(A Cause OF FASTER THAN LIGHT WAVE MOTION NOW FOUND IN THE LAB By CHEN'S EXPERIMENT)

..

High Speed Wave Motion & Relativity;

..

It was once thought that travel faster than sound would be impossible in airplanes, so when you would say something to the lady in the cushion ahead of you in the plane, many physicists believed at faster than sound the sound wouldn't reach. If relativity is about the speed of light and is therefore much about electromagnetism, it's already been believed by other physicists that a high speed starship may go faster than light if the lines of the electromagnetic field were simply shielded or cut. (My idea was the cosmic ship would be need to smoothed because even if the lines were cut, the electric field is in all the cosmos. While cutting the lines of force of water with a submarine where the field is all around speeds up the boat, there's no interface like the air above the water a fast starship would be able to go with high speed like a foil so a fast ship to the stars would have to both cut the lines of force and perhaps smooth the field for reduced slowup by introducing a fluid of light at the right wavelength that would flow around the ship, the same way boats go at 5 X the speed by a layer of air from the exaust piped around the outside of the machine from the leading edge.) This about faster than light wouldn't violate the slowup of watches on the starship because a bubble of field just like the air in the airplane would be maintained in the ship. If a ship went all the way from here to a distant realm of the cosmos and back in a second without slower shiptime, a second would have passed and the ship would be a second older, and the slowup of watches and mass boost and other motifs of Einstein's theory on the ship would be canceled at the same time if the field lines were cut if electromagnetism and the speed of light were the cause of the mass augmentation of relativity. Seperate disconnected points of space and time would be unified and this is necessary for energy conservation because mass energy is neither created or destroyed so has existed and will exist for all the ages (even without grand opera!). If gravity travels at light speed or slower, it couldn't unify the cosmos and outdistance the centrifugal force with Special Relativity's seperate points of space time. If they are disconnected by a slower speed of light, the thermodynamic entropy would be the explanation of centrifugal force. Gravity is non expansive like centrifugal force, so gravity itself can't be the cause of the centrifugal force. If gravity counteracts inertia it would seem to be of higher speed. Special relativity is about linear motion and the speed of light, thus with outward acceleration of such as the moon, the linear motion is from thermodynamics the only other force than gravity long range. Disconnected points on the outside edge of the universe would have evaporated out and energy would be lost, so over infinite eons the cosmos would have lost or won infinite power and the fastest "weigh" of ship travel would be faster than light. So the idea that the speed of light is absolute and the highest speed violates energy conservation, and the idea of fast travel of signals and ships perhaps will be a high speed cosign of the times. Gravity would go faster than light to connect the power up and save the cosmos for the Savannah Fire Ants! The lighter you go the faster you are because of the law F=ma. So if the mass m is zero the speed a of the force can be any speed and the mass is the general mass density of the force, and would be directly determined by this. Gravity may go much faster than light without relativistic effects not because the field lines are cut or shielded, rather in my formulation gravity would interact so weakly it would pass through the electromagnetic field without much interaction. The implosion of the usual electric or magnetic component of the electromagnetic field (depending on whether it was a + or - charge) would be the electrogravity of Einstein, and the longer range component would be a more pure gravity at much higher velocity, the electrogravity would go faster than light but not as much as the lower power field. This "motive" component of the field would be the gravity of the wavelengths of worlds or the cosmos. Most astronomers have seen the idea of the faster than light motion of gravity is of general value in the causology of black holes. The light of a massive sort of behemoth of this sort is inside the flow inward because the gravity would go so much faster it would always outdistance the light. Black holes are found powering radio sources and other high power masses with high speed jets. If the speed of light is the top speed of a black hole, it would always flow in involution and no mass of any sort could escape it. The top speed is also a fundamental measure of the top mass density. The higher the top speed, the faster the particles may spin around and the more centrifugal force is available to stop gravity. This is necessary to uphold energy conservation, otherwise here too mass and energy would be dissappearing from the cosmos with unlimited inward implosion. Energy conservation is the most well proven idea in the history of science. The force to power the jets would be stronger than any force known to outpower this much compressive force. So the idea that gravity is faster than light explains how no light is seen from many massive gravity sources, how the energy that falls in the massive body is not lost to the cosmos, and the power source of the jets that with the gravitational field would be saved for the cosmos (and my boom box always will!)

-

The faster than light motion would also explain the astronomer's observation of the great wall and Wilkenson. Eric Lerner in his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" says the great wall is a huge wall of galaxies that would not have had time to form from the central expansion of the cosmos if the speed of light is the top speed of the force that hadn't stopped it. The Wilkenson space observatory found on the largest distance maps the cosmos has a pair of "ears" on either horizon, this would be explained by gravity's cohesive force that would be faster than light. If the force were at the speed of light it wouldn't have formed in the ages since the expansion of the mass in the cosmos observed by astronomers. It's a regular motif and a wave carrying information about it would be the only explanation I'm aware of, a Marm would say she can just go halfway in the woods because after this she's going out. I'm not out- I was just always where I live!

.

.Einstein said if one of his motifs go they all go. One of the proofs he used for Special Relativity was that with a magnet and a coil of wire the motion of either was the same and relative, it didn't matter which was moving or at rest. This proves that Einstein was more a wiz than would seem, he had a good zoom insurance and was safe from earthquakes, with antishake film! I think Einstein was only half wrong, about General, not Special Relativity. Special Relativity would hold as usual. Machines that generate subatomic motes like mesons and baryons in the LHC and the slower lives of high speed masses in the cosmos are proof of Special Relativity, without Special Relativity all the machines would run out of physics. Whatever Einstein thought of gravity there is no doubt that special relativity is well proven. Gravity and higher speed travel of waves would not be a disproof of Einstein and not really an extension either because gravity would be somewhat like electromagnetism, obeying energy conservation, and in other respects it's own law. Just as Relativity isn't disproof of Issac Newton's belief about gravity, no one will ever disprove Relativiy, rather it will be extended to other more general physics. Einstein's belief would only be so if both General and Special Relativity were proven, if the General Theory is well founded also. General Relativity may be relativity in name only because e.g. gravity implodes to a point with the acceleration and the change in the speed of light, and the linear motion and centrifugal force of Special Relativity tends to expand out to many points so gravity and the linear motion of centrifugal force are the opposite, and the same math for both fails. General Relativity uses Einstein's motif of acceleration not linear motion based on relative motion of the earth and a heavy and light mass being dropped at the same rate and this is then proven by the one or two experiments only of accelerations (not uniform motion) such as the observation of the shift of the rate of fall of Mercury over time and the Mossbauer effect where the wavelength of light at the top of a tower on the earth is greater at higher level than the lower because of a change in the redshift of light, important to Special Relativity. Einstein holds two opposite truths. His explanation of gravity starts with what Galileo found about his proof that different masses fall at the same rate near the earth. Einstein seized upon this as a proof of the relativity of gravity because if you held the two masses level and didn't drop them but instead accelerated the earth's surface up at the usual rate of fall as if by millions of giant rockets instead of the masses falling with the motion relative, the two masses would touch the upward sped surface of the earth at the exact same moment. If it was unimportant whether the earth or the masses were moving and that the masses were unequal, the relative motion was all that was important and they would fall at the same rate. There are just two errors here-the causology and the experiment! The moon falls at another rate around the earth than the earth around the moon, a rock falls at a different rate to the earth than the earth to the rock, and if the masses were known as the same relative to gravity energy wouldn't be conserved because in subatomic physics the conservation laws show that each force going from weaker to stronger has all the properties of the force below it in power plus some more properties conserved. Each force would thus be an energised version of the force below it in energy. So gravity would be the mother of all forces, the basic force which would operate mostly by connection of the seperate points of space time explaining the conservation of energy being in all the cosmos. All of the cosmos operates more by change than lack of change. Exercise is a better way to lift weight than diets. Energy conservation is conservation of quantity of linear and angular motion. So if gravity is the foundation force and all force is measured by change if two masses are not the same and gravity operates by acceleration they will fall at different rates. At first I believed the reason they haven't found this in experiments may be as if comparing the light of a 5 watt lamp and a 10 watt lamp beside a huge 50 million watt light; relative to the huge mass of the earth the two 5 and 10 pound masses are almost the same, almost but not quite. My later way of unifying the moons motion with the two different masses falling near the earth at the same rate is by way of force, force is more important than rate of motion, because force always changes motion, but motion can be without change of force, thus when you lift the rock and a TV the rock being lighter (often we hope!) can be lifted higher, so when you drop them both the lighter mass falls further and faster like the moon and the heavier mass like the TV falls slower and sooner like the earth. So I think Einstein was assuming what he was hopung to prove that the masses are the same when dropped from the same height was because the masses were the same, they aren't. Energy conservation operates by action reaction pairs, the union by which all is measured. If you put a mass such as the moon on one side of a scale and the earth on the other and weighed them, this is the same when two unlike masses are attached to each end of a beam and thrown up in the air spinning. The smaller mass whirls around.with more speed just like the moon and the larger mass like the earth spins slower. This is in accord with the idea of F=ma. The force is balanced and so the smaller mass m has a greater rate of fall. This may be the real general law instead of the speed of light being the top speed by axiom because the speed of light would be just about electromagnetism. Conservation of linear and angular momentum would be about energy conservation and would apply to both gravity and perhaps other forces. So if a small mass is weighed on a weigh in station like the moon the center of mass of the rock earth system would be much nearer the center of the earth (if the moon was not present) but the rock via it's own force would move it just a bit more to the rock than the earth would have. If you take a second stone of another mass the center of mass by energy conservation would not be exactly the same because the mass of the rock is not the same. If they were the same and the rocks fell at the same rate by Einstein, the moon and the earth would fall at the same rate also about a central center of mass and so would all masses. Einstein has no description of how it is we fall at another rate on the moon or other worlds, and in General Relativity the Equivalence Principle says they fall at the same rate. The proof of this in Einstein's theory is that Mercury falls at a changing rate. This is the opposite of saying they fall at the same rate, the main evidence Einstein's General theory of Relativity is based on. Einstein based General Relativity on the idea of the giant rockets boosting the earth's surface up to reach the different masses at the exact same moment. If this were so the Earth would expand and we would be at the speed of light in less than a year, and while Special Relativity is sound and may be extended General Relativity I think is in error. This is also the disproof of expansion theory of Mark Mcutcheon, which in its most general formulation makes no predictions Einstein's theory doesn't already make. (Expansion physics explains gravity and all the other forces as the result of expansion of all the fields.) Obviously some fields expand and some attract and they aren't equivalent as Einstein held, or gravity would travel at just the speed of light and the relativity of gravity would be proven by the rate of fall of Mercury. If many rates of fall are allowed, some observers are more convenient than others. The more mass you have the more gravitational you are and the earth is more at rest than the moon, and the sun is more at rest than the earth and moon. Einstein said all observers are equally valid, although not all are equally convenient. I think this is like saying "All values (like the word valid) are the same and all prices are not, but of what worth are prices?" When a starship zooms through the cosmos and no observer is at rest more than in motion, all observers are as valid and the same as the rest. In usual life you won't say "Why go to Ohio, When Ohio will be here in March." are the same. This is disproof of the relativity of motion but only with other forces than would be measured by a constant speed of light alone. Actually motion is mostly relative, but the more mass a body has the more reliable it's field is for use as a foundation of rest, so motion is relative, but rest would tend to be more and more absolute. By F=ma, and these considerations the speed of gravity (of the motive type) generally might be found by the inverse of its intrinsic strength, or 10 to the 37 times the speed of light. In my use of Maxwell's method he used to predict the speed of light exactly, by F=ma the lighter the wave the faster it would propigate, to travel fast you lighten up .

.

.

EXPERIMENTS FOR PROVING OR DISPROVING IF GRAVITY IS FASTER THAN LIGHT AND A NEW WAY TO MEASURE TIME WITH HIGHER RESOLUTION

.

In my physics of General Wave Dynamics (GWD) gravity has two components, a longer wavelength much faster than light component (the lighter you go the faster you go by F=ma; if the mass, m is small, the speed, a, can be much faster than light for a finite Force, F) and a slower speed field component made of particles like the Higgs boson. The predicted speed of this component of the gravitational field is 10X 10 to the 32nd power of speed of light, the lower the density, the higher the speed would be by F=ma. If the infinitely small mass density were 0 the speed would be infinite, but gravity has finite power so it would have a finite though great speed. This speed may be proven or disproven by finding the wave from a solar storm (the most explosive event in the solar system) and then seeing if a machine like The Torsion Balance machine would register the gravity wave from the distant solar boom much faster than the wave of light from it. To know if it's of worth before we build it a scaled up Torsion Balance machine (used since the 1800's to prove gravity) would have the distant mass or near with its waves, the mass of weight in the machine to find the waves and the distance between them with just these three components in the usual way they change. The proof of whether a gravity wave telescope will be of worth is found by this simple motif. If out of range of this sort of machine at this time or others, this tells us just how massive our machine would have to be to achieve it. Since gravity is so fast it may have a high frequency, much higher than light, so time measurement to find more resolution than just the general wave may necessitate time resolution of much faster speeds (see about time resolution for how).

..

Another way the high speed of the lower energy component of gravity might be definitely proven is via observation of the motion of high speed motion of distant large masses like the outflow of such as strong Radio sources or BL Lacs. The jets would be perhaps a thousand light years from stars, and the stars would move a bit with the motions of changes in the lumps of mass in the jet (or other high speed source of strong gravity). Instead of the motion of the stars and jets changing in a thousand years, they would be in more harmony and the oscillations of the redshifts of the stars might show the connection at the more distant realms than the speed of light being the highest speed.

This unified motif of motion may also be found for the two large "sides" of the cosmos of the Wilkenson probe, if one changes a bit the other would move a bit with it. The above would be almost instaneous, but the motions of the masses on both sides might prove the predicted speed of my theory with enough wait with the large distance of seperation of the source.

.

Here are two other ways gravity waves may be proven. The cheap method may be just to take a small mass and send a gravity wave through it generated by atomic blasts, this mass would be like a beach ball in ocean waves, a more reliable way to find the waves when the ball rises and falls with the ocean waves. The usual methods of gravity wave telescopes they have used may be like trying to find the waves with a large ship instead of a small mass, if the waves are small compared to the ship they would just level out and the boat would stay about the same. They use big machines with lots of mass to look for the wave. An electron or proton would be the small mass. It would move much faster than a big mass since it has reduced inertia so is more easy to be moved by the wave. (If gravity waves travel at the predicted speed and other speeds perhaps down to the speed of light, here they would they resonate with the electromagnetism so the points of the field are connected up for energy conservation, with no gaps in wavelengths of the basic field so all mass may attract. If gravity is heavy and the opposite of light and electromagnetism gravity might travel at a different speed and wavelength for any difference of the mass. Relativity has the constant speed of light. So gravity would have a changing speed of gravity being an acceleration with changes in the mass if it were the opposite and non relative. With the small mass, finding the wave would be more achievable especially if it was moved just a bit by the wave, so higher time resolution would be achieved (by reducing the force of the blast if it was so much it jolted the sensor too much). To measure between two of these sensors or more the usual method of atomic clocks would be slow. The speed of light (actually somewhat above by the recent experiments by Chen) would seem to be a limit of atomic clocks and thus the power of time resolution. Small lasers or electron beams that would spin or oscillate may allow a more sharp method of achieving this, since they may be beamed to distant collectors that multiply up the amount of distance lit up by the beam with each unit of time. If you spun a laser around you may sweep out an arc of any size, if you had collectors all the way around this arc, with the laser wired up to measure change A at time A, by making the arc much huger than the laser itself, you've made it so by use of usual sensors around the wheel. The time unit is hugely divided up so an hour is in much sharper focus. Rather than a giant set of collectors around the giant wheel, a large planar or lightweight lense might be used with air inside it. These would have a light sensitive surface perhaps like a TV tube. The fast beam from the wave mass sensor would oscillate the way a TV is. So the resolution would be just as high as a big wheel but would be cheaper. After shielding from all other radiation from the expolosion, the gravity wave would be generated by the atomic blast, the small masses would find the wave, this would be beamed out by the lasers, one would find one point on the tube and another would find another on its tube. Even if the speed of gravity turns out to be slower at the near electromagnetic wavelengths, GWD would allow much higher speed of the wavelengths of more length. The lasers would be at the same point of spin by interferometery, they would send out the beam from the tube lense sensor at distinct times if the gravity wave from the blast arrived at the sensors (allowing for the distinction in power at each tower by the distance/radiation law) at not the same time exactly. Much power would be saved by making it so only when there was any change only between the two lasers would the beams go out to the point of the tube that would be at the the same time.. This method has no limit in how well it may divide the time, and it may be more of value yet by using mirrors to multiply up the distance the beam travels without having to build too big a machine; one beam of the main two between two points would reflect off an inflatable mirror, the beam already sidewise of a faster than light path would go much faster than that yet when reflected off the mirror, and then it would be measured perhaps at the earths surface so it would be easier than a "starships high maintenance". Atomic clocks don't have the time so well like this, and it's better than soaps, and would improve timekeeping machines, my suds machine has a damp dry cycle, Wow!

.

The second gravity wave counter may be to use lots of pressure on both sides of a machine of high resolution because of the pressure on both sides like power steering in a vehicle. If you make the wheel like the wheel of your van with lots of pressure on both sides even small waves like gravity waves might be found just as you can move the wheel of the van fast without much force of your hand. (The speed and not just the sensitivity to move the wheel as if with small power of your hand would be multiplied up.) I think a good method here would be to find the waves by the atomic blast and laser method, then see if we can scale up the machines to the room above. And with all the room, more giant than a condensed milk plant!

.

MORE PHYSICS

MAIN PAGE

.