reply to post by Devino
Wow, I think it will take me some time to digest all of this information and I have only read about half of your OP.
It took me decades to finish the information I summarized in the OP. I think a few days to read and digest it is doing pretty good.
First off your describing the Equivalence Principle at the start, interesting thought experiment BTW. I would also like to point out my opinion
on gravity. Gravity might be a push or pull force, Personally I think it is a pushing force. Einstein and Newton described it as an attracting force
intentionally avoiding the question.
As I understand the Equivalence principle, yes I am. Many of the concepts I have mentioned are also considered by others under differing names. I did
not point these out for a reason: as they were all considered independent of any outside research, and since there may therefore be slight (but
meaningful) differences between my work and that of others, I chose to present the entire concept without such references.
Later in the OP, you will see where I also describe gravity as pushing force, actually attributing that push (or gravitational current as I call it)
to the action of anti-matter. I believe this concept is the answer to the riddle of 'dark matter'.
My opinion, Energy is a force that causes motion, energy is motion. Motion is time and both of these can be measured. Energy=Time=Measure (or
the ability to measure).
I suppose that could also be a definition of energy.
The thing that had always bothered me was the inability of mankind to even meaningfully define matter or energy. How can we understand a thing (or say
we understand a thing) when we cannot even define it without resorting to circular logic?
I would consider energy, in the broadest sense, to be the stuff that comprises the Universe, matter, and the continuum that holds it all together.
Just as water is the thing which makes up the ocean, energy is the thing that makes up the Universe.
That definition, however, is probably too broad to be applicable in everyday use, such as in engineering for example. Energy is useless if there is
not a potential difference in energy levels. There is no known way under present understanding of science that we can tap into the energy inherent in
the continuum, although it is completely possible that we could discover a way to make use of the motion of that energy (gravity) or the waves that it
produces (electromagnetic). Perhaps it is telling that as a society, up until now, we have used heat and kinetic energies as our primary energy
source, both of which are motion-based and therefore merely a symptom of the inherent energy around us; now we are beginning to use waveform motion,
which is closer to the actual source. Perhaps this trend will continue and we will learn to use the gravitational current itself, or perhaps I can be
proven incorrect and some way to actually tap the energy inherent in the continuum itself could be found.
I believe we have, it's called inertia, which is derived from the word "impedance" or "to impede". Since the equivalence principle makes
accelerations and gravity indistinguishable from each other then the gravitational acceleration is in the opposite direction of inertia just like
accelerating. Inertia being the resistance to both (opposite not the same).
'Inertia' is more akin to the word 'inert', which means 'unchanging'. Therefore inertia is the resistance to change (in motion). I'm no
linguist, but I don't see the connection to 'impede'; can you elaborate?
The Equivalence Principle is an offshoot from Einstein's thought experiment which I alluded to in the opening of the OP. I am still intrigued that
after all these years, no one followed through with that thought experiment to further understand the nature of gravity. Instead, it would appear that
science did an end run around this simple yet effective tool for understanding and arrived at some of the same conclusions through different means.
Just as in mathematics, where the correct answer is always the same regardless of the methods used to arrive at it, I believe in physics the correct
answer must be the one that is always correct, regardless of the means used to derive it. Thus, if I come up with an answer using one method (the OP)
and you come up with the same answer using different methods, the fact that our answers coincide lends credibility to their accuracy.
Now remember that gravity waves have not been found neither using the same idea that was used to look for this energy in space, laser
interferometers. Does that mean gravity is not there?
You mistake my attempt to bring complex principles into simpler terms for an absolute statement. The sentence you refer to was simply a means to lead
the reader into asking a question I was about to answer.
We have discovered 'gravitational waves', although not the kind that some physicists would like to believe exist. A waveform in the gravitational
field (continuum) is simply electromagnetic radiation. The type that is being sought would be akin to the gravitational current alternately speeding
up and slowing down in a regular fashion, something I do not see as being possible (or at least common). It would be like regularly alternating surges
of current in the ocean; no such phenomenon has been found to exist, and there is no theory to explain why such a phenomenon would exist.
Given the elastic nature of the continuum, I won;t go as far as to say such waves would not be possible; I simply cannot fathom a situation where they
would be created.
Matter is the storage of energy or momentum, a potential energy.
It could indeed be seen that way, understanding the inherent equivalence between matter and energy.
This idea is heading in a wonderfully different direction for most accepted science and sounds like the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of
Matter (WSM). It has been a long time since I looked that site over. A tonne of information there that is for sure.
Exactly correct!
Even the images of atoms are a computer representation of what energy the device is detecting. They are not what we would consider real
pictures since they are too small to reflect any light of their own, kind of a weird thought. Maybe "size" is an incorrect analogy due to the
limitations of my understanding.
Some success has been achieved in measuring the physical size of protons and neutrons, although all the empirical data I have seen has a relatively
large margin of error. The calculations I performed to verify my assumptions as to this aspect of matter hit very close to the measured results, well
within that margin of error. My first thought after comparing the two was literally "someone did a pretty good job of measuring". I had expected
more of a discrepancy.
But when I began investigating the electron (since the equations I had derived made it abundantly clear that the more massive a particle was, the
smaller it had to be physically), I discovered that no one had ever been able to measure an electron's physical size! All of the estimations were
exactly that: estimations based on the measured mass of the electron as compared to the mass of a neutron/proton. There was no actual empirical size
information.
We are taught in school to consider the atomic structure similar to that of a solar system... the sun represents the nucleus made up of protons and
neutrons, while tiny planetary-sized electrons spin around in shells (if memory serves, this is the Bohr model). This is simply not true. The nucleus
may indeed be as described, but the electrons are physically huge yet light quasi-particles, concentrations of standing wave energy trapped not only
by standing wave characteristics of the continuum, but also by the energy emanating from a proton (which we would call electrostatic energy). Without
this electrical charge, the electron would be as elusive as many of the other theorized particles.
Nothing is ever at rest (remember E=T=measure) and because of this I say newtons law of inertia is simply; Inertia is the resistance to
acceleration.
Rest is a relative perspective and light can be "at rest" relative to our perspective (or inertial frame of reference), meaning we can stop or
freeze light. I think this is what holograms are.
Rest mass is a term used in relativity to describe the mass of an object when it is at rest relative to an observer. Remember Einstein's equations:
the observed mass of an object increases with the observed velocity relative to the observer. Therefore, there can be no absolute mass of an object
without considering its relative velocity. To communicate this concept mathematically, the term 'rest mass' is used.
The physical barrier to faster-than-light travel is contained in this very idea. If the observed mass of an object increases as it approaches the
speed of light, in compliance with the expression √(c²-v²), then it is easy to see that as v approaches c, √(c²-v²) approaches √0, or simply
0. Dividing any value (possibly excluding 0 itself; there is mathematical disagreement on that one) by 0 gives ∞ (infinity). Thus, since the rest
mass of an object is divided by the expression √(c²-v²) in Einstein's equations, the mass (or inertia) of an object approaching the speed of
light relative to the observer becomes infinite. Infinite mass requires infinite energy to change its velocity, thus it can never accelerate
further.
Light has been slowed in supper cooled gas and the interesting thing is that after to exits this gas it speeds back up to 'c'.
And to my knowledge, the observed 'mass' of the light has never been shown to vary, regardless of its relative velocity. Thus, light itself must be
massless, just as a water wave does not itself contain water, but rather contains energy which is moving the surrounding water in a circular
fashion.
I like your thoughts here, very interesting and inspiring.
I thank you for your kind words. I am looking forward to your views on the rest of the OP.
TheRedneck
