AND CPT VIOLATION
The randomness of either events like radioactivity or of the incoming energy like from the sun is going to have a definite influence on some but by no means all of our ideas about time.
"In" is not the same as "out" or we would fall off the earth and there would be as much room inside than there was outside the Earth.
I think of this as more universal perhaps than the CPT violation of the weak force.
I believe it's possible there may be small CPT violations for electric spin of quanta and also for the spin of room sized masses like the Japanese physicists searched for, and I think it may even be possible that the degree to which the inertial flow opposite the light of the waves in SR might also not be symmetrical and might be enough to give us the slight tendency for the field to convert to particles as it flows with the light.
And though this is extending my idea a bit I think that this may even be the degree to which dark energy causes cosmic acceleration. If once in a long while the energy field converts to a particle and particles have sides and friction this may even be the force to power the cosmic acceleration by a sort of centrifugal Force and this could be based on the CPT violation, this would make it also so that light isn't quite its own antiparticle either.
The main distinction between my idea and the Japanese physicists with the spinning gyroscopes is also first of all not the same as relativity since antimatter would fall up as much as matter falls down by the wrapping around of the field lines and comparison on both sides of the outer weight field which can change unlike the inner mass field. (If you can change your weight unlike mass at different radii in gravity). If the external field is much faster than light, a large number of low energy spins might be needed to match the quantum spin of just one spin at the speed of light to create enough force to measure this event.. unlike Einstein's idea that antimatter will fall up because time is reversible and doesn't even exist, I believe that antimatter may fall by positive gravity at a slightly different rate (according possibly to the speed and low energy of the spin of the external field) than the matter with CPT violation, also explaining why there's more matter than antimatter.
Another way CPT violation might be involved could be about the spin of galaxies because they might spin more one direction than the other and this wouldn't be according to relativity.
As with the Japanese physicist's experiment, I believe that the Galaxies may even accelerate outward with the Hubble motion at a slightly different rate by gravity depending on whether they're spinning clockwise or not.
This is only according to the idea that the space itself isn't expanding with cosmic radiation outward so it would then exert no force..
But if the galaxies line up more with the cosmic radiance as the Milky Way is known to be with its pole directly lined up with the outward line of motion, it seems here again that space is not empty as Einstein believed and while this may be mostly an electromagnetic effect by way of the huge magnetic fields between the galaxies, calculations may be a way to filter out this from the magnetic influence itself and to find what's left that might be caused by CPT violation itself both for the electro magnetic fields of the galaxies and gravity.
That the pilot wave or guide wave method of quantum physics has been accepted by most myself included as most probable or best yet, would be because dark matter and dark energy, or inertia and gravity aren't absent. They would be there shipping and guiding the quanta from the outside even while the quantum of light by relativity is also quite well established.
If light really is a quanta and the speed of light is absolute then the pilot wave method of waves and particles wouldn't have traction. This about the speed of the field is different from what the 19th century physicists believed about the field but they were with no definite belief about this. No field at rest doesn't rule out this higher speed more flexible medium with relative degrees of absolutes. The waves between the heavy quanta give way, and Mach's idea that the motion of the mass is all there is present and nothing even mediates the motion holds up well as far as it goes but it doesn't explain Maxwell's triumph about the speed of light exactly and there is no explanation of what connects the spinning bucket to the cosmos by energy conservation.
By Occham's idea if the existence of the waves isn't seen this is simply removed from the calculations. But Stokes and Maxwell and others considered waves and not just particles of light by so many lines of evidence like this it's not surprising nobody believed Einstein at first.. Here I don't dispute the logic or evidence for Special Relativity as far as it goes, but rather I consider the large body of evidence that seems to show that relativity is incomplete.
WHAT ARE THE LOW ENERGY HIGGS'?
As I say I think of them as the solution to the dark matter problem. Supersymmetry has seemed to be such a great resolution about the mass discrepancies in the standard model that when combined with the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles ( for dark matter) it explained the masses so well this has been called "the WIMP miracle".
Yet cosmic searches show no sign of WIMPs.
If they are inside the ROA and this is "where they live" outside the heavy quanta in the "atmosphere" of each in the waves, they are real.. I think they may also be none other than Einstein's low energy quanta he hoped to get around the Uncertainty problem with. This relates to how the Higgs' don't disappear at the lowest energy so here the more mass you add on the larger it gets not smaller as in quantum Uncertainty like common mass and energy around us. Recent "low energy quantum experiments" show Einstein was partially right. Line removal allows mass the stability Einstein hoped for and "a quanta exists even while not observed". It doesn't take a quantum the energy of a Amazon package to measure it, it's heavier if filled with cash from Amazon! Even so Line Removal disproves the unified field or all the world around us would be a blob of unity and we wouldn't have as much to achieve.
Dark matter may be no other than gravity. Dark radiation doesn't interact much with itself or other matter. As in astronomy where the light bending finds the dark matter yet as it radiates out in high energy events, it doesn't heat other matter as it is seen in radiance with it. Line Removal of gravity and that a quanta wouldn't "plow through" the waves might be the solution. And dark matter would also wrap around the heavy quanta just as gravity does without shielding. Gravity radiates in and makes other large masses like the milky way spin at higher speed as if by a halo of dark matter around them.
Why doesn't the dark matter bend common matter yet it bends light? This seems like gravity. Even so I think of gravity and inertia waves as more pure energy. The clunky quantum shell at merely the "slow" speed of light doesn't weigh them down and this is more so about bosons like light which are more pure and spin at just the speed of light both inside and out, and gravity would go more inside and might have more influence without the FTL phase change that converts bosons to fermions as the energy is augmented from just electromagnetism to the strong force as with high energy accelerator experiments with a phase change that has no cause in relativity.
The light is pure and so the gravity might bend it more by the resonance than it would by the fermions since the mass of fermions isn't always equivalent to the energy of bosons so the inside stability Einstein hoped for the heavy quanta would make them move in a separate path with the bending of starlight. If dark matter bends light more than other matter at high energy the distinction of mass and energy by this boson and fermion method would also be evidence relativity is not absolute. While the connecting waves are removed by line removal from interacting with fermions and thus they are inert chemically or by electrical influence, they may be an important part of how gravity operates.
People as brilliant as Tesla believed that the Earth was absorbing large amounts of energy from the field and he thought this would more easily unify all the fields because the tension from the electric field would draw in the gravity. Even so, while Tesla didn't believe in relativity and he was obviously wrong about Special Relativity this doesn't mean there wasn't a deeper truth that we may find by way of this idea of Line Removal and the phase change. The main problem here as with Feynman's calculation about the Earth gaining mass rapidly is about where this large energy absorption comes from and where it goes. As I say, the connection by the low energy waves seems necessary to explain the exact speed of light by Maxwell's method of the resilient medium to create the snapback of the light or energy conservation itself by connection of the fields.
For example a resilient medium would explain what a rocket's exhaust presses against to move the rocket forward and why there's resistance to that motion forward, as well as for example why when the same force is exerted on two different masses, they move at different speeds to resist their motion, more resistance (of Maxwell's medium) for more mass.
Inertia has been called a fictitious force and the claim is often made this can be transformed away by choosing the right frame of reference but this depends on the situation.
In Einstein's inertial accelerating elevator, two masses dropped at different times from the top of the elevator will move apart in apparent acceleration but I realized earlier that the two masses motion apart can be converted to uniform motion by choosing the right frame of reference and this is unlike the gravitational elevator when the two masses are accelerating away from each other based on all frames of reference.
This is contrary to Einstein's idea that no experiment of any type can distinguish the inertial from the gravitational elevator. And there are situations where clearly you can't transform away inertial force like this by all frames of reference. As Newton noted a spinning bucket's water can't be transformed away and as I say by two different masses with the force exerted on them a force sensor on that weight like an accelerometer proves that there's an inertial force here also that can't be so easily transformed away as Newton thought.
If we think of the large energy that the Earth might be absorbing from the field, Line Removal and the more wavy nature of the flow inward could mean that while these low energy fields aren't interacting much with the heavy quanta, in a way the Earth has large amounts of field flowing in and out. In this event, because of Line Removal, gravity doesn't shield and even while it's circulated between the heavy quanta, not much is absorbed. This would be dark matter. By separate lines of experiments and evidence going back to the 1930s, dark matter is believed to make up 5/6ths of the mass of the universe. Some believe that dark matter is gravity itself but as I say, if the waves are distinct this would mean that they are only part of gravity. So if line removal is viable we have an explanation solving problems like where all the energy of the Earth related to dark matter and Lesage gravity is.
This inertness of its flow could be why dark matter is believed to be flowing through us now perhaps in large amounts yet why low energy fields like Tesla, Maxwell, Newton and others believed in have not been found.
A generation of mathematical physicists devoted their entire lives based on what they considered to be enough evidence to make the assumption that the low energy fields exist. We could say that as it turned out there's both a lot of evidence they exist and that they don't exist, but ultimately Dark Matter seems to reintroduce the definite possibility that relativity alone isn't absolute.
WHERE IS THE MASS OF THE PROTON?
As I say elsewhere dark matter might be a solution to the proton mass problem. The fractional charges of QCD as it turns out aren't nearly enough to account for the protons mass, and spin. The missing mass as I see it might be made of dark matter. Due to the general lack of interaction that makes dark matter hard to find like with the Earth's gravity, the large amounts of dark matter might be both radiation in and reradiance but that don't interact by Line Removal with the heavy quantum much. The actual mass of the proton might be measured as a result of the leftover interaction of a small amount of the dark matter as with gravity while in this event most of the flow moves past the fractional charges at much faster speed than the speed of light.
Since the dark matter waves may give most of the mass to the proton they would also change the quantum numbers and influence the constants by their interactions in regular ways by the faster than light connection not predicted by relativity.
Mass is essentially only measured three ways; by the influence of an external electromagnetic influence changing the path of the heavy quanta, by the influence of gravity or by what I consider to be the internal influence of inertia. So while the dark matter is giving most of the mass to the heavy quanta from inside the ROA as also in evidence by the deep inelastic scattering experiments and renormalization, it mostly only acts by proxy on the fractional charges or on the low energy Higgs' which are at greater radius, so the dark matter of a heavy quanta influences the external measures of mass only indirectly and is usually inside the Radius Of Action even with its large extra amount of spin and mass that otherwise could be transferred to other mass and can't be directly influencing because of the faster than light phase change of the dark matter, and we would find it more often than in just experiments like these.
All the spin would only translate out into e equals mc squared because at long distance the spins are of quantum nature plus one or minus one and so it would have to go through relativity to then interact with the outside world. Even so this raises the possibility that much more than relativity we might find a large amount of extra energy or mass someday by finding some way of extracting all this extra energy which I think is possible.
The main problem about this might be that by being dark matter, it's so inert that it wouldn't interact much with our machines by resonance to extract the energy. Even so as we know it is interacting to some extent and we might at least be able to extract information and use it for communications if perhaps no more than this. Gravity and all the spin of heavy quanta by the inelastic scattering experiments seem to show that the mass is there.
As I say, the low energy waves being dark matter, superfluid, and high speed and mostly chemically or electrically inert may not be easy to find for a while so...
You might wonder with the flow of the low energy waves at high speed why they wouldn't generally move particles around with the motion. This would not be common because all points in all the fields have a balance of the in and out waves. And as they move past the heavy quanta they would compare its mass and inertia by way of the spin on both sides and then convey the information elsewhere. Even so, just as it's much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass because mass and inertia aren't equivalent in GWD there is a net leftover flow and this is the extra force of gravity that holds us to the Earth. So the in and out waves are the source of renormalization and they maintain the conservation of both linear and angular momentum.
Newton believed matter has tension, and if this extra tension is about the general inequivalence of gravity and inertia you might ask if we could use this to power machines and do useful work?
I think of the tension like the power steering of a car where the force on both sides multiplies what you can do with the wheels except for a mass like the Earth there's a lot more tension that can be used. And this would involve a sort of seesaw and these are called Gravity Power machines where there are a lot of patents.
To see that Newton was right about this, consider the following experiment. Take one beam of wood like a two by four and balance two weights on either side, say 10 lb each. Move the weights back and forth and measure how easy it is to move them. In other words how much force it takes to give them speed a.
In this experiment take a second or third two by four and tie them on top of those two weights. Finally measure how much force it takes with the second set of boards and weights compared to the first, much easier you'll find to move them! This can be multiplied up by using your arms in balance in the center so your gravity powered machine powers the same kind of machine..
This is much like the principle of a lever.
Or if you go to the store and try to carry your food by lifting it by hand instead of with the cart or in a backpack, it's much easier to control the tension of the mass.
And it seems that if this in and out flow can do work it's like a stream that flows and that will never stop.
Noether, the great mathematician of the early 20th century, was asked what would stop gravity from becoming infinite like this if it has unlimited tension, and her reply, as I note above, was that if you give it a large enough area over which the gravity is operating it becomes finite.
Of course we can imagine that over time using gravity powered machines would radiate out the heat captured from the gravity in essence and this would lead to something like the shrinking of the Earth just as fusion shrinks the sun with time. But the radiation from gravity power machines will track itself back and restart building of planet building or whatever eventually incessant activities the mass of the cosmos creates.
But the gravity is not gone. The motion isn't gone and while there are no sources of perpetual motion there's no guarantee the sun, sources like nuclear power or gravity power perhaps we could say aren't at any rate large sources of value to science and civilization.
This wouldn't be extracting energy from the waves directly by resonance as above just generally from the tension of the field of the Earth, and it's not using most of the tension by 100% efficiency as we might find by extracting it from the heavy quanta, but there are patents on these types of machines and they seem to make use of Newton's idea about tension of the field.
This is doing work and this is like the power steering of a car.
Note that this is not like the wheel of a car but more like a river flowing by where you add the water turbine to collect the power.
This was one of Tesla's ideas and I think the main reason that he didn't succeed was because perhaps he didn't know how to get the usual quanta to resonate with that dark matter field to extract more of the energy..
Even so as I say there's already evidence with gravity powered machines that this isn't impossible.
This seems like the power steering of an automobile where the tension you pay for makes it so you can control more force on the wheel, and you have to maintain the machine but gravity would have tension maintained by the super fluid which you don't have to pay for.
The real source of the tension of the field that "pays for the labor" would be the phase change inside the quanta that's faster than light. As long as the quanta are only partially connected by Line Removal and the phase change, and more energy is needed to stop it from spinning than to keep it from spinning, it's also adding tension to the field and machines.
The idea that we could extract energy out of the field might seem to violate entropy..
Even so I was saying earlier that Maxwell's idea that it would always take more energy of computing to extract the energy out of a gas then you can get out of it was not true because if you scaled up all the molecules to the size of beach balls and you had a faster laser and computer chip you could easily intercept them each time and open and close the small trap door of Maxwell's elf to totally defeat the second law.
Recent patents on graphene have shown that the Brownian motion of the air can actually be extracted for energy by using the right level of radius of resonance of the graphene.
So developments like this show that it seems not impossible that we might actually be able to eventually extract energy from the dark matter flow of the Earth. Here Tesla was searching how to find it and Tesla was not always wrong, he invented the AC motor and I just don't totally discount an entire generation of mathematical physics about the field.
While gravity power machines might allow us to extract a small amount of flow of the dark matter field of the Earth, most of it might both move in and out without interacting much with usual matter.
So the problem about extracting this much larger amount of dark matter force I think would involve something like getting the dark matter to resonate with more classical quanta in order to extract the energy.
Anyons and the Low Energy Laser
A possible way to extract the dark matter field of the proton to do work.
Wilczek in 1982 devised the idea of anyons. These are particles not with up or down spin but with different degrees of fractional spin. Wilczik thought they would never have any use for them but they've been used with quantum computers.
As I say I believed that the Low Energy Higgs' might be a way to get around the Uncertainty Principle, but another use of this idea might be about the anyons.
The Higgs' laser might not be a Higgs' laser if it uses the more wavelike anyons for the resonance of the "monochromatic" output waves.
These waves may be of worth here at this energy even though essentially they may be the same as the Low Energy Higgs' at higher energy; they are the low energy wavelike equivalent of the low energy Higgs'..
The use of the anyons as a method of extracting the energy of heavy quanta like the proton if it's 97% made of dark matter....
Here we would make the laser like the Higgs' laser except it uses the waves of the anyons to resonate out of the tube of the "laser" and into the quanta like a proton we want to extract the dark matter flow from.
The important idea here is about resonance.. if we could get the anyons to resonate with the dark matter flow of the heavy quanta this might make it so we could extract it out on the other side to do useful work.
I think of this as a possible theoretical way to make use of the dark matter if the proton is indeed made of it mostly.
I imagine the possibility of a large array of anyon lasers that extract the energy out of like a crystal and then go on to the next crystal to extract more energy out.
I can imagine portable versions of this that would use a single atom and a single small "laser" to power your radio for 100 years.
Remember that the fusion power of a proton visible is almost all made of the strong force. And if the dark matter is so much more common for the proton this could be a much larger future source of energy than even fusion.
Certainly you can't extract much of the energy out of a proton by way of the strong force of the quanta because they're more under the influence of energy conservation because they are quanta. But the dark matter will be more wavelike and so we might be able to extract the energy out by resonance if we find the right machines..
While I don't know if we'll ever actually be able to do this, it's interesting to consider since it seems to be theoretically possible.
One other possibility I consider is that the quanta will resist the extraction of the dark matter force.
This would be common, because if evolution could have found a source like this it would be in many events in biology.
Even so biology never even invented the wheel in 4 billion years of evolution..
So perhaps if we know where to look and get the right resonance we can go underneath the level of the wave function collapse and make it back out by way of the resonance of the anyons.
I think of air pressure as having tension bound by gravity. The gravity has tension and the air molecules are moving at high speeds but if gravity was relativistic and at the speed of light there would be large increases of mass by both the motion or at any rate an equivalent change of mass by the gravity and change of energy of all the particles of the air. As quanta move around in machines like the LHC at near the speed of light there would seem to be large influence by gravity due to the same speed of light for gravity found by LIGO. The speed of light is all powerful with relativity and I believe if gravity is the same as inertia these events would be indistinguishable.
You might wonder why if, as I say, the speed of gravity is faster than light that there wouldn't be strong relativistic effects caused by this much higher speed for molecules like the air. I would think this would be because gravity is not quantum and unlike the quanta of special relativity by Maxwell's method where you have two opposite quanta that are balanced to give the speed of light, the speed of gravity is a measure of the internal spin of the heavy quanta by line removal and the resistance by the flat Higgs' field to the spin. With energy conservation there always seems to be pressure or something pressed against something to create a force or tension of the field. This would give a much different speed for gravity than by Maxwell's method for light even while it still involves comparison of two distinct events. Newton himself believed that gravity might have a speed billions of times that of light or perhaps infinite because of things like the lack of displacement of gravity towards the Sun. And while electromagnetic equations show a definite change in the force with changes in speed gravity doesn't have this change.
It might seem here that the gravitational mass of a quanta is much smaller and so if gravity is at the speed of light you'd have a much smaller effect like the molecules of the air. But I would ask why, if relativity is so powerful, is the gravitational mass so much different from the inertial mass or more particularly the electromagnetic mass of these quanta.
More to the point I think that if we measure the gravitational mass and the gravitational attraction on the body it may not increase with motion as we would expect even by the small mass and instead we have the much smaller increase of mass by plugging in the much larger speed of gravity into the Lorentz equation. So there may be the usual increase of the relative mass of a quanta with motion but a small reduction in this number itself because the gravity has a negative term and it's the opposite of relativity.
I think of gravity as a superfluid that flows from thermodynamically cold to hot so in essence an increase of relativistic mass will be a decrease of gravitational mass. This would be as the red shift by relativity gets larger the closer you get to the Earth and yet the Earth is not inside out gravitationally; it's more compressed with the corresponding small gravitational decrease in mass and not a large increase in mass for the quanta as by relativity even by plugging in the reduced gravitational mass that the idea of relativity might not allow.
You may say by Maxwell's method if light has the large snapback and the large speed with it if gravity has much reduced snapback because it's much lower density, then wouldn't the speed of gravity be slower not faster?
In GWD Gravity would be the opposite of special relativity, and reversed in sign so it would have overlapping changes in both speed and wavelength not just wavelength as in special relativity and there is the need in physics for waves that both speed up with higher density and ones that slow down with higher density too to conserve energy.
Light slows down in the gravitational field and so the acceleration of gravity speeds up..
If you have the waves of light in SR they all move in a wave train even of different wavelengths at the same speed of light, so no information is exchanged between them as they move. But I imagine the gravity waves if an acceleration might have something like the superluminal scissors that cause their own acceleration as they move and multiply. So relativity is linear and gravity is by definition nonlinear both literally and in the abstract.
A line can't be both round and linear at the same time as expressed by the infinity of pi and also the problem of plugging in the quantum equations into gravity.
There's no huge mass augment or time dilation by gravity because gravity compresses things together like the Lorentz contraction. Time dilation is a stretching out of the waves of the field, and by the redshift of gravity the Earth would be inside out.. the problem may be solved by the use of the much higher speed of gravity plugged into the relativity equation and since the term c is the inverse under the usual radical sign if we substitute the much higher speed of gravity then the events of mass time and length contraction are much reduced.
I'm neither an experimental physicist mostly nor a mathematical physicist but I am good with many machines. As I say if gravity and inertia are the same thing we would expect that an ultracentrifuge would have large gravity. And near the speed of light with the large mass augment of relativity we might expect much gravity also. This might be testable with my idea of the relativistic wind tunnel RWT. This is one of my numerous inventions and would be based on Einstein's evidence for relativity about taking a magnet and a wire and either is equivalent so either is at rest or in motion, and the motion is relative.
So the idea of the RWT would involve moving light or other radiation at near the speed of light past a small stationary object and by Einstein's idea we might be able to measure the Lorentz contraction which has never been actually observed in the lab. And while it's also possible there might be the mass augment of gravity near massive bodies by much more than relativity would seem to predict I think this is unlikely.
I want to also note that the idea of Line Removal may be a better solution to the hierarchy problem as it has been considered. It's a good read on the link I'll show you below. The problem is about why gravity would crunch down to make the Higgs have huge mass with the actual mass found small even as its balance by a large number of components each with lots of computations needed to just balance out to the Higgs mass seen. Some have devised the solution by particles named Relaxions that would make gravity not have this huge crunch.
By this idea of Line Removal it seems much easier to compress the heavy quanta inside and radiate outward than to reduce gravity, at any rate.. If gravity were still gravity at short range it would seem it would have huge strength along with quantum numbers and shielding. Gravity doesn't radiate out and it seems to have more influence than be influenced because of its low energy at longer range. As on the link below the Relaxion would seem like changing gravity by more gravity since it interacts by influence from near radius. Line Removal would simply cut off the influence of Gravity by the phase change without the problem of long range influence seen and the gravity wouldn't build up by the Higgs' to the infinities. The idea of Relaxions seems to be just a sort of plug-in that doesn't really explain it as simply as Line Removal by the simple phase change. The phase change itself would be derived from the flexing of the field and not by what seems to be a more ad hoc event.
No huge contributing constants would be needed because all that's involved is essentially the balance of the simpler centrifugal and centrifugal force inside the ROA combined with Line Removal.
Here's the link to a good read you may like I hope;
https://www.quantamagazine.org/higgs-boson-mass-explained-in-new-theory-20150527/
Click here. for more about why I believe there are distinctions in energy and mass and falsifiable proofs...
SPIN DISTINCTIONS OF BOSONS AND FERMIONS
https://paintbrushsage.blogspot.com/2019/04/energy-inequivalance-once-said-to-my.html?m=1
+++++++
starship orion at Thursday, December 19, 2019
‹
›
Home
View web version
Powered by Blogger.
My belief is that because they do, they may not just hold for the weak force but they may hold for any spinning body to some degree.
But instead of it being caused by the electric or magnetic field for electric charges, I believe CPT violation may be more fundamental. Mass may be spinning energy by GWD which relatively doesn't explain about rest mass (if it's not faster than light then the speed of light sets all the rest masses at one or minus one with all the quanta spinning at integer or half integer spin, about the speed of light with the unifying electric charges and the constant speed of light, instead there's a rainbow of masses for the quanta, this is easily explained by the dark matter wave component of each heavy quantum spinning at different speeds and all of them faster than light).
If mass is spinning energy, CPT violation, if it's about spin itself which is something more fundamental, may be more general and may have to do with the matter waves of QED like for the spin of charged particles.
If these matter waves are about dark matter and dark energy (and the same centripetal and centrifugal force) and they are spinning at much faster than light as with the Japanese physicists and the spinning gyroscope with weight somewhat changed in one direction than the other, so too I believe that there may be a slight violation of CPT with the spins of electric charges and also for bodies like a gyro spinning in more common events around us, except with much lesser degree than for the weak force but with the much higher speed dark matter and dark energy fields as necessary to maintain the asymmetry of time and space and thus of mass and energy or mass and inertia that relatively tells us otherwise must be true.
Van Flandern wondered how the particles of the LaSage method could be causing both centrifugal force and gravity and yet we can't find them directly. He invoked small holes in the field like for the neutrinos so it goes through a lot of matter before it interacts. My solution is about Line Removal as I say, but also I believe that dark matter and dark energy may actually move in the spaces or tubes between the electromagnetic field lines. This would solve an important problem about the field lines..
why don't they attract each other or repel or kink up.
To me this seems to be related to the problem of why the quanta go on spinning and never stop. The dark matter and dark energy may have a FTL change of phase and so they're much tougher to find than the heavy quanta because they're super high speed and mostly wavelike but the inertial lines seem continuous if measured by the slow speed of light outside like for electromagnetic fields as in special relativity.
This would be important because they would be higher energy (if the constant for centrifugal force is so much stronger than for gravity and the effects of special relativity are easily measured in quantum mechanics, while gravity is much tougher to measure to find) and they would lay down tracks for the gravity waves to radiate out between the tubes which would induce the gravity waves out and induce in the gravity particles in. I think what LIGO has found is only the speed of the inertial particles radiating out which will fit the speed of light of relativity but not the evidence that gravity is much much lighter than inertia and that it radiates in not out. In my belief the speed of gravity is much much higher than the speed of light to hold the galaxies together and the real speed of gravity may await future telescopes of lower energy and higher resolution than LIGO.
The problem this idea solves would be about why particles go on spinning. The dark matter and dark energy would be sort of like a sort of cosmic oil that keeps all the planets moving around and the particles spinning without much friction so it's a well-oiled cosmos and perhaps more like physics of the clockwork cosmos of the 1700s...
The particles need to be able to have tension to keep spinning by the phase change inside the quanta but they also have to have some kind of "oil" to continue to spin.
Low energy particles and waves are needed in my opinion because The field needs both to be able to compute and store the results of the computations for energy conservation to always balance... More about CPT violation below...
Masses Fall at Different Rates in a non-relative way. How The different rate of fall of the Earth and the Moon relate to the way that the galaxies are all Rotating faster than they should; Creation Of Dark Matter.
General Relativity has two general predictions. One is that mass falls at a different rate like the the shift of the parihelion of mercury, and the other evidence like frame dragging.
While Einstein also turns around and makes the opposite prediction that different masses fall at the same rate, I would think that one of the other are these two is true and while the shift of the perihelion of mercury is good evidence but it's not based on relativity.
As I hold that gravity is not relativistic since different masses like the moon and the Earth fall at different rates unlike the equivalent motion upward and downward of the field that Einstein invokes to make it so that gravity is the same for all masses.
Here Einstein says that we're accelerating upward in equivalent motion and "accelerating through time". Yet with a comfortable acceleration of thirty two feet per second we would be at the speed of light in less than a year and so on.
If one or the other is true or not that different masses fall at the same rate or different rates, I would hold they don't fall at the same rate.
This is expressed in how fast the galaxies are spinning as they spin much faster than they should.
A new theory says dark matter creates more dark matter out of usual mass.
As I say I think of the galaxies as having radial lines of the lower energy radiant electro magnetic field with lines of the inertia that the gravity waves then follow outward by induction. But the spaces between the lines for inertia are getting wider and wider and so the gravity waves can add extra acceleration more than by relativity or classic mechanics.
So the dark matter really can create more dark matter out of itself. If we try to bring it down to the solar system we might say that all those changes in the rate of fall in general relativity like the shift of the perhelion of mercury are evidence for this effect on a smaller scale.
And as I say the evidence for the change of the rate of fall contradicts Einstein's other idea that all mass is the same, as far as by gravity.
Therefore the changes of rate of fall of what's called "Relativity" of gravity would also be changes in the rate of creation of dark matter itself as seen in the changes of the rate of fall of the galaxies.
So too the moon falls around the earth in a different rate than the Earth around the moon in a non-relative way, and if extra dark matter might be being created to some extent we would expect there to be slight changes in the rate of fall of masses.
We lift the two masses with a different amount of force to the height where they supposedly fall the same rate, even while the moon falls a different rate around the Earth, which is not what relativity tells us about how Einstein believed mass is simple about gravity and how gravity treats all mass the same.
This way of hopefuly matching up the galaxys rate of fall to the mass around us would be small or would already have been found. And when you take two small masses and drop them with different weight Einstein's idea may seem to fit pretty well, but here too a super small amount of extra dark matter may be being created. And this might be changed by the degree the Galaxys are spinning at a different rate except much scaled down because the space between the low energy lines of the field are without so much extra distance between them and stronger force of the gravity and stronger centrifugal force of the more cosmic events of the galaxies to multiply up the field which otherwise is more common.
One way I think we might multiply up this effect is to take two different masses and launch them with the same force so they rise to different heights and then measure their changes in the rate of fall which would perhaps be multiplied up compared to the like rate of fall of masses as in what has actually been considered to be evidence for the relativity of gravity.
If gravity and inertia were completely equal by relativity no matter how much you increase the potential energy you would increase the inertia that much also and if you exert the same force on two different masses they would move at the same speed. Because they have a different amount of dark matter halo around each when the force is applied to different masses they move at different rates.
This is in accord with f= ma not E mc2 which would not be as general for gravity as Einstein thought because you can have any ratio at all of dark matter to conventional matter and so the moon with the lower energy dark matter halo falls in a different rate around the Earth then the Earth around the moon.
One problem here might be about what keeps the creation of dark matter from creating more dark matter and accelerating to infinity.
Unlike Noether's answer when asked this, as with Wilczek's method of explaining why the strong force in QCD actually gets less strong with the reduced radius, I think there may be small overlapping gravitational and inertial waves and particles and they essentially overlap each other enough to cause something like a change in energy conservation, yet as the radius changes they don't go to infinity because of this shielding effect.
Noether's reply was that if you have a large enough area the gravity becomes finite.
My belief instead is that if you have a small enough area, Line Removal combined with overlapping of the small waves and particles by Wilczec's method prevents the infinities for the gravitational component of the field. If by Noether's method you pick a larger and larger area it's going to have more mass on the average and this would increase to infinity instead of decrease.
Even so the idea in classical physics that the greater radius has more and more potential energy would lead to infinities with enough distance. So if a short enough radius is reached, Gravity becomes finite and also with enough distance.
This is my belief, if gravity is to have the extra tensor not caused by relativity you need a way to limit it from becoming infinite both internally and externally as by Noether's Method.
This seems like the question of why the planets as with Bode's law increase in distance with a regular rate from the Sun like the planet systems of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn. There's increasing distance of each orbital radius as well as decreasing mass density with increasing mass and increasing radius up to a point and then it starts to decrease.
This would be because gravity is not simple and what's called gravity is actually a combination of inertia and gravity so that the stickiness of the field of inertia causes the notches that the smoothness of the gravity couldn't maintain.
In the gravitational field, mass has a certain distance that it can fall with increasing radius but beyond that on the average the internal random motion of atoms or molecules makes mass expand outward like a gas so because of inertia potential energy doesn't increase to infinity, and the planets don't increase to infinite mass.
CPT Spin Parity Time violation may be why observations show by count the galaxies spin more in one direction than the other in a ratio of four to one as has been seen by cosmic assays based on the WMAP survey.
I think most of this may be caused by the huge cosmic magnetic fields that may be causing most of the cosmic acceleration.
Even so here I invoke the possibility that the CPT may not only be involved for the magnetic field itself as I say above but also for a higher energy version of the Japanese physicist's experiment with the gyroscopes.
That is, if a Galaxy spinning one direction weighs a certain different amount from than the other direction then it's going to move outward with the cause of acceleration but at a different speed in outward cosmic radiation also according to its mass and also according to this about the magnetic field.
Also the Milky Way seems to have its spin axis anomalously almost completely aligned with the cosmic outward expansion.
I think there might be a weighted gravitational version for the galaxies as with the Japanese physicists experiment and these different weights will give the results when you combine together to predict the actual speed of the galaxy moving outward and also which direction it will spin. This wouldn't be a simple cosmic acceleration event as Einstein thought about his idea of the low energy radiant electromagnetic field and it may use old-fashioned magnetic fields but I think there may be a place here for gravity as well as the CPT violation for the centrifugal force.
If gravity is indeed faster than light then we could say that it's always going to outdistance the short range fields like the strong force or electromagnetism with their radiance.
If gravity were not faster than light the light would be able to escape the cosmos and this would violate energy conservation.
Actually I think it's possible that if some of the light could escape the cosmos this would lighten up the cosmos and so it would have less mass attracting and this would boost the motion outward with cosmic acceleration, actually powered by the huge magnetic fields combined with the reduction of mass. That the cosmos might be violating energy conservation is not impossible like about the Big Bang.
Even so I tend to favor energy conservation as the foundation of cosmology, with a circulating vortex cosmos.
In this view the area of the cosmos we happen to be in would be one of the cosmic jets like the jets of galaxies but on a huge scale and this would circulate the fields indefinitely like for other bodies like the electric and magnetic fields of the Earth with energy being neither created or destroyed. So I don't favor the possibility that the universe is fizzling out by slow gravity with the light radiating out and reducing the cosmic mass, to me faster than light gravity seems best. (That we're here in our area of the cosmos at one of the cosmic jets with the universe not yet showing signs of it in observations doesn't mean it never will... To me it seems it's possible the cosmos might be so huge it seems isotropic without improved sensors yet. While Tegmark and others have noted that the large round circle found in the Wmap images might be evidence that our cosmos has bumped into another and I note that this might be evidence just that we're at the center of one of the two cosmic jets. I wasn't able to refind this evidence and this would not yet be enough to base the vortex jet cosmology idea on, even so I think it's possible. As far as it goes even this far however I favor it over a Big Bang cosmology because it has the major advantage of not violating energy conservation. It also would seem superior to multiple universes because it's based on energy conservation and it would explain the polarization of the galaxies as well as the expansion of the cosmos observed and the round circle. The idea of more than one universe by Tegmark doesn't explain anything we already don't know, and I don't think it makes any predictions we can measure.
It's been noted about the anthropic principle that if we change all the constants together then there's a new balancing point where the computations can take place for life. For this reason and that the anthropic principle would be unparalleled in the history of science with so much evidence in favor of a non geocentric cosmos like special relativity and also that we're not special in our place in the universe as far as science has said, I don't believe much in the anthropic principle or more than one universe yet. Right now at any rate there is one thing that might fit Tegmark's idea of multi-universes about the giant circle found by the Wmap survey, a circulating jet cosmology fits energy conservation... expansion in general, would explain the polarization and acceleration of the galaxies and one of the predictions of the idea of cosmic jet cosmology might be that if the universe is a giant circulating body like a Galaxy it might also have a cosmic spinning belt like the tropical zone one of the Earth and with the two jets at the North and South Pole and we might see this with more advanced observatories.)
I was always of the belief that if the universe was infinite in extent it would have infinite gravity and we couldn't be here. Just as with the Earth, which has more gravity holding it together than radiating out, it's simple to see that the cosmos may obey energy conservation which is more well-proven than Big bang cosmology.
If gravity was at the mere speed of light, then as with the distance problem about the speed of light limit for distant masses where you can't know what's before or after, like for the nearest star where it takes 4 years to find out what's before or after by relativity, so too the universe would be fizzling out, so without GWD, energy conservation would be disproven and mass energy would be being destroyed by being removed from the universe.
SPIN OF LARGER MASSES AND HOW THE COG MIGHT BE OF VALUE TO LASAGE GRAVITY
Heavy quanta are the fundamental unit of gravity in my description of the dynamics by way of Line Removal and common source of origin in the singularity, because the hadrons and leptons are always sources of gravity. Even so by resonance, larger masses have a net external spin and between two bodies like the three masses on the t shaped beam, the stretch of this vortex has resilience about gravity even if mostly made of the inertial waves. So the vortex for the Earth moon cog is spinning and the Earth moon system seen by other masses acts the same to it as if with quanta of the right mass and distance. So masses like the quanta attract by their cog to larger and larger systems like moons and stars by the common code and cause of this method. If by General Relativity all masses would unify and fall in by the rubber sheet Einstein uses, gravity wouldn't be stronger at the com if there is nothing there. I propose instead that the com is blueshifted because gravity unifies masses so instead of the redshift, here we might find gravity blueshifted in it's own as yet unseen wavelength, the wavelength being also unlike that of light which is used in Relativity to measure it by what I consider "received knowledge" with overlapping changes in wavelength and speed. If gravity has much different strength and acts unlike light, it has other causes and I think isn't measured by it (other than how it generally affects the quanta by the changes we can measure on the quanta by the slow speed of light and the received knowledge by relativity).
What holds the Earth to the rubber sheet? Nigel Calder in his book Einstein's Universe says that masses in orbit "lay down tracks" they follow as they accelerate around masses like the Earth.
Like Bode's law and the l5 Resonance of gravity To me this seems to be explained by the cohesive resonance of a much higher energy field than the gravity that Maxwell and many other physicists believed in before. Waves at this level of energy will be What LIGO has measured because this is evidence of the inertia that keeps the planets stable while the gravity being only a continuous acceleration with overlapping speeds and wavelengths would not allow.
To me this seems to be the same kind of problem that arose in the early finding about classical physics: the electron in its orbit about the atom would rapidly become unstable and so the idea of the atomic quantum orbitals was invoked.
And I think of the orbits of the masses like the moon or satellites around the Earth as having the same problem is gravity as simple as Einstein believed.
He said that all his castles in the air will fail including mass and motion without his idea of complete continuity of the field. Just as quantum waves and particles are at different energies, It seems logical to believe the planets are going around in notches, or resonances of the much higher energy field of inertia, and without this essential non-relativistic discontinuity of the field, the planets couldn't even continue in their motions through the heavens.
Einstein's rubber sheet method of describing gravity seems to be maintained by an
arbitrary vertical force so the motion of the Earth is just so to keep it from falling in. But gravity isn't vertical. It radiates between two bodies by the spherical law of radiant energy. The equation for gravity has two terms and centrifugal force has just one. Gravity isn't independent of the motion because the Earth is more at rest and more valid to be the source of the influence than the moon and so is the sun or the universe as the foundation of validity.
The LEH which had been predicted, has been tough to shake loose and find in the lab away from the quanta in experiments before it was actually proven. This might be because there are few external particles of this type (LEH Low Energy Higgs') and so while a larger more massive body can act like a large quanta, the "unit of gravity" is the quantum due to the cosmic importance of the balancing point of the ROA Radius Of Action, even while most of the LEH are around the ROA, and larger masses would have lower mass density than the heavy quanta. After all, gravity would be much stronger at near radius and have quantum numbers and shielding if it didn't have Line Removal.
The supposed empty space of Relativity of the T shaped boom with the masses is a function and behaving in a regular way and so Einstein's idea about the field being empty and unchanging would be wrong since it's needed for energy conservation and the snapback of the light to give the correct speed.
Even so I wondered how does the com of the spinning machine "know where to center?" And I considered the method above by particles radiating out for centrifugal force or in with gravity. Yet there seems to be no field change at the com for centrifugal force even as the field com acts as the unchanging cog to distant gravity sources.
If we have gravity particles, the Low Energy Higgs' exerting the inward force, radiating in to the cog like with the Earth they would reverse and change phase at the cog or com and become more wave like perhaps at this point so it can radiate in and out in loops so there is no overall change in mass if the field circulates.
I propose experiments like sending interferometers, atomic clocks, or heat sensors to the cog of the Sun Jupiter system which is outside the radius of the sun. I believe General Relativity fails to be the cause by way of gravity like a bent rubber sheet. (For example how can there be two different accelerations through the same point for like Jupiter and one for the Earth and the Sun. How can a rubber sheet be stretched two different ways with positive attraction on the outside at the same time yet be only positive with acceleration both in and out if gravity only attracts?)There is no explanation for the tension yet by LR and the evidence about the Kaluza Klein as above this is viable, and by GR the rubber sheet is large and that of the Earth is small. At the area of the cog there is a larger slope down to the sun so it wouldn't be stable there like the L5.
The idea of the rubber sheet seems like a top in the study of gyroscopes. It's not got equilibrium if you balance it on its tip without spinning yet if you balance it on the level upside down it won't fall over. A mass on the rubber sheet is not in equilibrium yet if we take the top and tie a line between it and another top and toss them in the air they fall neither out or in. This is more like a line of force as Newton believed, not a rubber sheet.
I want to note here as I say on my YouTube Video (under the search like "Relativity and the Right Hand Rule" Encyclopedia IST Video) a gyroscope obeying the right hand rule seems like the inflow and outflow of the field like a line to hold the gyroscope so it doesn't fall as you hold it sideways as it spins. The line in the pole of the gyroscope is linear, gravity is round. The more speed you add to a mass in the gravity the straighter the line. The right hand rule is the same as the displacement of light in SR yet gravity as in the ballistic arc is completely independant, so it's something else. The right hand rule would be derived from the displacement of light at high speed or energy so the spin lines up and has one out and one in pole giving the torque along the pole not sideways (with the force out from the disc of the gyroscope as we might otherwise expect buy the centrifugal force). Gravity isn't the same as inertia because the source of inertia of the gyroscope would be the same as the displacement of SR, by electromagnetic light but due to the lack of unity of gravity and inertia, the gyroscope has one out and one in flow at the poles. Even so the cosmic jets of massive bodies with strong gravity have two out jets not one like the gyroscope so gravity and inertia aren't the same as Einstein believed.
I believe the resonance of the L5 or ratios like Bode's law are evidence against GR because there is supposed to be nothing to resonate or stretch and no ratio of resiliency to non resiliency the resonance is made of.
Gravity seems far too weak to be fundamentally involved in creating inertia like Einstein believed. But inertia may influence gravity. If the inertial particles radiate out and the inertial waves radiate in at higher energy than the gravity waves and particles the inertial wave could compare itself to the LEH constant Higgs' field for general metrics and this higher energy inertial foundation of the geometry may then give a sort of guidance for the gravity to radiate inward.
WHY PI IS NON RANDOM
My mechanism for centrifugal force would use the inner roundness of the quantum or a wheel alike to compare to the flat Higgs' field of the LEH. This involves wheels of all types from quantum to cosmic. The constant Higgs' low energy field is always constant so it may fit most spinning masses. Even so pi has been found to not have complete random numbers and has antipattern events so a 1 is 60% reduced for the next prime or pi number. This would be caused by the edge of the Higgs' blocks being a bit jagged. Remember hi def radio?
So as a physicist in 1800 watching might have said no frame of motion can remove the round spin of the wave used in the bucket and the bucket knows if it's spinning or not. And so I think it might be possible that centrifugal force isn't 100% the same all the way around the spin of the mass in motion. If space isn't completely smooth as Einstein believed so much there might be slight instability around the spinning mass as it goes round for some areas of the arc.
The edge of the box is a line while around the rest it would be more uneven causing the area of something like the constructive or canceling interference of the electron orbits around the atom. It's at just this zone and so the basic comparison of pi might allow this if pi is from the Higgs' and light method. Research is being done with large interferometers to see if there are any basic changes in the field. Since a gyroscope only shows force with change in spin not linear momentum I believe we might find the change in the experiments if they are used with centrifugal force and might show up if we send the light through the inside of the gyro. The Higgs' field is constant and so no change is seen with uniform motion of the gyroscope. Only changes in torque with spin are seen.
The cause of the Lorentz contraction would be by way of impact of the weight (outside) field with the external field. Even so this is not as efficient as complete mass energy equality would allow. If mass and energy were completely the same it would be just as easy to convert energy to mass as mass to energy and this isn't true and this would also be about CPT violation. The inefficiency here by way of Line Removal also not only would give the tension of the field by spinning faster than light inside the fermions with the extra degree of freedom, also it disconnects the field and this is the cause of entropy. So there would be a delay in the Lorentz contraction when force is applied from the outside. Even so it would be considerably faster than the speed of light for the adjustment for the fermions and only at c for leptons since the fermions being massive unlike leptons would spin faster than light inside. The total time of adjustment for fermions may be less than for bosons by this distinction of mass and energy relativity doesn't allow for fermions and bosons. This may be provable with machines like a cathode ray tube or my invention I call the RWT Relativistic Wind Tunnel where we might see the Lorentz contraction. (It's not been experimentally seen even while the rest of SR fits it well. The RWT would involve speeding the field like light past a mass like a small starchip at high speed in relative motion to finally perhaps see the Lorentz contraction and prove or disprove more about Special Relativity. Relative motion in SR itself is a well based idea as Einstein said and establishing SR that it doesn't matter if a magnet or the wire moves to create the current it's just the relative motion that counts here.). See my other links for more. If mass and energy were completely equivalent they would be almost 100% efficient as in well proven matter and antimatter conversion yet by Line Removal nuclear reactors are only 5% efficient and this seems to be in disagreement even with SR.
GWD has a mechanism for the Lorenz contraction by way of the resilience caused by the impact of the LEH at the ROA for which relativity offers no solution for motion from non motion. The changes in the field are also stored as we might expect for the computer of energy conservation by balance between the electric charges as Maxwell believed because the force between the plus and minus charges like the weight and counterweight of an elevator can store changes in the motion of the elevator. For gravity the same spin as in Coulomb's law gives the tension to create and store the changes. Energy conservation needs a way both to change and store the changes in the field like a computer. So the opposite charges may allow balance and the waves' connection stores the results.
The light doesn't fizzle out like sound waves due to the random motion of the molecules of the air between an observer and the train with the Doppler shift and this has been held as evidence that Einstein was completely correct about relativity.
In this view light is a particle and it's constant in speed because it's uninfluenced from emission to the observer.
But if the light has a "snapback" my solution here is to use Maxwell's other idea that the low energy field is not made of particles because if you weigh it it would have weight.
So it's not like a gas but if we say it's like a superfluid then we can allow it has negative entropy because superfluids can do things like flow up the side of a jar that holds the super fluid or flow through tiny gaps without friction.
Indeed this might be the source of the attractive forces of the cosmos and so it may have negative entropy and be mostly made of waves that would snap back the light with the faster than light connection.
Recent experiments have shown that when light is aimed at a target the influence of the light changes before it reaches the sensor and this actually has negative probability.
Negative probability is disdained by physicists because you never find this in common physics. The power of positivity right!
If you assume that the light is only at the speed of light by its internal matter waves then this seems to be a conundrum but if we simply allow the snapback to be holding the light together since it needs something to hold it together or it couldn't maintain its information over billions of years like light from a distant star, the faster than light negative entropy snapback of the light in the experiment is simple and easy to explain.
Thus there's no fizzling out of the light not because there's no matter wave there but only because it has negative entropy.
Einstein holds that there's no field there unlike the sound with a medium because essentially the light is not interacting with the plus and minus charges which seems to me improbable.
If the light is interacting then it will be interacting by a medium and Einstein holds that there is no medium there.
It seems the information about the momentum of the field is stored, not absent. It seems to be invisible in uniform motion or at rest, but if you turn on the rocket motors the force with which they press against the field and the force felt both are seen and relativity has trouble with non uniform motion.
You may ask "if light is at the speed of light, and the superluminal matter waves are connecting the light and the electric charges why can't we just change one of the electric charges and then right away a year away measure a change in the light without waiting?"
First of all note that if there is any connection between the light and the electron and the positive charge at the limit of the speed of light it cannot definitely influence the light in any way like the experiment with the light moved toward the target. If we assume it's faster than light though we have a good explanation as I say by the snapback on the sides of the light before it reaches the sensor.
And if any change at all is possible between the light and the electron like by Maxwell's method of assuming the snapback is proportional to the force between the electric charges by way of the resilient medium,
It must be by faster than light.
This is because as the light moves outward from the electron it's already at the speed of light so any signal or any influence whatsoever from the electron will never reach the light.
And from the positive charge if it's traveling in the opposite direction then it's going at twice the speed of light to reach the light.
Any influence of the electric charges by the light would be by relativity being wrong.
As I say on my other post about LIGO Ice Cube and the speed of gravity, special relativity works fine for uniform motion, but once the engines are the rocket are turned on and the speed is changed, during the acceleration the distant light is changing its wavelength like it's red shift before it reaches the ship.
So here we have a change in the speed of the shift and a change in the distant wavelength of the light before it reaches the high speed observer.
This is easy to explain if we assume that there's something between the light and the observer that's connecting and sending the information about the momentum of the field.
Even if the speed of light is constant the information about the wavelength of the distant light is not.
So I would hold that if you have 20 different wavelengths for the light with 20 different speeds of the high speed observer, in a non-trivial sense you have 20 different speeds of the momentum of the light as it spins.
Sure you can lock in the light's wavelength at any given constant speed of the starship, but with any acceleration the light's wavelength is changing!
You might say that this has never been proven against relativity but this experiment has not yet been done. It's not yet known what the range of quantum entanglement will be.
I believe this is not impossible, and a good experiment might involve entangling the electron with the distant light.
Of course you can't measure the change till you collapse the wave function.. but this itself is only because it matches up to the quanta, the changes are internal and this is not an objection, because the collapse of the wave function that Einstein's so was spooked about is actually inside the quantum "atmosphere" and by quantum computing, and outside by way of the dark energy that itself is not that much important to the electromagnetic field lines themselves. And events like the folding speed of proteins and biology seem to be evidence that is contrary to relativity.
First we might entangle the light with the electron perhaps, then we send them on their way and we collapse their wave function at both sending and receiving area.
If it's super fast it's not two events happening in the same time at two different places as some have held, but rather it may be genuine disproof of this realm of relativity because of my definition of information or a signal as a change in one place mediated by energy between it and another that's also associated with a change in another place.
By this definition since the communication is finite even if it might be much faster than light, it doesn't have infinite speed but because the EPR is constant with distance this may be evidence that the constant Higgs' field is why the effect doesn't lose energy with distance.
So entanglement may be evidence for my idea that the constant Higgs' field there is indeed what the light is constantly comparing itself to. The field may have value both for continual collapse of the wave function for quanta to hold them together to cause evolution of systems through time and the asymmetry of time that relativity doesn't allow
we see all around us, and for effects like the non randomness of pi that has been found..
The entanglement of light with the electron or proton might also be the answer to whether superluminal information can be sent at longer distance than just the collapse of the wave function.
The unevenness and the fundamental roundness of pi works for buckets of any size. (The non random antipatterns of pi are in all bases (said to be more fundamental like geometry than numbers)). But on the larger wheels the nonrandomness of pi has been seen to be reduced with what would be "reduced teeth size relative to the roundness" and this would thus be my prediction with centrifugal force if it is indeed based on quanta or wheel comparing its spin to the leveled out or beveled out Higg's field. To me the infinity of pi is due to the fundamental distinction of linear and nonlinear motion. The opposition of relativity and acceleration is the cause of the infinities when the equations of QM are plugged in the gravity equations. The space of SR is constant yet gravity is non uniform and has more privileged frames of reference.
Mach and Einstein believed since the motion of the bucket and the cosmos was completely equivalent if somehow the rest of the mass of the cosmos was removed the bucket isn't moving relative to anything so the bucket won't have the concave surface of the water.
But if it's comparing itself with the Higgs' field as Newton might have believed all observers agree the water of the bucket has parabolic flow, and no frame of motion can transform it away as Einstein might have said so it might need a bit of jagged edge of the flat wheel to cause the force.(If the Earth's gravity or equivalence of our motion upwards as if being boosted by millions of rockets in equivalent motion we would be at the speed of light in less than a year with huge mass augment here also. Einstein's ridiculous method like expansion theory was actually used in comics as a comedy before Mcutcheon did, but then so was Dogecoin! Even so I have respect for Mcutcheons work and at any rate I consider him a teacher who has enlightened me by some of his writing events.)
If as by Mach and Einstein's belief the bucket is somehow connected to the rest of the cosmos the low energy waves would be how. The equation for centrifugal force has only one mass term however so it doesn't mention what the other mass is even if it's the cosmos or the mass of a star or the Earth or the Moon. Save on travel wherever you go where you are without the Travel station!
One mass term for centrifugal force or inertia means that it doesn't matter what the outside mass is. But by Einstein and Mach's idea, since it's moving relative to external mass it would matter what that mass was and this would change centrifugal force in a strong way with the second mass term that isn't found in any equation for centrifugal force or inertia. While Einstein believed that strong gravity changes inertia here again if inertia and gravity were equivalent there would be small changes with gravity. Gravity is not super strong and inertia is not super weak.
Yet if the spinning mass is comparing it's spin to the much more powered Higgs' field this might act by gyroscopic stability and indeed near a gravitational mass a gyroscope has a much stronger force for its balance than the gravity.
Some like George Ellis the English scientist believe the cause of time is by the edge of what might be, or what actually is is determined by the collapse of the wave function. Others say they don't know what might cause the collapse enough to cause this.
Ellis considers the distinction of gravity between the floor and the ceiling as the cause but I don't think so because time goes on much like in a distant starship with no gravity around. Others hope for some unknown influence in the outside field to cause the collapse of the wave function. My belief is the jagged edge of pi with the Higgs' and the round wave of the heavy quanta might be the cause.
This method of describing the basic geometry of space also allows for the famous laws of radiant energy. Why radiant energy by Newton's law of the spheres of radiation?
Light divides out just so, because here too the light quanta or low energy quanta as seen by LIGO are comparing their spins to that of the constant Higgs' field as they radiate out one distance of radius just as with centrifugal force.
I agree with Robert Sungean that LIGO may merely have found something related to gravity like inertia and not gravity. You can see that the light can radiate out in spheres by simple comparison of their spin with the constant Higgs' field. There is no need for a connection of the mass of the light to its source beyond radiance with anything other than the nearby LEH field.
Gravity needs two masses by Newton's method. It is compared by two sources. When the force between the masses connects it's not just nearby and it's an acceleration. More so the light doesn't change speed as it radiates out but gravity changes more constantly. I think of this as the scintillation of the sides of the outgoing light by the LEH. But this isn't gravity radiation outward as in LIGO because there's no gravity needed for a lot of the masses with centrifugal force we see around us and in astronomy.
About spins of mass as above, you can't have the mass build up in the center of mass yet it acts as if it's the source of the gravity. So my belief is that this is "virtual" for centrifugal force (comparing just the spins on the outside of the heavy quanta or the com to the level Higgs' field) and "real" spin about gravity, it's got a much different energy so it's got a much different size of the spinning field. As above, wheels of all sizes accelerate round. So wheels of all sizes can measure motion by it.
The moon or masses on the beam would cause the centrifugal force or inertia in SR by comparing the field nearby on the outside much nearer the Higgs' field of the LEH near the moon or Earth. The moon and Earth combine as by the spin of the masses on the boom and by here too comparing the two spins from the outside a net acceleration is seen by the field by other masses.
So if this is a way centrifugal force might be of more worth there would also be no connection of buildup of mass by the LEH at the zone between the spinning masses. This allows small masses to bind by gravity and also not lose coherence since the waves would need a common way to resonate. This was a problem I considered about how the gravity waves don't just fizzle out like most common quantum waves do if gravity has both changes in speed and wavelength and this will be a source of randomness unlike changes only in wavelength held him by the quanta both of the light and the electrons in special relativity..
(At shorter range this quantization of the electromagnetic field would still be present even if the charges cancel out like for neutral heavy quanta. This is one of the reasons that Einstein and others believed that mass is not electromagnetic. As Maxwell was noting about what the low energy field would be like the electric field will be part of it but it's more defined externally by the low energy field.)
The radiance outward of the gravity as in what LIGO has found may only be about Einstein's low energy reradiant electromagnetic field he believed in for the cosmological constant even while it's inertia and radiates out like centrifugal force. First the inertial particles would radiate outward inducing the inertial waves inward. This would then cause the gravity waves to radiate outward which then would induce the gravity particles inward causing the force of gravity.
As Einstein believed gravity and inertia have something to do with each other, and this could be that the same energy Higgs' particles cause both the gravity and the centrifugal force but under the influence of the different inertial and gravitational in and out waves. The inertial LEH radiates out to influence the inside of the heavy quanta and the gravitational LEH would radiate inward.
Note that this would explain how you can be weightless in orbit because even though there's a force of gravity moving right through you the LEH are balanced on both the inside and outside. And this really isn't electromagnetic because it doesn't change the chemical or magnetic properties of the masses involved.
Radiation of gravity outward as in LIGO has the problem of the necessity of radiating inward more and gravity seems to be the same as Coulomb's law of electric charge and with the same general form. So I think of gravity as inertia inside out. If gravity radiates in and it obeys the inverse radiation law of all radiant energy, I believe it may also compare itself to the Higgs' field as the inertial particles of what LIGO may have found radiate out by radiation but beyond a certain level the field reverses and a much much FTL gravity wave also reradiates out (not just the inertia of LIGO). This would then induce the LEH in and cause the gravity. The inertia is much much stronger, and the geometry of comparing itself to the constant field would be the basis of gravity, in some ways more important as in relativity to the degree that SR is also. Gravity attracts not radiates out only as we might believe if Einstein and Mach's belief that gravity is inertia instead was proven.
THE PROBLEM OF CAUSALITY ABOUT GRAVITY
If the outward inertia field induces the inward wave (at 10 to the 37x the speed of light for the inward gravity wave in GWD because gravity is that much lighter than light by Maxwell's method if you lighten up and go fast) this may solve what I call the causality problem with gravity mostly radiating in even with LIGO and its radiation out. (This value for gravity is like Van Flandern's calculations.)
This problem about causality... if you drop a rock in the lake and it oscillates the wave, the wave won't radiate in from the outside of the pond in reverse time and then move the stone you tossed in the pond. Inertia is with us as Einstein believed and so gravity may be based on inertia.
You may see my video where I made the claim that gravity propagates faster than light before LIGO and my belief now is that the LEH of inertia move out from a source at c. This is partly induced inward by the inertial waves moving faster to convey the information and the gravity waves are also induced out much faster than light by these same particles. .. Since it's inconceivable there is centrifugal without centripetal force and energy conservation seems to need the waves to connect both the gravity and inertial particles or definitely at any rate for the gravity particles as by the boat and field method as above, all points of the field might have the two sets of particles and waves both for gravity and inertia.
The causality problem of the waves for gravity starting around the outside of the lake and somehow reversing in to the rock then dropped is solvable if the inertial field first lays down the tracks outward which gravity then follows in...
Why doesn't an airship way minus 5 tons.
The airship rises if it has faster molecules of the gas inside and this in turn comes from the sides of the particles exerting pressure outward from the outside.
The gravity is still positive on the outside of each heavy quanta of the gas in the airship because it's faster than light and it's a wave but it's not particulate so it doesn't exert outward pressure.
The idea that inertia radiates out as by pi as above by comparison of the level Higgs' field with the spins of these to compare the round to flat geometry would also induce the other waves and particles in and out. And as I have held, LIGO has found something about gravity. If these particles and waves are somewhat independent of the source by the comparison of the flat to round inertial stronger flux outward as above, this might solve the causality problem.
In this method first the LIGO inertia LEH radiate out as in relativity at c while they compare to the constant Higgs' field giving the round sphere at the same time the inertia waves are induced in. The gravity waves then might move much faster out to move the gravity particles in only after radiating out and this might solve the causality problem. Even so if there is no centrifugal without centripetal force we might still be well able to say that while inertia and gravity are set up this way for us to solve the causality event, since the sphere is round and the disc of a mass like a galaxy is caused by the inertia or centrifugal force, it would have such a loose connection without faster than light (gravity) out waves, all the information inside the sphere would allow no change inside so it conserves information and a connection to the external masses without the value of FTL outwardly radiating gravity waves.
Even if Line Removal simplifies all this information in the heavier quanta before it interacts with the gravity on the outside there is still the problem of conserving information to also conserve energy about external motion of the heavy quanta like for the electric fields. So while Einstein's idea that gravity is simple and a smooth round sphere that would fit the causality solution if we sort of assume that no force is acting and so there is no real causal problem about the reverse motion inward, I find it still is lacking about "outside" energy conservation and there is no way to know what is before or after the events at a nearby star by the slow speed of light so as Van Flandern says if the escape velocity of black hole supermassive events are at c no change inside can connect the outside and essentially without a faster than light union of the field, like a distant star which can't conserve energy or at any rate by the fizzle out to lower density of entropy by relativity alone, I associate it to thermodynamics by way of the ("thermodynamic") speed of light so important to relativity.
More to the point the gravity particles would move in at only the slower speed of 32 feet per second near the Earth so the particles would move only as fast as a falling body so no force is felt as in the boat in the stream... as above gravity waves would move much faster to connect up the particles since particles "having sides" would otherwise radiate out not in for gravity.
But in the radiant sphere, the gravity is accelerating as it moves; it too is comparing the spins of the particles and waves around it. But if it finds change at point a and moves to point b inward at any speed at all with change, the inertia is merely moving at c as LIGO has found. Since information is being exchanged this seems like evidence that the in and out waves are moving relative to each other at faster than light and relativity of gravity is incomplete and an important idea about gravity is that its essence is about GWD.
As I say on my post "LIGO, Ice Cube and Gravity Wave Telescopes", I look for evidence that gravity is faster than light in events like the zero displacement of gravity towards the Sun which caused Newton and others to believe that gravity might be of much higher speed, or even infinite speed.
Van Flandern also notes this and this also holds for electric charges which see each other where they are "now". Einstein tried to fit this to relativity by saying that there is an effect called the velocity dependent effect, so the Earth is surfing on this gravity wave that is displaced back magically to zero.
Yet there's not a single Wikipedia entry about this and as I say on my other page this will cause problems like displacement of light where we could easily find it, and since the electromagnetic field is so hugely stronger than the gravitational field, this version of the velocity dependent effect would change every chemical or nuclear or electrical event there is.
When the moon spins around us the gravity between us speeds up at the cog yet is super fast and continuous and the particles don't build up large mass by the method of the ROA being where most of the LEH particles stay. So it acts like La Sage Gravity without the friction problems and this problem of mass augment of bodies with gravity may be solved. The causality problem is solvable and while gravity may depend a lot on inertia gravity still isn't inertia, in GWD it still moves faster than light and it still allows other than absolute relativity. In GWD the x and y coordinates of a ballistic arc are still independent, the jets are still too strong of cosmic bodies, and evidence for the collapse of the wave function, and tunneling, may be superior to relativity.
Van Flandern wondered about problems with La Sage graviton friction causing heating of planets with his "exploding planet" hypothesis. But we would find much evidence for this in astronomy or in common heating in masses, as in the lab, around us. Even so La Sage gravity is the only mechanical method for this that's been seriously considered by science geniuses like Newton and Maxwell. Maxwell considered the LaSage method and Newton disagreed since the LEH would radiate out since the LEH are particles and have sides so they would radiate out like common radiant energy.
Note that the cog and com can be offset by changing the gravity or the masses of the spinning bodies and this would seem to fit the idea that both gravity and inertia are comparing themselves to something on near terms (although not like in relativity as I say on my synopsis; relativity is about Emc2 not the more general F= ma of GWD where the ratio of mass to inertia is a constant function not a quantum like the light in the equation of Relativity. With relativity you have a complete union by the quanta but with GWD they aren't so unified because there's a smoother more wavelike connection between gravity and inertia).
COMPARISON OF SPINS OF LARGE MASSES And also How Quanta are able to overlap spins at different angles..
This is a use of my idea that gravity has different speeds and wavelengths combined with line removal..As I say the attraction of gravity or its acceleration might be ultimately by the unit of the quanta. They compare the speeds on both sides of the spinning quanta or any mass by wrapping around the outside for the net acceleration of that mass by gravity and both Line Removal and the changing speed of gravity in ways that relativity can't solve.
If you think of gravity at the speed of light and fitting relativity, it has a quantum but the whole idea that you can have overlapping angles of the spin of a mass like the electron, also is non quantum.
You might say right but the quantity really controlled as in the Bohmian pilot wave method.
This is the most generally accepted idea about what quantum mechanics is about, and I'm a fan of this method.
The idea as in the experiment where it's been found the light is influenced by the target before it reaches it, is the idea that the waves are around the outside of the quanta of the light, sort of guiding and shaping the paths of the quanta.
It's interesting to look at what Bohm believed when he said that he thought it never would really disprove relativity presumably because the quanta are still in control so much in special relativity.
But his comments about the waves seem to be not completely so sure that relativity is absolute.
When you have the quantum wave and the faster than light information never makes it through even while the wave does, this might at first seem to be true if we have the low energy waves and particles of dark matter and dark energy moving between the electromagnetic field lines, if they always stay between them then the wave makes it through to influence the field lines but because of the quantum nature it would seem they would never actually be able to send information.
But my idea about the high-speed observer's wavelength of the distant light changing with the changes of speed of the observer and also the fact that in the experiment the light is changed before it reaches the target, this might mean that in essence the information does get through. So while some experiments may seem to show that it doesn't and of course most of it would still be confined between the electromagnetic field lines, a certain percentage of it could make it through.
As I say the unit of gravity, the heavy quanta may transfer their spin to the larger center of gravity of the gravitational field of a mass like the Earth or the Moon by the two quanta spinning at the center of gravity with a swirling vortex and this can then compare to larger and larger swirling vortexes like that of the Earth by the same method of comparing their spin on both sides. Yet if all the spins were at one speed and and gravity is constant as relativity says there would be no way the internal vortex of the Earth could influence the outside vortex of the Moon if the bent rubber sheet of gravity is only positive. Yet by allowing different speeds of the spins of the vortexes there's unlimited ability to influence the outside mass essentially by the extra degree of freedom which is to say two different acceleration speeds at the same time by the low energy waves which aren't quanta so they can superimpose their quantum (wave) state and by Line Removal the vortex moves inside the Earth since gravity doesn't shield and there will be no need for an external wrapping around for the gravity to cause it as Tesla believed. The heavy quanta are ultimately made up of gravity by common creation in the center of the massive source like AGN events and like gravity have an attractive component to hold the quanta together. The superimposition would also be how an electron can have more angles than one of the spin. I don't believe what Einstein thought that what is essentially between those quanta of light with gravity is an imponderable medium.
Dark matter is not imponderable because we already have evidence for it.
Research is underway to try to use giant interferometers to see if there are small fluctuations in the low energy field.
If gravity is the same as dark matter as some believe, or much involved with it this might be the way in to find out what dark matter is. I believe at high speeds and low energies we might find it. And this might be really valuable for communication as we would have a faster than light signal if we took two of these giant interferometers and perhaps use something like the Xeno method (where they twist light to measure energy far below the quantum level) or quantum sensors to much multiply up the resolution and once we find the basic change we might then measure its speed even if really fast by moving the interferometers far enough apart.
Relativity tells us that there is frame dragging and this given result like the shift to the perihelion Mercury or frame dragging I think doesn't follow directly from relativity, since Einstein's basis of the relativity of gravity was that all bodies fall at the same rate. That's Einstein's theoretical basis for Gravity based on the equivalent motion upward of the Earth's field supposedly to reach the two falling masses at the exact same time, as in inertial frames in the inertial elevator, even while at the same time Einstein predicts changes in the rate of acceleration for all these "proofs" of general "relativity".
I think of the vortex of the center of gravity of the Earth as being slightly different on one side compared to the other and this is the net acceleration of gravity but it also relates to the fundamental distinction ultimately between mass and energy or gravity and inertia in my belief, just as there is a distinction between relativity and gravity. This could be why a spinning mass in one direction might weigh slightly less than in the other direction as experiments by two Japanese physicists in the late 90s seemed to prove.
So one application of this idea is that since one limb of the vortex of the Earth spins at a different energy than the other while the vortex is the same (as relativity measures but not describes the cause of) so too there will be a slight leaning of the angle on one side more than relativity predicts of a mass in the angle of the vortex spiral relative to the surface of the Earth towards the moon. Here you could have frame dragging perhaps but you can't have this effect if gravity and inertia or mass and energy are completely equivalent.
WHY THE SPEED OF THE ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY IS DIFFERENT for different masses
The different speeds and energies in the different vortexes would always fit the mass of whatever is attracting. The quanta combine to the Earth's vortex, that combines to the Earth/Moon's vortex which then combines the Earth Moon vortex to the sun's vortex. Different speeds of the field would allow as many speeds as there are masses and each mass has its own speed relative to the other mass of its spinning vortex.
Relativity tells us the bent rubber sheet is round and not why the galaxies or the ecliptic of the solar system are on a flat plane. By comparing the disc to the spin of each mass like for the ecliptic of the solar system it's easy to see why they aren't spherical and this would be by the comparison of the discs of each vortex for which relativity says there is no disc or vortex there.
Where is the change in the speed of light that fits GWD and not relativity?
Essentially due to the phase change and Line Removal most of the faster-than-light motion like of the matter waves would only be found at energies other than light. Because the quanta are as they are, and they're stable the matter waves like with the EPR don't actually have influence till they're measured.
They're underneath the quantum level so you don't see evidence for them other than when the wave function collapses.
I think of this like in a boat in a river the boat is the quanta and the current underneath are the EPR matter waves.
The boat has an anchor so that when the current is changed the boat isn't changed much even though there's pressure on the side of the boat. The boat can be synchronized with other boats by the waves between them but this isn't measured directly because it may be like pressing against the wall and no work is supposedly done, while most other than physicists, may not think so! Even so, when you cut the line on one boat like the collapse of the wave function it will start to move under the influence of the change of the current which already had changed it before. The degree to which the pressure of the waves exert force on the boat at anchor is the degree of the reliability of the connection of the EPR.
This doesn't rule out that the waves may be much faster than the boat nor that they don't exist because we can only measure the boat directly so far (other than the evidence for the for speed of the collapse of the wave function or the speed of tunneling or as I say the experiment where the light is influenced before it reaches the target.)
The boat is not both anchored and not anchored at the same time. It's only that the change in the waves that take place relative to the boat are not yet directly measurable, and this doesn't mean they never will be so I agree with Einstein that other physics may be involved than relativity.
We see the quanta and the masses around us like boats that we could hardly doubt are immersed in a low energy field like gravity.
I tend to believe that LIGO has found the speed of inertia not gravity because inertia like centrifugal force is so hugely higher energy and would be easiest to find.
This is one reason I would agree with Einstein that Schrodinger's cat isn't both alive and dead. The quanta is a bit too stable to measure it as both a wave and a particle at the same time, but the change takes place at the level of the matter waves even while the quanta will not show the change other than by a roundabout influence.
Special Relativity is quite well proven as far as it goes and yet we also have Maxwell's triumphant success in predicting the speed of light exactly.
I think of the quantum of light as Einstein did and they are a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption so the speed of light is constant indeed.
Yet in the interstices of the quanta of light there would be the dark matter for attraction and dark energy for inertia and centrifugal force and this may be why dark matter has been so tough to find because it may be a much faster than light superfluid and it may be both about gravity and inertia.
Van Flandern asked questions about particles and how they wouldn't shield like gravity or inertia and he invoked small holes in the field like the neutrino.
Instead I believe the phase change that allows it as dark matter or dark energy also essentially removes it to the outside and the spaces between the bundles of the force.
And this could explain the cosmic acceleration that's been found because as you widen the areas between the bundles of force of the light the inertial waves moving in the opposite direction speed up.
Note that the inertial waves are hugely stronger than the gravity waves,
and so at enough distance and speed it becomes somewhat like a quanta and this exerts gas pressure outward and this would cause the cosmic acceleration by use of basically Einstein's radiant low energy electromagnetic field.
For the galaxies, gravity is a sphere so gravity basically has changes in wavelength and speed both and there will be a certain amount of change of also of the speed of light of great enough distance because the light is controlled by the snap back of the inertial waves moving inward and the gravity has both changes in speed and wavelength and isn't this quantized and merely follows the lines of inertia more often.
This is important perhaps because if gravity has overlapping speeds and wavelengths, we wonder how it could remain coherent over distance and still exert the force of attraction.
The gravity waves and particles would be mostly induced by the inertial waves and particles and while the inertia particles would radiate out and the gravity waves would radiate out, in order to reverse them inward and for them to remain coherent, they would have to constantly compare themselves to those lines of the electromagnetic field as they move also at much faster than light.
A short-range reversal of entropy here is the only way I can think of that a field that's constantly changing in acceleration like gravity as it moves could remain coherent and still exert the force.
So relativity works as well as we see... Even so, I agree with Maxwell and Tesla that relativity is incomplete and so Tesla was noting that the non-zero permeability of the field to light is important for the possibility of superluminal waves around the light.
If the inertial waves might radiate in as the light radiates out I think of them as having negative entropy and this could make the light essentially have the snapback by attraction.
Maxwell believed that the light was based on a resilient medium, more attractive than radiant. But with relativity and no waves there is no attraction at all.
If LIGO has found a "speed of gravity" that is the constant speed of light, experiments have found both gravity and light change speed in a gravitational field. We might say that if gravity is just at the speed of light if the light slows down near large masses as has been seen, the gravity is still at c and it merely changes wavelength and is still at c so relativity isn't disproven. But I believe any change in the speed of light implies "outside influence" if it's already at c. If gravity changes both speed and wavelength as it moves because it's an acceleration this is not as much about "gravity wave astronomy". If LIGO is about gravity you get changes in speed with changes in distance from the source of gravity.
It's believed that LIGO may be able to not only sense gravity, it may be used as a source of gravity waves. The force would be far far lower energy than being able to move a room size mass around us yet it's believed this is possible. If LIGO hasn't seen gravity, a prediction of my idea is that if the waves are about inertia the outward force would either not move a small quanta passing by or even cause it to radiate out. While usual masses wouldn't be easy to find the event, I believe new quantum gravity sensors may be of value.
Einstein was particularly concerned about the speed of the collapse of the wave function. He believed it seemed to be evidence against relativity if it's faster than light.
Einstein never defined a signal or information in relativity even while he said no signal can move faster than light.
I define a signal as a way to change one event with another at some distance with a delay between the events with the finite change of the information as I say. By this definition the collapse of the wave function is indeed superluminal and real.
Some have held the solution to be that nothing moves from the wave to the definite point of the mass of the quanta after the wave collapses. Only probabilities are exchanged. This is like regarding the wave before and after the collapse as a black box. In this scenario, in the inside of a cloud if we can't see the lightning it has no cause. To me this seems like saying because there is no easy way inside a black box anything is possible for the cause of its speed even while the outside motion of the box is well defined. "Because we can't prove its speed from the outside then it must be at the speed of light" or "Because we have no evidence it must fit other evidence."
Einstein was aware of this and I agree...because of my definition of a signal and information it "is faster than light". Einstein might have believed that just because we couldn't yet find the cause doesn't mean we never will. To me this is not a black box.
Recent low energy quantum experiments seem to prove Einstein was at least partially right. When they send a quantum "mouse" past the "cat", the mouse's path will show if the cat is alive or dead, even if you can't see the cat.
More to the point if there is change from the outside of the wave to the collapsed quanta and you reliably can make this change take place a to b then a signal is sent and since the distance is enough and the change is fast enough, the speed is superluminal and relativity is disproven. Recent tunneling experiments show it to be faster than any speed yet proven. With its higher density GWD gives the predicted speed.
The idea that no motion or energy is exchanged in the collapse of the wave function has been supposedly proven by way of this method;
Bob and Alice have suitcases moved apart as in common EPR events. Two high speed observers move toward Bob and Alice from the outside. The argument is that because even if Bob opens the box a bit before Alice this time order can be reversed simply by speeding up the observer nearby and the same goes for Alice. There is no before or after and so there is no information sent, nothing faster than light. But as in tunneling there's evidence this may not be so.
I agree with Einstein here about his concern about the speed of the collapse of the wave function because to assume there is no higher speed connection also is essentially assuming there is no time sequence of anything around us, this is the general idea. It seems as easy to assume based on the evidence that there may be a higher speed connection and while the outside observers can change the duration between cause and effect with a connection speed much faster than the incoming observers it can't reverse cause and effect any more than in usual events around us. This may be caused by the much higher speed connection of the EPR which would restore order.
In Special Relativity with the speed of light the observer's speed changes only control the "speed of playback" of the events of the other distant high speed traveler, not the events themselves. This isn't complete control as we might expect if Relativity is complete. By Line Removal the time is more separate.
All held the same, each observer always has some will of its own at any rate. You can't control events inside just by sight or outside motion. Both inside influence by LR and outside influence are seen. To me the outside influence seems more improbable. The resolution would be to restore not the observer's right to say the cosmos spins around the Earth at hugely faster than light each day with huge centrifugal force but rather that while the observer has rights by the speed of light, so do other observers. Life around us is always a combination of inside and outside influences. We don't find huge changes from the outside by all high speed cosmic observers.
No doubt this idea itself isn't proof Einstein was right or not about the speed of the collapse of the wave function. If you assume the speed of light limit you can reverse time order this way, and you can't as easily by a superluminal method and this is itself assuming what some try to prove by this method. As I say, a fast signal connecting two events may be the resolution of this, not that Faster Than Light for the EPR is completely in evidence by this about simultaneous events of Bob and Alice.
ABOUT MASS INDUCTION
One question we might ask is if we have two masses and we move one, why doesn't the other also resonate?
I phrase this question in the form of the two electric charges resonating with the light as Maxwell envisioned.
We have the huge snapback that is just right for the speed of light.
As I say it seems like the waves like matter waves between the light and the electric charges are going to have line removal so that gravity and inertia like centrifugal force don't shield metal plates.
So we can say that the waves are like paramagnetism and are also superfluid and this is why it's so tough to find them in our search for dark energy and dark matter. But there's another problem here.
If you have an electron and the light on the other side resonating between it and these waves are so strong that they have a huge snapback why don't the planets show the sign of this event, they move through it without apparent resistance..
My solution would seem to be that if the EPR involves entanglement then we have this problem also for the EPR because it doesn't show the influence of matter between the other entangled quanta.
I once thought of the light like a thin high note guitar string that has a high speed of snapback and yet it doesn't have external influence because it's got less mass to resonate and snap back and forth.
This is sort of a method of lightening up the light so that it doesn't have the wave problem of no mass induction usually seen..there's already evidence for low energy mass induction like for gravity of one mass moving past another with influence which can be easily measured in the lab and also for electromagnetic mass induction like one antenna resonating with another.
My belief about why the intervening planet doesn't interfere with either the EPR or the light between the electric charges by Maxwell's idea, is by my mechanism of entanglement itself.
This involves resonance just like other electromagnetic induction.
And my model of entanglement is to use the low energy Higgs' which have been found as had been predicted by experiment recently.
As I say particles seem necessary yet there will be problems about friction so I relegated them into the realm of the Radius Of Action, ROA.
And by putting the LEH inside the Radius Of Action around the outside of the quantum as some of the LEH have been found to be, the friction problems are not as common with particles and yet it has the advantage that particles have sides so as I say when you're falling in the field of gravity and you move your arms around you still feel the force by the pressure of the sides of the particles and so to the force of centrifugal force will be exerted by particles as if by radiance outward of the gas.
The EPR would be the resonance by the waves between these
LEH.
This might be like taking two fans and setting one spinning and the other then starts to spin.
Unlike a usual fan though if you remove its power source it'll stop spinning by friction and instead the internal high speed spin of the quanta by the phase change gives the field tension.
This would be how attraction actually works.
More importantly for this type of method just as with induction of the more common type between electric charges, the mass induction of the light only resonates at a specific frequency like two antennas.
And this might be why the two electric charges give the huge snapback of the light, and yet we see no mass induction for masses between the light and the electric charges. This will be because for the EPR to work the fans may have to be at about the same energy of resonance.
Moreso about the EPR, it's specific to the quanta entangled.
If you have a spin up quanta and they're entangled only the other quanta on the other side will resonate with it to give spin down. This is one of the special things about the EPR. Only the entangled quanta is specific to the collapse of the first one with a second. No other quanta show the effect other than the quanta being entangled in the experiment. This is sort of a higher degree of freedom of the resonance idea.
But if we think of the electrons and the light as entangled, then we can see why there's no mass induction for other masses nearby.
This could be why as you drive on the road and your SUV the Chevy in the other lane doesn't show the splash of the matter wave from your machine as you go by.
Each + and - charge with the light entangled would only have that specific small constellation of all the LEH around them inside the ROA the number of each LEH may be really large and so like two crystal Tiffany fans as they might spin only those with that particular combination resonate.
While this seems to tell us quantum cryptography is secure, My belief is that while the light and the electrons may have a large number of combinations of the code it can't be infinite.
And I believe Einstein's idea that a low energy particle like the LEH might get around the Uncertainty Problem is possible by making what I call a Higgs' laser.
As I say elsewhere this might involve making tubes of atoms that resonate with the LEH enough to create a coherent beam that might be able to go under the level of the ROA and change the Configuration of the LEH possibly without even collapsing the way function as Einstein himself believed. This is why I believe it's not a good idea perhaps to find the entire future internet on quantum cryptography.
This type of laser is a theoretical possibility which would make it so that we could sort of extend the tube of the area otherwise inside the collapse of the wave function to the tube of the atoms that it funnels down to resonate.
The advantage of this would seem to be that we could make the LEH become more monochromatic like light in a laser and control where it goes into the quanta that we want to change to change the constellation of the LEH inside, perhaps realizing Einstein's idea that we could use a low energy outside quanta underneath the energy level of the collapse of the wave function. I would think the reason these low energy quantum experiments don't completely validate Einstein is because the quanta are both waves and particles partially even so.
While validation of Einstein's idea would render quantum cryptography unviable, I think of it as if we could take two quanta and entangle them or a large number of them and then separate them as they are entangled.
Then we might take the low energy Higgs' laser to change the energy of our quanta we have "here", yet not collapsing the wave function yet, changing the more distant quanta that are entangled with it.
And on the other side we might simply reverse this process by using the Higgs' laser to read the changes in the codes between those entangled quanta.
I originally envisioned using this method by first entangling quanta we have with other quanta we want to send to a distant realm to control the distant events by collapsing their wave function.
The problem I noted was about how you would have to continue to always send entangled quanta to then collapse in order to maintain the signal.
So the quanta would be used up by reading them and sending the signal, without the use of Einstein's idea of a low energy quanta perhaps like the LEH to go underneath the energy of the collapse of the wave function.
But while the quantum cat collapse of quantum cryptography would not be viable by Einstein's idea this could still give us a really good way to send information to distant places, and perhaps at hugely faster than the speed of light, and this may only necessitate that we stay below the energy of the collapse of the wave function for the entangled quanta. It might even take no energy to send the signal other than just encoding it and decoding it at the distant machine.
So by the above method we have the super strong snapback of the field as by Maxwell's idea, and it doesn't shield metal plates or larger masses and yet it still exerts the force on the light to give just the right speed of light without much mass induction.
The LEH here may have their value for both gravity and the EPR and yet without the problems of heating with LaSage gravity like for the Earth as Feynman calculated.
EVIDENCE AGAINST ABSOLUTE RELATIVITY BY CELLULAR BIOLOGY
The Wikipedia Unsolved Problems in Physics page says that folding of proteins with coherence is unexplained because the speed seems to be fast, of nanosecond or picoseconds for the event and proteins are like 90% of what we're made of physically and so evolution would have found this use of folding a proteins only at short distance and not longer distance where relativity holds.
Some are saying quantum computers won't be viable because of randomness. If evolution had found this method, this may be strong evidence they're wrong and we can also compare these natural systems essentially of quantum computing with the machines and learn from both.
It's been found from the brain research from the 1920s on that each neuron has all the memory of the entire brain in it. Carl Pribram used this with his hypothesis of the holographic mind in the 1970s.
(A hologram has all the memory of the entire image in each photographic unit or dot.)
For a neuron to hold this much data perhaps a quadrillion bits doesn't imply a common quantum method of storing the memory, while faster than light computing or the collapse of the way might do quite well, and if this is possible we assume evolution would have found it in the foundation of its survival value.
FORCES AND SOURCES What's wrong with The Relativity of Gravity
Einstein starts with the observation that different masses fall at the same rate near the Earth, then notes that since in SR all observers are equivalent, he asks why can't we assume the Earth moves upward at just 32 ft in General Relativity and so it's equivalent to say all masses in all gravity move at the same rate?
Newton, like most believed gravity is a force. If all forces or observers are equivalent there should be no source if as Einstein and Maxwell believed, gravity and inertia are essentially the same thing. This source event is derived from the inertial uniform motion of special relativity.
Inertia has no source and can be transformed away by choosing the right frame of motion and not so with gravity. The more gravity you have the more you have yet. Mass, more than the energy energy equivalence of picking up energy from motion through the field of SR seems to be the cosmic currency.
The more mass you have the more it tends to center on the source of the mass.
The more gravity a body has, the more privileged its frame of rest tends to be.. So relativity tells us a swinging weight won't center at the near earth radius as it stops at the base.
Both the LEH and the faster low energy waves may explain a lot more than Special Relativity since GWD explains all of SR plus all the wave experiments relativity can't claim, perhaps 70 things.
Stokes, the great 19th century mathematical physicist, believed that the low energy events like for inertia had the same medium Maxwell believed in and his idea was that the medium was like the great 19th century commonplace, sealing wax...
Stokes believed the medium like sealing wax was strong under short term or high pressure but that it flows freely under low or sustained pressure.
This seems like a fluid like water that gives way if impacted at high speed like jumping a lake from above, but flows well if you move slowly through it. The medium has the huge snapback of the light like water would if it were high speed but the problem might be that unlike water it shows no friction for the sustained motion. So the idea of particles like the LEH at close radius to the heavy quanta combined with the lower energy much more fluid waves between the quanta might fit Stokes' and Maxwell's method best. The particles at close radius would exert pressure on the heavy quanta when moving forward and the waves would also transmit the force but mostly they would wrap around the quanta and give way as by Stokes method.
Even so the LEH and the low energy waves would interact well enough to transmit and store the changes in the field outside the quanta. Neither the waves or the particles alone might give the resilience yet reduced friction at longer radii but rather the combination of both.
There is no frame of rest of the medium at absolute rest but only relative degrees of rest due to the high level of superfluid modulation of the medium. More gravity means on the average the mass is more at rest. (The low energy field was believed to be at rest after the early 1800s because of the displacement of light. This has been likened to having an umbrella in the rain and the faster you move the more angle the umbrella is displaced. To me this wouldn't seem to be evidence that the air is at rest indeed it's only evidence that the waves are fluid and not particles like Einstein thought. The reason there seems to be no need for waves in many of the experiments like this about the stellar displacement of light would not be because waves are not there just that they're removed by line removal from some events.
I believe the waves are there but they're not at rest by most measures and instead they move fast and so efficiently...for now, they still have the more stubborn to find events of dark matter and dark energy.
ABOUT THE PILOT WAVE PHYSICS METHOD FOR LIGHT
Einstein repeatedly tells us that light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption, so the speed of light is constant.
At first glance this seems logical because it seems to explain why e.g. light doesn't dissipate with distance.
In contrast sound moves through the air and it dissipates because of torsion and other forces like these.
So comparing sound with light seems to show that light would dissipate if it was moving through a medium as it dissipates to lower and lower energy, then fizzles out.
Einstein was the discoverer of the wave particle duality itself.
While he repeatedly says light is a particle in special relativity, he also alternates with much thought about the doppler shift which is a wave phenomenon.
We can imagine the particles of light as they would carry themselves and the only way this could always fit the waves would seem to be by way of the pilot wave explanation or more particularly the particles drag along the waves around the outside of each particle of light.
This would give us the result that the light is still a particle and the particle method holds sway, even while there would need to be an explanation for how the waves are involved in any way at all in special relativity and especially if the Doppler shift is so important.
This is my own idea that the particles are in their rest frame and they drag along the waves so that it still fits.
But the problem would seem to be that if the waves are being dragged along with the light they're going to have friction like any kind of wave.
Here we have to reintroduce the problems that waves have anyway back into special relativity or it seems that way to me.
My solution here again is that the waves are indeed there.. The waves themselves are made of matter waves and these are superfluid so this solves the problem of the wave friction otherwise ignored by Einstein... we could hardly say the Doppler shift doesn't exist, especially by relativity doing so well by many experiments thus far, other than about waves.
Even so as I say there would seem to be the need for something to keep the lines of the bundles of force of the electromagnetic field from kinking up and something to lubricate the particles flow so they don't stop spinning by the same types of friction events and particles.
All that special relativity explains is completely dependent on the constant speed of light.
So I consider that if we have waves flowing between these field lines that could be much faster than light as Tesla believed, and with negative entropy like gravity to hold the waves of light together with the snapback, this extra degree of freedom with the waves having negative entropy and being attractive more than radiant, and faster than light and more like a super fluid might be the solution to the problem about the waves on the outside having friction otherwise.
LINES OF FORCE, AND SPIN
The galaxies all spin as a solid body and are too fast for conventional gravity as astronomers have noted.
My belief Is that the dark matter is about gravity and the dark energy is about centrifugal force and inertia.
When the Galaxy spins faster, this straightens out the radial lines of the centrifugal force.
This is by greater induction of the interaction between the virtual and higher energy light.
The snapback induces the waves to straighten out the lines of the light, sort of like how at high energy electrons line up their spins and motion..
The dark energy would radiate in made of these low energy high speed waves in the area between the tubes of the electromagnetic medium. It's not limited to the speed of light so it can add more force than relativity tells us for the massive bodies like galaxies.
Also at the same time the gravity is increasing because the gravity waves of dark matter are radiating out as the inertial waves are radiating in.
And the gravity is also getting stronger than it would by conventional methods because it also is moving faster than light between the areas of the electromagnetic field.
This might be why the dwarf galaxies have been seen to have thousands of times more than the visible mass.
Gravity and inertia are definitely not the same thing or not exactly because the galaxy has a spherical halo of dark matter or gravity while the disc of inertia of centrifugal force is level and more solid.
This would be because inertia is more about special relativity and the lines of light being higher energy. So in this sense because they are more fundamental and higher energy they also lay down tracks the gravity follows not vice versa. This would be how even a low energy mass can still have a definite gravitational force even while the gravity is much lower energy.
At higher energy the wavelength changes but not the speed, as much of the wave is like light but gravity is being involved with the changes in wavelength and frequency because it's an acceleration unlike in special relativity.
So by inertia the disk is solid and flat but the aurora of dark matter or gravity is a sphere, because the gravity waves are lower energy and have overlapping wavelength and frequency.
They don't polarize like the light, so they tend to be a sphere like the Earth is round even while by relativity there would be no explanation for this even if the planets also rotate on a flat disk.
Van Flandern believed
in La Sage gravity, which is called push or particle gravity, and the main problem as I say about particle gravity is about friction.
Van Flandern hoped to solve this by the idea that there might be small holes in the field.
I would think the pipelines of both dark matter and dark energy between the higher energy electromagnetic lines in the field might be more valuable to solve this.
And as I say the particles of inertia would be radiating outward under the influence of the inflowing waves of dark energy, while the inflowing gravitational particles are under the influence of the dark matter waves which would flow outward.
COHERENCE AND GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION
The reason I say that the electromagnetic lines set the tracks for gravity was because I considered how overlapping wavelengths and speeds for the acceleration of gravity would become incoherent over distance.
By flowing in the tubes between the electromagnetic field though, the gravity would be under enough influence to not become incoherent and also find the source of the gravity which is the quanta.
One question I would ask is about why if gravity flows in these channels it wouldn't also be strong with enough energy to have the problems as I note that it would have shielding and friction.
Here I think there might be a partial solution of a combination of both the field line removal method combined with the tubes.
After all, if gravity is spherical and the disc of the galaxies are flat we would say that not all the gravity is flowing in the flat disc.
But my main solution to the problem about the huge snapback of light and this about particle gravity is that the waves of dark matter and dark energy are both just waves except when they finally reach the inside the Radius Of Action.
This could be why dark matter and dark energy have been so difficult to detect even though just moving around the room and changing direction seems to show that they're real, as Maxwell Tesla and many others believed..
TIME
It's been said that there is no good way of proving what time is; Where is the present, the past and the future in the mere collapse of the wave function?
I hold that the future is energy coming in either from the sun or for internal radioactivity energy that has randomness.
The future hasn't happened yet because the energy hasn't reached the area of the computation yet.
The present is the area where the quanta like of the earth change their energy by that randomness to compute by changes of the in-and-out radius of the quanta.
The past is actually the stored record of what happened in the present moving into the future along with the computations of the present. Here the past is eroding in the present because it's stored only in the present as a record.
The most probable things to be stored are those that most fit what the quanta or other physics are about.
Like wealth, the higher energy events are more likely to be stored, but soaking the rich of more value also may be of worth some say!
To me the particles are like the rhythm of the cosmic song and the waves around the outside are more like the music.
The music is higher energy resonation just as we at higher energy are mortal but we're more inefficient in many ways than mere energy conservation.
More to the point higher energy information can be created or destroyed;
A wall can become a sofa or a shelf and thus our higher information like the music of time can rise and fall even while the more basic information of the spin of the quanta is neither created or destroyed.
Einstein's idea that time didn't exist would only hold for the mass fields because this is short range where the quanta spin, and spin up is equivalent to spin down.
While this is true for the inner or mass fields, the longer range fields I call the weight fields are not reversible as much. You can't change the mass of a system but you can change the weight by moving it away or towards the Earth, this is why we're mortal because we're made more of the weight field than the mass field.
This is my belief about how time is not reversible for many events around us and yet it's easy to see that time is like particles that spin like small clocks. All time is measured by periodic fluctuation. By energy conservation where special relativity has worked so well, we see why Einstein believed that time could easily be transformed away.
Basically the mass fields which include the heavy quanta are commutative and reversible. This is more where the definite past present and future come from and they're non linear.
Even so I don't agree with T'hooft (the Nobel laureate) and others that non commutative events are really the foundation. They're a new event in physics that science may improve but time is also old.
More particularly I believe that the mass fields are more fundamental as Einstein believed. Even so, while non reversible physics are not as fundamental they are indeed interesting...
And so we ask here if this is the cause of the arrow of time, does this mean that energy conservation is violated? This was what they asked Noether about gravity.
And like the music of a song the music has to match the rhythm for a real result that sounds like music and the result is asymmetrical at any rate at increased radii of the quanta.
A musician can play a song and a wheel can be made into a shoe with the same materials without violating energy conservation.
So the real sense that the weight fields are non-commutative is in the extra degree of freedom that makes it so that it has a different event just as the rhythm is much different from the music of a song while it obeys energy conservation.
I believe the collapse of the wave function is not fundamental to time as Einstein and others believed because it's only a short range event. I would ask
where all the infinite worlds Einstein considered are?
More recent experiments have shown that Einstein was partially right about there being a lot of options with the collapse of the wave function but they aren't infinite. After all we couldn't even be here for anything like an infinity.
I've always been averse to the idea of infinities other than as an idea like a plane in math and this holds for Einstein's idea about the singularity being infinite and you can measure the mass of a black hole quite readily without any kind of disproof of physics.
To me an Infinity anywhere seems like a doctor saying hmmm,
which just means luck of the Irish and the doctor doesn't know what's beyond the event being considered.
The history of physics has always shown that there was something beyond us that we just don't know what it is yet.
To me a singularity seems to be Einstein's way of just saying who knows? Which doesn't seem like Einstein..
He was good at physics but he made a lot of mistakes and he himself said the first 99 times he gets it wrong and the hundredth time he gets it right. Old 101stein!
ABOUT AGN EVENTS
If we assume the red shift of these objects is due to motion they would need an even huger source of power to be seen from the distance they seem to be than if they were nearer.
If we assume these radio sources are nearby with a gravitational red shift then they have so much gravity they should implode by relativity into the black hole and disappear.
But if we use the idea that there's a phase change to cause what I call superfusion at the singularity which is supported by the faster than light motion of the spin of these quanta and the motion outward can be radiant, powered by Line Removal and the faster than light radiance outward then we can explain these events where relativity fails..
ABOUT TIME AND CPT VIOLATION
The randomness of either events like radioactivity or of the incoming energy like from the sun is going to have a definite influence on some but by no means all of our ideas about time.
"In" is not the same as "out" or we would fall off the earth and there would be as much room inside than there was outside the Earth.
I think of this as more universal perhaps than the CPT violation of the weak force.
I believe it's possible there may be small CPT violations for electric spin of quanta and also for the spin of room sized masses like the Japanese physicists searched for, and I think it may even be possible that the degree to which the inertial flow opposite the light of the waves in SR might also not be symmetrical and might be enough to give us the slight tendency for the field to convert to particles as it flows with the light.
And though this is extending my idea a bit I think that this may even be the degree to which dark energy causes cosmic acceleration. If once in a long while the energy field converts to a particle and particles have sides and friction this may even be the force to power the cosmic acceleration by a sort of centrifugal Force and this could be based on the CPT violation, this would make it also so that light isn't quite its own antiparticle either.
The main distinction between my idea and the Japanese physicists with the spinning gyroscopes is also first of all not the same as relativity since antimatter would fall up as much as matter falls down by the wrapping around of the field lines and comparison on both sides of the outer weight field which can change unlike the inner mass field. (If you can change your weight unlike mass at different radii in gravity). If the external field is much faster than light, a large number of low energy spins might be needed to match the quantum spin of just one spin at the speed of light to create enough force to measure this event.. unlike Einstein's idea that antimatter will fall up because time is reversible and doesn't even exist, I believe that antimatter may fall by positive gravity at a slightly different rate (according possibly to the speed and low energy of the spin of the external field) than the matter with CPT violation, also explaining why there's more matter than antimatter.
Another way CPT violation might be involved could be about the spin of galaxies because they might spin more one direction than the other and this wouldn't be according to relativity.
As with the Japanese physicist's experiment, I believe that the Galaxies may even accelerate outward with the Hubble motion at a slightly different rate by gravity depending on whether they're spinning clockwise or not.
This is only according to the idea that the space itself isn't expanding with cosmic radiation outward so it would then exert no force..
But if the galaxies line up more with the cosmic radiance as the Milky Way is known to be with its pole directly lined up with the outward line of motion, it seems here again that space is not empty as Einstein believed and while this may be mostly an electromagnetic effect by way of the huge magnetic fields between the galaxies, calculations may be a way to filter out this from the magnetic influence itself and to find what's left that might be caused by CPT violation itself both for the electro magnetic fields of the galaxies and gravity.
That the pilot wave or guide wave method of quantum physics has been accepted by most myself included as most probable or best yet, would be because dark matter and dark energy, or inertia and gravity aren't absent. They would be there shipping and guiding the quanta from the outside even while the quantum of light by relativity is also quite well established.
If light really is a quanta and the speed of light is absolute then the pilot wave method of waves and particles wouldn't have traction. This about the speed of the field is different from what the 19th century physicists believed about the field but they were with no definite belief about this. No field at rest doesn't rule out this higher speed more flexible medium with relative degrees of absolutes. The waves between the heavy quanta give way, and Mach's idea that the motion of the mass is all there is present and nothing even mediates the motion holds up well as far as it goes but it doesn't explain Maxwell's triumph about the speed of light exactly and there is no explanation of what connects the spinning bucket to the cosmos by energy conservation.
By Occham's idea if the existence of the waves isn't seen this is simply removed from the calculations. But Stokes and Maxwell and others considered waves and not just particles of light by so many lines of evidence like this it's not surprising nobody believed Einstein at first.. Here I don't dispute the logic or evidence for Special Relativity as far as it goes, but rather I consider the large body of evidence that seems to show that relativity is incomplete.
WHAT ARE THE LOW ENERGY HIGGS'?
As I say I think of them as the solution to the dark matter problem. Supersymmetry has seemed to be such a great resolution about the mass discrepancies in the standard model that when combined with the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles ( for dark matter) it explained the masses so well this has been called "the WIMP miracle".
Yet cosmic searches show no sign of WIMPs.
If they are inside the ROA and this is "where they live" outside the heavy quanta in the "atmosphere" of each in the waves, they are real.. I think they may also be none other than Einstein's low energy quanta he hoped to get around the Uncertainty problem with. This relates to how the Higgs' don't disappear at the lowest energy so here the more mass you add on the larger it gets not smaller as in quantum Uncertainty like common mass and energy around us. Recent "low energy quantum experiments" show Einstein was partially right. Line removal allows mass the stability Einstein hoped for and "a quanta exists even while not observed". It doesn't take a quantum the energy of a Amazon package to measure it, it's heavier if filled with cash from Amazon! Even so Line Removal disproves the unified field or all the world around us would be a blob of unity and we wouldn't have as much to achieve.
Dark matter may be no other than gravity. Dark radiation doesn't interact much with itself or other matter. As in astronomy where the light bending finds the dark matter yet as it radiates out in high energy events, it doesn't heat other matter as it is seen in radiance with it. Line Removal of gravity and that a quanta wouldn't "plow through" the waves might be the solution. And dark matter would also wrap around the heavy quanta just as gravity does without shielding. Gravity radiates in and makes other large masses like the milky way spin at higher speed as if by a halo of dark matter around them.
Why doesn't the dark matter bend common matter yet it bends light? This seems like gravity. Even so I think of gravity and inertia waves as more pure energy. The clunky quantum shell at merely the "slow" speed of light doesn't weigh them down and this is more so about bosons like light which are more pure and spin at just the speed of light both inside and out, and gravity would go more inside and might have more influence without the FTL phase change that converts bosons to fermions as the energy is augmented from just electromagnetism to the strong force as with high energy accelerator experiments with a phase change that has no cause in relativity.
The light is pure and so the gravity might bend it more by the resonance than it would by the fermions since the mass of fermions isn't always equivalent to the energy of bosons so the inside stability Einstein hoped for the heavy quanta would make them move in a separate path with the bending of starlight. If dark matter bends light more than other matter at high energy the distinction of mass and energy by this boson and fermion method would also be evidence relativity is not absolute. While the connecting waves are removed by line removal from interacting with fermions and thus they are inert chemically or by electrical influence, they may be an important part of how gravity operates.
People as brilliant as Tesla believed that the Earth was absorbing large amounts of energy from the field and he thought this would more easily unify all the fields because the tension from the electric field would draw in the gravity. Even so, while Tesla didn't believe in relativity and he was obviously wrong about Special Relativity this doesn't mean there wasn't a deeper truth that we may find by way of this idea of Line Removal and the phase change. The main problem here as with Feynman's calculation about the Earth gaining mass rapidly is about where this large energy absorption comes from and where it goes. As I say, the connection by the low energy waves seems necessary to explain the exact speed of light by Maxwell's method of the resilient medium to create the snapback of the light or energy conservation itself by connection of the fields.
For example a resilient medium would explain what a rocket's exhaust presses against to move the rocket forward and why there's resistance to that motion forward, as well as for example why when the same force is exerted on two different masses, they move at different speeds to resist their motion, more resistance (of Maxwell's medium) for more mass.
Inertia has been called a fictitious force and the claim is often made this can be transformed away by choosing the right frame of reference but this depends on the situation.
In Einstein's inertial accelerating elevator, two masses dropped at different times from the top of the elevator will move apart in apparent acceleration but I realized earlier that the two masses motion apart can be converted to uniform motion by choosing the right frame of reference and this is unlike the gravitational elevator when the two masses are accelerating away from each other based on all frames of reference.
This is contrary to Einstein's idea that no experiment of any type can distinguish the inertial from the gravitational elevator. And there are situations where clearly you can't transform away inertial force like this by all frames of reference. As Newton noted a spinning bucket's water can't be transformed away and as I say by two different masses with the force exerted on them a force sensor on that weight like an accelerometer proves that there's an inertial force here also that can't be so easily transformed away as Newton thought.
If we think of the large energy that the Earth might be absorbing from the field, Line Removal and the more wavy nature of the flow inward could mean that while these low energy fields aren't interacting much with the heavy quanta, in a way the Earth has large amounts of field flowing in and out. In this event, because of Line Removal, gravity doesn't shield and even while it's circulated between the heavy quanta, not much is absorbed. This would be dark matter. By separate lines of experiments and evidence going back to the 1930s, dark matter is believed to make up 5/6ths of the mass of the universe. Some believe that dark matter is gravity itself but as I say, if the waves are distinct this would mean that they are only part of gravity. So if line removal is viable we have an explanation solving problems like where all the energy of the Earth related to dark matter and Lesage gravity is.
This inertness of its flow could be why dark matter is believed to be flowing through us now perhaps in large amounts yet why low energy fields like Tesla, Maxwell, Newton and others believed in have not been found.
A generation of mathematical physicists devoted their entire lives based on what they considered to be enough evidence to make the assumption that the low energy fields exist. We could say that as it turned out there's both a lot of evidence they exist and that they don't exist, but ultimately Dark Matter seems to reintroduce the definite possibility that relativity alone isn't absolute.
WHERE IS THE MASS OF THE PROTON?
As I say elsewhere dark matter might be a solution to the proton mass problem. The fractional charges of QCD as it turns out aren't nearly enough to account for the protons mass, and spin. The missing mass as I see it might be made of dark matter. Due to the general lack of interaction that makes dark matter hard to find like with the Earth's gravity, the large amounts of dark matter might be both radiation in and reradiance but that don't interact by Line Removal with the heavy quantum much. The actual mass of the proton might be measured as a result of the leftover interaction of a small amount of the dark matter as with gravity while in this event most of the flow moves past the fractional charges at much faster speed than the speed of light.
Since the dark matter waves may give most of the mass to the proton they would also change the quantum numbers and influence the constants by their interactions in regular ways by the faster than light connection not predicted by relativity.
Mass is essentially only measured three ways; by the influence of an external electromagnetic influence changing the path of the heavy quanta, by the influence of gravity or by what I consider to be the internal influence of inertia. So while the dark matter is giving most of the mass to the heavy quanta from inside the ROA as also in evidence by the deep inelastic scattering experiments and renormalization, it mostly only acts by proxy on the fractional charges or on the low energy Higgs' which are at greater radius, so the dark matter of a heavy quanta influences the external measures of mass only indirectly and is usually inside the Radius Of Action even with its large extra amount of spin and mass that otherwise could be transferred to other mass and can't be directly influencing because of the faster than light phase change of the dark matter, and we would find it more often than in just experiments like these.
All the spin would only translate out into e equals mc squared because at long distance the spins are of quantum nature plus one or minus one and so it would have to go through relativity to then interact with the outside world. Even so this raises the possibility that much more than relativity we might find a large amount of extra energy or mass someday by finding some way of extracting all this extra energy which I think is possible.
The main problem about this might be that by being dark matter, it's so inert that it wouldn't interact much with our machines by resonance to extract the energy. Even so as we know it is interacting to some extent and we might at least be able to extract information and use it for communications if perhaps no more than this. Gravity and all the spin of heavy quanta by the inelastic scattering experiments seem to show that the mass is there.
As I say, the low energy waves being dark matter, superfluid, and high speed and mostly chemically or electrically inert may not be easy to find for a while so...
You might wonder with the flow of the low energy waves at high speed why they wouldn't generally move particles around with the motion. This would not be common because all points in all the fields have a balance of the in and out waves. And as they move past the heavy quanta they would compare its mass and inertia by way of the spin on both sides and then convey the information elsewhere. Even so, just as it's much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass because mass and inertia aren't equivalent in GWD there is a net leftover flow and this is the extra force of gravity that holds us to the Earth. So the in and out waves are the source of renormalization and they maintain the conservation of both linear and angular momentum.
Newton believed matter has tension, and if this extra tension is about the general inequivalence of gravity and inertia you might ask if we could use this to power machines and do useful work?
I think of the tension like the power steering of a car where the force on both sides multiplies what you can do with the wheels except for a mass like the Earth there's a lot more tension that can be used. And this would involve a sort of seesaw and these are called Gravity Power machines where there are a lot of patents.
To see that Newton was right about this, consider the following experiment. Take one beam of wood like a two by four and balance two weights on either side, say 10 lb each. Move the weights back and forth and measure how easy it is to move them. In other words how much force it takes to give them speed a.
In this experiment take a second or third two by four and tie them on top of those two weights. Finally measure how much force it takes with the second set of boards and weights compared to the first, much easier you'll find to move them! This can be multiplied up by using your arms in balance in the center so your gravity powered machine powers the same kind of machine..
This is much like the principle of a lever.
Or if you go to the store and try to carry your food by lifting it by hand instead of with the cart or in a backpack, it's much easier to control the tension of the mass.
And it seems that if this in and out flow can do work it's like a stream that flows and that will never stop.
Noether, the great mathematician of the early 20th century, was asked what would stop gravity from becoming infinite like this if it has unlimited tension, and her reply, as I note above, was that if you give it a large enough area over which the gravity is operating it becomes finite.
Of course we can imagine that over time using gravity powered machines would radiate out the heat captured from the gravity in essence and this would lead to something like the shrinking of the Earth just as fusion shrinks the sun with time. But the radiation from gravity power machines will track itself back and restart building of planet building or whatever eventually incessant activities the mass of the cosmos creates.
But the gravity is not gone. The motion isn't gone and while there are no sources of perpetual motion there's no guarantee the sun, sources like nuclear power or gravity power perhaps we could say aren't at any rate large sources of value to science and civilization.
This wouldn't be extracting energy from the waves directly by resonance as above just generally from the tension of the field of the Earth, and it's not using most of the tension by 100% efficiency as we might find by extracting it from the heavy quanta, but there are patents on these types of machines and they seem to make use of Newton's idea about tension of the field.
This is doing work and this is like the power steering of a car.
Note that this is not like the wheel of a car but more like a river flowing by where you add the water turbine to collect the power.
This was one of Tesla's ideas and I think the main reason that he didn't succeed was because perhaps he didn't know how to get the usual quanta to resonate with that dark matter field to extract more of the energy..
Even so as I say there's already evidence with gravity powered machines that this isn't impossible.
This seems like the power steering of an automobile where the tension you pay for makes it so you can control more force on the wheel, and you have to maintain the machine but gravity would have tension maintained by the super fluid which you don't have to pay for.
The real source of the tension of the field that "pays for the labor" would be the phase change inside the quanta that's faster than light. As long as the quanta are only partially connected by Line Removal and the phase change, and more energy is needed to stop it from spinning than to keep it from spinning, it's also adding tension to the field and machines.
The idea that we could extract energy out of the field might seem to violate entropy..
Even so I was saying earlier that Maxwell's idea that it would always take more energy of computing to extract the energy out of a gas then you can get out of it was not true because if you scaled up all the molecules to the size of beach balls and you had a faster laser and computer chip you could easily intercept them each time and open and close the small trap door of Maxwell's elf to totally defeat the second law.
Recent patents on graphene have shown that the Brownian motion of the air can actually be extracted for energy by using the right level of radius of resonance of the graphene.
So developments like this show that it seems not impossible that we might actually be able to eventually extract energy from the dark matter flow of the Earth. Here Tesla was searching how to find it and Tesla was not always wrong, he invented the AC motor and I just don't totally discount an entire generation of mathematical physics about the field.
While gravity power machines might allow us to extract a small amount of flow of the dark matter field of the Earth, most of it might both move in and out without interacting much with usual matter.
So the problem about extracting this much larger amount of dark matter force I think would involve something like getting the dark matter to resonate with more classical quanta in order to extract the energy.
Anyons and the Low Energy Laser
A possible way to extract the dark matter field of the proton to do work.
Wilczek in 1982 devised the idea of anyons. These are particles not with up or down spin but with different degrees of fractional spin. Wilczik thought they would never have any use for them but they've been used with quantum computers.
As I say I believed that the Low Energy Higgs' might be a way to get around the Uncertainty Principle, but another use of this idea might be about the anyons.
The Higgs' laser might not be a Higgs' laser if it uses the more wavelike anyons for the resonance of the "monochromatic" output waves.
These waves may be of worth here at this energy even though essentially they may be the same as the Low Energy Higgs' at higher energy; they are the low energy wavelike equivalent of the low energy Higgs'..
The use of the anyons as a method of extracting the energy of heavy quanta like the proton if it's 97% made of dark matter....
Here we would make the laser like the Higgs' laser except it uses the waves of the anyons to resonate out of the tube of the "laser" and into the quanta like a proton we want to extract the dark matter flow from.
The important idea here is about resonance.. if we could get the anyons to resonate with the dark matter flow of the heavy quanta this might make it so we could extract it out on the other side to do useful work.
I think of this as a possible theoretical way to make use of the dark matter if the proton is indeed made of it mostly.
I imagine the possibility of a large array of anyon lasers that extract the energy out of like a crystal and then go on to the next crystal to extract more energy out.
I can imagine portable versions of this that would use a single atom and a single small "laser" to power your radio for 100 years.
Remember that the fusion power of a proton visible is almost all made of the strong force. And if the dark matter is so much more common for the proton this could be a much larger future source of energy than even fusion.
Certainly you can't extract much of the energy out of a proton by way of the strong force of the quanta because they're more under the influence of energy conservation because they are quanta. But the dark matter will be more wavelike and so we might be able to extract the energy out by resonance if we find the right machines..
While I don't know if we'll ever actually be able to do this, it's interesting to consider since it seems to be theoretically possible.
One other possibility I consider is that the quanta will resist the extraction of the dark matter force.
This would be common, because if evolution could have found a source like this it would be in many events in biology.
Even so biology never even invented the wheel in 4 billion years of evolution..
So perhaps if we know where to look and get the right resonance we can go underneath the level of the wave function collapse and make it back out by way of the resonance of the anyons.
I think of air pressure as having tension bound by gravity. The gravity has tension and the air molecules are moving at high speeds but if gravity was relativistic and at the speed of light there would be large increases of mass by both the motion or at any rate an equivalent change of mass by the gravity and change of energy of all the particles of the air. As quanta move around in machines like the LHC at near the speed of light there would seem to be large influence by gravity due to the same speed of light for gravity found by LIGO. The speed of light is all powerful with relativity and I believe if gravity is the same as inertia these events would be indistinguishable.
You might wonder why if, as I say, the speed of gravity is faster than light that there wouldn't be strong relativistic effects caused by this much higher speed for molecules like the air. I would think this would be because gravity is not quantum and unlike the quanta of special relativity by Maxwell's method where you have two opposite quanta that are balanced to give the speed of light, the speed of gravity is a measure of the internal spin of the heavy quanta by line removal and the resistance by the flat Higgs' field to the spin. With energy conservation there always seems to be pressure or something pressed against something to create a force or tension of the field. This would give a much different speed for gravity than by Maxwell's method for light even while it still involves comparison of two distinct events. Newton himself believed that gravity might have a speed billions of times that of light or perhaps infinite because of things like the lack of displacement of gravity towards the Sun. And while electromagnetic equations show a definite change in the force with changes in speed gravity doesn't have this change.
It might seem here that the gravitational mass of a quanta is much smaller and so if gravity is at the speed of light you'd have a much smaller effect like the molecules of the air. But I would ask why, if relativity is so powerful, is the gravitational mass so much different from the inertial mass or more particularly the electromagnetic mass of these quanta.
More to the point I think that if we measure the gravitational mass and the gravitational attraction on the body it may not increase with motion as we would expect even by the small mass and instead we have the much smaller increase of mass by plugging in the much larger speed of gravity into the Lorentz equation. So there may be the usual increase of the relative mass of a quanta with motion but a small reduction in this number itself because the gravity has a negative term and it's the opposite of relativity.
I think of gravity as a superfluid that flows from thermodynamically cold to hot so in essence an increase of relativistic mass will be a decrease of gravitational mass. This would be as the red shift by relativity gets larger the closer you get to the Earth and yet the Earth is not inside out gravitationally; it's more compressed with the corresponding small gravitational decrease in mass and not a large increase in mass for the quanta as by relativity even by plugging in the reduced gravitational mass that the idea of relativity might not allow.
You may say by Maxwell's method if light has the large snapback and the large speed with it if gravity has much reduced snapback because it's much lower density, then wouldn't the speed of gravity be slower not faster?
In GWD Gravity would be the opposite of special relativity, and reversed in sign so it would have overlapping changes in both speed and wavelength not just wavelength as in special relativity and there is the need in physics for waves that both speed up with higher density and ones that slow down with higher density too to conserve energy.
Light slows down in the gravitational field and so the acceleration of gravity speeds up..
If you have the waves of light in SR they all move in a wave train even of different wavelengths at the same speed of light, so no information is exchanged between them as they move. But I imagine the gravity waves if an acceleration might have something like the superluminal scissors that cause their own acceleration as they move and multiply. So relativity is linear and gravity is by definition nonlinear both literally and in the abstract.
A line can't be both round and linear at the same time as expressed by the infinity of pi and also the problem of plugging in the quantum equations into gravity.
There's no huge mass augment or time dilation by gravity because gravity compresses things together like the Lorentz contraction. Time dilation is a stretching out of the waves of the field, and by the redshift of gravity the Earth would be inside out.. the problem may be solved by the use of the much higher speed of gravity plugged into the relativity equation and since the term c is the inverse under the usual radical sign if we substitute the much higher speed of gravity then the events of mass time and length contraction are much reduced.
I'm neither an experimental physicist mostly nor a mathematical physicist but I am good with many machines. As I say if gravity and inertia are the same thing we would expect that an ultracentrifuge would have large gravity. And near the speed of light with the large mass augment of relativity we might expect much gravity also. This might be testable with my idea of the relativistic wind tunnel RWT. This is one of my numerous inventions and would be based on Einstein's evidence for relativity about taking a magnet and a wire and either is equivalent so either is at rest or in motion, and the motion is relative.
So the idea of the RWT would involve moving light or other radiation at near the speed of light past a small stationary object and by Einstein's idea we might be able to measure the Lorentz contraction which has never been actually observed in the lab. And while it's also possible there might be the mass augment of gravity near massive bodies by much more than relativity would seem to predict I think this is unlikely.
I want to also note that the idea of Line Removal may be a better solution to the hierarchy problem as it has been considered. It's a good read on the link I'll show you below. The problem is about why gravity would crunch down to make the Higgs have huge mass with the actual mass found small even as its balance by a large number of components each with lots of computations needed to just balance out to the Higgs mass seen. Some have devised the solution by particles named Relaxions that would make gravity not have this huge crunch.
By this idea of Line Removal it seems much easier to compress the heavy quanta inside and radiate outward than to reduce gravity, at any rate.. If gravity were still gravity at short range it would seem it would have huge strength along with quantum numbers and shielding. Gravity doesn't radiate out and it seems to have more influence than be influenced because of its low energy at longer range. As on the link below the Relaxion would seem like changing gravity by more gravity since it interacts by influence from near radius. Line Removal would simply cut off the influence of Gravity by the phase change without the problem of long range influence seen and the gravity wouldn't build up by the Higgs' to the infinities. The idea of Relaxions seems to be just a sort of plug-in that doesn't really explain it as simply as Line Removal by the simple phase change. The phase change itself would be derived from the flexing of the field and not by what seems to be a more ad hoc event.
No huge contributing constants would be needed because all that's involved is essentially the balance of the simpler centrifugal and centrifugal force inside the ROA combined with Line Removal.
Here's the link to a good read you may like I hope;
https://www.quantamagazine.org/higgs-boson-mass-explained-in-new-theory-20150527/
Click here. for more about why I believe there are distinctions in energy and mass and falsifiable proofs...
SPIN DISTINCTIONS OF BOSONS AND FERMIONS
https://paintbrushsage.blogspot.com/2019/04/energy-inequivalance-once-said-to-my.html?m=1
+++++++
starship orion at Thursday, December 19, 2019
‹
›
Home
View web version
Powered by Blogger.