What's The Highest Speed of Rest?

It May Be Faster Than Light For Gravity and Slower For Masses like Alpha Centauri

About Einstein's and Maxwell's conclusions, the ether is assumed to be the proof of Maxwell's prediction about the exact speed of light based on the pressure of the waves, and in my causology this can be reconciled with Einstein's view that there is no field there and it's just empty space by the assumption that both Relativity and Maxwell are correct. Relativity and Maxwell's prediction of the speed of light are both well proven so my conclusion is that the seemingly perfect balance of uniform motion would be explained by the constant electric charges causing a constant wavelength of light with a given amount of uniform motion like an elevator with a weight and counterweight. Like the elevator there is no force in the rsst frame with constant motion and the speed of light would be "frozen in" at the constant speed, and when there is acceleration of the weight and counterweight the pressure of the field and the speed of light is changed. So the field Maxwell used exists but it is so well balanced with no acceleration it acts as if it's vanished. More on this link. (About the problem of the ether being so super dense by the earlier considerations it was implausable, my considerations based on the evidence seem to show that for whatever reason [I list a few possible ones] the density of the ether may not be huge. Click Here..) A wave at rest is essentially a particle and if you change the wavelength this is an important measure of the change of the motion because all motion is linear or angular and all is made of motion. So while Einstein may have believed the speed of light is constant in truth something important by way of energy conservation changes about the speed of light with changes in the redshift of light. The speed of light in a fundamental way changes with changes in the speeding up or slowing down of a high-speed observer (so that it's then constant at a lower or higher speed if the observer is higher or lower.). This change in the light seems to need to be so for there to be any way to measure any change in the speed of anything in the field. In the history of the research like with the Michaelson- Morley experiment the goal was to try to find a frame of rest of the field relative to which all other motion would be measured just as your speed through the air can be measured relative to an airship by how much pressure it exerts on the ship. Obviously finding such a rest frame would be useful to physics. In Relativity though, the ether (field at rest) is assumed not to exist, because in the Michaelson Morley experiment, the speed of light was found to be the same in all directions regardless of what the frame of motion of the observer was, as if the field completely gives way so there is no pressure of the ether in the rest frame of the observer. But if special relativity were the most general explanation of the cosmos there would be no changes in pressure and there would be no way to measure changes in motion, and the relativistic speed of light is not of most import in this explanation of mine, or the speed of light would be constant and absolute in all senses. Relativity is actually not about relativity but the unchanging speed of light Einstein then fit all the rest of his ideas about the physics of relativity within. If the speed of light is thus absolute by definition it would seem to be absolutely unchanging and there would be no change in the redshift or the momentum of the light possible.
-
It may seem any kind of more absolute measure would be unnecessary by just measuring relative changes in motion by way of changes in pressure of the ether (or my more relativistic ether based on what I believe is Maxwell's more general explanation by way of wave density). Energy is conserved, so it would seem all that would have to be done is to send changes in the field from one location to another without much of an overall connection. Relativity is about high speed motion but no one can live without rest (the solar system would be edgy otherwise!). If the cosmos was not held together by gravity with all motion and a loose connection of linear motion of all the mass of the universe, the cosmos would have become more and more disconnected and evaporated, and the universe would have infinite size and zero mass density. So I think the loose connection of special relativity is disproven by all the finite physics around us. Rest is necessary for life, for example, it's believed by exobiologists and paleologists that life can't start to evolve or exist without a surface to exist upon. Life wouldn't seem to be possible without a solar or star system that has planets that would orbit around a central more massive star that has to be more at rest. If gravity makes the sun more at rest than the earth and relativity is about disconnectivity as in the above, gravity and special relativity would seem to be the opposite, gravity's acceleration would be the opposite of special relativity's uniform linear motion because the change is the opposite of non change, and acceleration is a changing rate of change, while the linear motion is an unchanging rate of change.

Speeding through the Cosmos, to measure high speed motion in a more absolute sense there is no doubt the light of special relativity can't be used to measure motion relative to a field at rest like the ether. It might seem just observation from a high-speed starship toward the stars which are more at rest (and non relativistic because gravity would be the opposite of relativity) would make it so we may find the most reliable way to measure our motion at any speed, but if we try to use just the distant star light it still wouldn't work by way of light because of the vast distances special relativity is about (not just the loose connectivity). Because of the huge interstellar distances and the "slow" speed of light, in special relativity there's no way to know if an event happens before and after one here than an event that takes place on Alpha Centuari 4.2 light years ago or in months ahead. An the other hand rest needs connectivity because the gravity of a mass like the sun is implosive and so this reduction of connectivity with distance means that any kind of information about who is a rest or not becomes much less reliable over great distance if measured by light alone. If rest is of such high worth to hold the cosmos together it would seem there must be some way physics would have of connecting up distant regions via the field. They are only two long range fields known, one is electromagnetism like the speed of light, and the other is gravity. So this is another reason about why my conclusion is gravity may operate by waves at higher speeds than the speed of light.


Click here for my Physics Synopses, a concise simple overview of my beliefs and some experiments that could be achieved to prove or disprove this about gravity, and the evidence in physics that has been found for faster than light. Rest is power, so broadband is a must. I can't make haste slowly not when a 99 cent sandwich is just 1.99!

-
In a high speed wave that would also change speed (acceleration of gravity) with the masses that cause it more at rest we would have a reliable way to know if the observer was at rest or in motion. The equivalent changes in the speed of light or red shift with the overall momentum of the gravity and light conserved with the light falling in and out of the gravitational field would be used to measure if the star is more at rest by way of the gravity waves not the light. A gravity wave would measure which is more rest just as a rock falls to the earth faster than the earth to the rock.

With a fast gravity wave the most mass at the center of the universe could be used for the most reliable measure of all other motion. By the above this is not allowed by relativity alone and would violate energy conservation if gravity is without implosion and rest.

Gravity would seal the cosmos in a non relativistic way and would also no doubt be self cohesive. The two long range fields are gravity and electromagnetism, so since light slows down in a gravitational field the gravity would speed up near a massive body, this is the implosion of gravity. Since an empty space is the opposite of a filled up space with more gravity and since light speeds up in low density field, gravity would also slow down here just as when you throw a stone up as it goes higher and higher it slows to a stop. But gravity is much lower energy than light so though the cosmic field would just extend out to a finite distance the radius of the cosmic gravitational field would go further. This would hold the electric and all the other dense fields in the "cosmic electromagnetic radius" in one great mass and the gravity at more distance would finally be slowed in it's motion like the stone at higher distances when you throw it. This would be the physical mechanism by which the cosmos is stopped from radiation of all its energy and the violation of energy conservation this would involve, the cosmos would need the gravity to be faster than light and of another sort of physics in order to outdistance the light and seal it in. Most of the electric charges of the cosmos may just be sealed in by electric attraction but light would radiate further without gravity outdistancing it.
-