🚀 go-pugleaf

David Devejian <d...@bank2000.com> wrote in article
<01bbd18b$5f1399c0$100410ac@david>...
> First off, I am not sure what relevance this thread has to the newsgroups
> it has been posted to.

That rarely stops anyone if they are interested.
 
> Secondly, in an attempt to kill it, please allow me to address the
> following ideas:
> 
> > > Scott Hess wrote:
> > > 
> > > ] You _cannot_ go faster than the speed of light while remaining
> > > ] in our universe.  Almost by definition, if you are going faster
> > > ] than the speed light travels in our universe, then you are
> > > ] _not_ in our universe.
> 
> Scott, please define _our universe_.  While your at it, please define
> _universe_.  And if I am not in your universe where am I?

Ahh. One of my favorites. I have my own Grand Unification Theory which ties
together cosmology, particle physics and brews a mean cup of coffee.

A universe is the collection of observable entities from any given point of
perspective. That's why they call it relativity. My "now" includes things
that happened a million years ago (a million light years from here).

A universe includes both a time AND location for every event. That's why
Einstein insisted on the term space-time.

As for my GUT, instead of starting with a vaccuum and miraculously adding
subatomic particles which have locations and motion whose origin we cannot
explain, I begin with a monolythic mass (no vaccuum anywhere) with the full
range of its three dimensional areas in the full range of potential
velocity, including far beyond the speed of light. Infinity.

Of course, we can't perceive anything moving beyond the speed of light
relative to our point of perspective. That's why it appears to be a
vaccuum.

We claim that the atoms in my hand and the atoms in a wall are remarkably
miniscule compared to the vast vaccuum surrounding them, and we try to
figure out why I can't pass my hand through a wall. Meanwhile, if the
"vaccuum" is actually full of mass which is moving faster than light
(sustaining infinite mass, forming a network of irresistable pathways
surrounding each of the points of turbulence we perceive to be atoms), then
each of our atoms has a very limited space in which to move, and very
powerful forces energizing its motion within that small range.

I can't sift the atoms in my hand between the atoms in the wall because the
space between these atoms is already full. Meanwhile, if I got waaaaaaay
back and accellerated until my hand exceeded the speed of light, then it
would begin to participate in another "universe" and it would pass right
through the wall, even though neither the wall, nor my hand would show any
sign that the two had ever met. Then again, their meeting would be quite
brief.

This network of infinite velocity explains a lot. If atoms gain too much
mass, they begin to break down into smaller particles which tend to move
very fast. That is because the pressure of the pathways is irresistable.
They will shear off the excess from anything which exceeds critical mass,
which is the size limit of a point of turbulence within the network.

Black holes exist because the network does not consist of mass moving in
straight lines. The most commonly observed pattern of motion is an
eliptical orbit. If entire universes revolve through each other in similar
patterns, then at the intersection points of axes, there would be fewer
universes moving at greater than light speed, and so the network of
pathways would be looser. Mass could exceed what we know as critical mass
before it goes critical.

In other words, critical mass is a function of location. Some locations are
sheltered from the forces which make certain masses excessive and at those
locations, extraordinary masses can accumulate. These are Black Holes.

Black Holes do not suck in everything simply because while their critical
mass is far higher than in normal space, like normal space, they are
surrounded by a network of pathways, and while they can gain a higher mass,
there is still a point beyond which they cannot grow. Their surface will be
sheared away, just like smaller atoms elsewhere.

Gravity is the resultant force from the narrowing of pathways as they
respond to passing through what we perceive to be large mass (a lot of
points of turbulence). In other words, the pathways going through me from
below have been narrowed slightly for having passed through and interacted
with the atoms of the Earth. These narrowed pathways offer slightly less
pressure than the pathways passing through me in all other directions. I am
not actually pulled toward the Earth. I am PUSHED toward the earth.

Weightless masses in outer space simply lack this imbalance.

Light is a wave form carried by the pathways. That is why it can pass
through what we perceive as a vacuum and why dispursion occurs when it
strikes what we perceive to be mass. There is an interaction between the
point of turbulence and the carrier wave which is the pathway of a passing
universe. The point of turbulence then interacts with pathways moving in
other directions.

Meanwhile, the theory does not explain magnetism or electricity. I don't
have a clue where they come from...

> However, I will agree that the mathematical models of time and space that
> are implied by Einstein's theories of relativity imply that a body that
> exhibits rest mass cannot either achieve or exceed the speed of light
> without somehow introducing a discontinuity in space-time.  I have a
> problem however, with your characterization of experiencing a
discontinuity
> being out of this universe.

As I see it, if you were in a spaceship and you neared the speed of light
(from the perspective of the place you left), you would notice that
celestial bodies you had perceived as traveling in the opposite direction
of you will begin to disappear. New ones would appear moving in the same
direction as you, but faster. Eventually, the only common entities between
your new experience and your old one would be some of the Black Holes.

> For the rest of the readers, I apologize for the mathematical nature of
the
> above paragraph, but that is the only way to express the subject
> accurately.  Please read below for an attempt to address this matter by
> analogy:

It seems to me that you used analogy above and math below.

> Somebody else wrote:
> > > 
> > > Scott, just curious if you have two bodies coming at each other
> > > really fast, why will gravity not accelerate them to the speed of
> > > light?  Is it because the faster they get the less mass they
> > > have, so less gravity?  What if one or more of the bodies has
> > > mass enough to be a black hole?

If gravity is the imbalance of resistance to the passage of the various
elements of the network of passing super-light-speed mass, then as two
objects approach the speed of light toward each other, they gain
independence from any common effects. There is no gravity BETWEEN these two
objects, since they decreasingly participate in the same system of mass and
velocity. The atoms of one object slide toward the pathways already
established between the atoms of the other object.

This sliding to new points of balance within the network explains momentum
and the gravity-like effect of accelleration and centrifugal force. While
there is a change in velocity (be it of speed or direction), there is an
imbalance in the resting point for the atoms between the pathways. While
the new balance is sought, there is gravity. Any change in velocity creates
gravity-like force.

There are no "gravitons". Gravity is not a wave form. It is an imbalance of
pressure from the network of infinite mass and velocity.

> Actually, as an object increases velocity, its Kinetic energy increases
(I
> hope we are all familiar with K= 1/2*mv^2), but by Einstein's equations,
> E=mc^2, implies that the mass increases, thus it becomes harder to
> accelerate.  So the mass is greater, not less.  This increase in
> mass/energy is asymptotic as v approaches c, so that if one could reach
c,
> one's mass would be infinite. 

Exactly. Beyond the speed of light, an area of mass becomes an irresistable
line. A network of such lines form the thick felt we perceive to be vaccuum
between what we take to be atoms and subatomic particles. An atom is less
like a ball than like a pattern of motion. Without motion, there is nothing
to differentiate atom from vaccuum. That's why it exists in space-time,
because after all, space-time implies motion. Without motion, there is no
space-time, no perspective from which to judge relativity, and no universe.

> (yes with the example of gravity as the
> acceleration, when the mass is infinite, so is the acceleration, but you
> will just have to trust me that the equations work out, mostly because
> acceleration is not used as a quantity, nor is velocity, but rather
Energy
> and momentum, and the result is that we stay below c)

The weird part was that Einstein didn't really invent this math. He merely
took Lorenzian Transformations intended to explain certain electrical
effects and applied them more generally to all things great and small.

> And still a third wrote:
> > Two bodies are both moving at 3/4 the speed of light towards each
other.
> > Doesn't this mean that relative to one of the bodies, the other body is
> > travelling at 1.5 times the speed of light? If this is possible,
doesn't
> > this apparently violate the so-called constant of C? If not, why not? 

Relativity has one aspect which people don't seem to really understand.
Everything is measured from the observer. There is no absolute measurement.
All measurement is relative. If A is the observer and B and C are, from A's
perspective, moving toward each other at a speed such that each is moving
3/4 of the speed of light toward A from opposite sides, then in A's
universe, B and C are each moving 3/4 the speed of light.

Meanwhile, from B's perspective, A is moving 3/4 the speed of light, and C
does not exist. It is not that C has impossibly exceeded the speed of
light. C does not exist.

Similarly, from C's perspective, A is moving 3/4 the speed of light and B
does not exist.

To extend this further, A may see the two seemingly pass right through one
another. Their "collision" would be so brief that no conclusion could be
drawn from the absence of interaction. Neither B nor C would sense that
there was anything to collide with.

Unfortunately, this is a very difficult experiment to arrange...

> The simplest way to explain this is that for a body moving at 3/4 the
speed
> of light, distances (at least those measured along its direction of
motion)
> will be shorter, and time will be longer, so that another body traveling
> toward the first will appear to be less than c.  The addition of
velocities
> is simply not linear one approaches c.  Please note, time will actually
be
> longer, and distance shorter, they will not simply appear so.  I know
this
> is counter-intuitive, but it is in fact the case.  

The point that you don't consider is that once each of the two approaching
perspectives exceed what perspective A in my example above would call half
the speed of light, B's perspective of the length of C becomes infinitely
short and while its mass becomes infinitely large, it slides into
established pathways already separating the atoms of B. The existence of B
is dependent upon these pathways.

> I hope I have clarified things rather than simply muddled them.  If you
> have questions, please either address them to me in e-mail, or suggest a
> single newsgroup that we may continue this thread on, preferably one
where
> it would be on topic.

If there is such a beast, let me know.

> regards,
> Dave
> d...@bank2000.com

Will
wh...@virginia.edu