..
Why Gravity is Implosion of Mass In General Relativity Not The Expansion With Redshift Like Einstein Believed..
Einstein held that mass and energy are the same, leading him to conclude that time is slowed with the redshift of both gravitational mass and high speed motion. You may say mass which is more solid and with angular motion, and energy with more linear motion are both conserved so they are indeed the same. But if they are exactly the same, we would have no way of knowing which was which. Thus I believe Relativity has room for more like the room of Mrs Einstein's coffee jug she filled with stars for Al each Omega 3 AM. If mass is spinning energy as I believe, then what's called General Relativity would actually be the opposite of Special Relativity, like waves and particles both can't be in the same place and time. A line that is linear is the opposite of an acceleration, a plenum is the opposite of empty space and has many complex causes otherwise unseen (space with a low energy field in my belief has some definite physics like Maxwell believed of it's own no doubt. Here's my PHYSICS SYNOPSES.). Time is always measured by periodic fluctuation and so it's much the same as mass because mass wraps around and is an acceleration. With more compression of the field and by conservation of angular momentum, if time is periodic fluctuation, more mass would speed up time overall. If Special Relativity is high speed linear energy that slows time (by stretching out the helix of each particle with more motion through the field by "friction"), mass is more angular, and Special Relativity and energy and more massive gravity or "mass" are the opposite. Therefore I believe that time would speed up not slow down with more gravitational mass as Einstein believed. Consider that gravity/earth could be likened to the Strong/ Weak force in subatomic physics. The Strong Force is only implosive like gravity and the Weak Force is like the electric field, a short range contact force with two charges like the + and - charges of electric power. Einstein's vision about time slowing around massive bodies I think would be like being at the outer flow of the proton's Strong Force flux and when you look inward and if you had clocks to fit the size of the mass of these distances you indeed would see that time is slower deeper in the field as it implodes with more force and acceleration stretching the field (and no worries whether the cosmos will fizzle out in a billion years!). From this near radius looking out you would likewise see the time of the outer radius to be faster, the flux of the waves are more or less with redshift with slower time (upstream seen looking inward sees slow clocks) or compression (downstream looking outward sees fast clocks). The waves oscillate, the periodic fluctuation measures time, and Einstein might have believed this was a complete formulation of how gravity and indeed the strong force slow time. Gravity and the strong force both are mostly attractive long range forces without much outward flow of the field and may be alike, and so too the Weak Force is much like electromagnetism, in the two great action reaction pairs of gravity and electromagnetism and the Strong Force with the Weak Force at subatomic distances.. The same general idea that gravity slows time or that time is fast with more distance outward would be Einstein's proof of General Relativity. Mass and energy would be not just equivalent, they would be equal. The problem is that Relativity would leave us no way to distinguish mass and energy, it's based on the likeness without saying why they are also unlike too.. If mass and energy are also the opposite because of a deeper truth that even if both would be about the general motion of fields being motion in quantity, with distinction in the way that mass and energy operate with options not seen in relativity, the physics may be more complete. Does time really slow in General Relativity? If you look at the strong force in subatomic physics there is important evidence that mass speeds up time. With mass increasing from lower mass subatomic particles like the muon and other mesons on up to the baryons the time before the radioactive decay is reduced. More mass has reduced time (with the exception of the proton which is perhaps completely stable for other reasons mostly about quanta. Click Here for why the proton's stability is caused by it having being the lowest energy baryon with the quantum numbers to flip, so the reaction would go slower or be completely stable for unrelated reasons than the general higher speed time with more hadronic mass.) So hundreds of subatomic mesons and baryons are proof that time speeds up, not slows down with more mass as in General Relativity. The reason would be the usual consideration of looking out in General Relativity to see the observer at higher elevation from low altitude or looking down to see the observer at lower elevation from above (in General Relativity lower elevation is above it would seem) like the observer inside the massive meson of subatomic physics only is considering the strong force or gravity like Relativity, not the overall work done and motion of the field of both the Strong and Weak Force or Gravity and Electromagnetism, so Relativity seems incomplete. The subatomic particles have reduced lifetime with more mass because the Strong Force flexes inward like gravity, and then flexes the force like the Weak Force, with expansion of the meson or hug jug of the fizz machine, just as more gravity causes the heat by flexing of the earth. Implosion of the field alone is not as important as the more general combination of inward and outward flow of the field. Gravity doesn't cause expansion with a redshift, in general it unifies mass, otherwise by Relativity the Earth would be inside out. Einstein's belief would also violate conservation of momentum because time is always measured in all of its forms by periodic fluctuation or in other words angular momentum. If time slows in gravitational fields in general all the mass would spin slower, so if you pile more mass on the earth or mars with a comet it would spin slower not faster, and this would be not disproof that acceleration changes as Einstein believed in general relativity. This is well established, not proof that gravity is relativistic. Even with redshift near the surface when you pile on mass, by conservation of angular momentum, the day is reduced in hours, and time is speeded up. Einstein's idea that relativity is proof of gravity would be disproven because mass and energy even if similar are in opposition and another logic applies to attractive forces than to the inertial forces like the speed of light in Special Relativity. If Relativity is incomplete, Faster Than Light motion might be possible or probable as I say on my PHYSICS SYNOPSES. The blueshift of gravity needed to disprove General Relativity would just be the force of gravity as it compresses matter plus more extra mass the field adds to its own implosion by the compression multiplying itself up a bit more as Einstein also believed. (He believed high mass density both multiplies up mass and that the redshift by inner expansion would lower it, in contradiction. One or the other would be true, but I believe it would be the one that disproves General Relativity.).
No doubt if so this must be fit into physics like the atomic clocks and GPS and I think this may be possible in the Mossbauer experiment by way of a smaller change. The much greater distance of the Mossbauer radiation in the tower than the smaller gravitational blueshift of this line of research would be because as mass and energy are unlike the greater distance of the field of energy being more springy and light may change wavelength more than the compression of the field of the mass of each particle.
..
The Coriolus effect and other effects like the weight of a ship moving west weighing more than a ship moving east were measured by sensitive machines of the early 20th century have been established, as well as the fact that a stone launched straight up falls first more to the west, then to the east, although not so much to the east as to the west. We might expect that if there's a force resisting the earth's eastward motion like this for the masses that make it up, gravity would be exerting a (more) equal but opposite force to the east to keep the earth in rotation. Einstein may have believed the Mossbauer redshift fit the Special Relativistic way of gravity. The compression of gravity as it moves mass together would be like the Fitzgerald Contraction and the redshift itself is the measured redshift of gravity. A relativity based explanation like this seems to lack the description of acceleration; nowhere in Special Relativity is the spin to the side described by like the 24 hours of the earth with more mass piled on if we could. There is no proof anywhere in Special Relativity of acceleration to the side of a high speed observer like the acceleration of gravity. If we measure this effect in the Mossbauer experiment, this small sideways change may be the proof that gravity is not relativistic. In his formulation of General Relativity, Einstein took the flat space of Special Relativity and hoped to fit it in to the curved space of the gravity, and hoped the acceleration somehow would be about relativity.. As I say, Einstein held the proof of the Relativity of gravity to be the constant acceleration of the equivalence principle where the masses "fall at the same rate" while at the same time using the opposite experiments of changes in the acceleration of gravity to prove it. The acceleration of Mercury, frame dragging, gravitational radiance, and so on are proofs for changes in acceleration, not a constant rate of fall of different masses near the Earth. So I believe there may thus be a small sideward change in the wavelength of light by the Mossbauer method not predicted by General Relativity based on the conservation of angular momentum. Like Einstein I believe a massive body would add mass over time by implosion of the field; the gravity wins out in the implosion reradiation of gravity versus the electromagnetic field to hold the field in one accord with energy conservation so here I think Relativity may fail because the small change in the redshift might also be increasing somewhat as it would add a bit of motion to the side of the tower at the inner radius more than higher up.
...
Some authors says they've proven that gravity speeds up time so all we have to do is send a cheap probe to the moon to prove it by way of a light signal from the Earth to the moon. A large electromagnetic effect by way of something like GPS or the Mossbauer has already been ruled out since Einstein was so amazing he invented the atomic clock and the laser even later when he was in another world! (the laser was invented in 1960..) Gravity is not the same as electromagnetism and the speed of light with relativity. Smaller effects here would be the disproof of Relativity. Gravity may speed up time at it's lower energy longer wavelength, while inertia may slow it less at the higher energy realm of the atomic clocks. Between the earth and moon there would be more redshift by stretching the field. Gravity might not increase the overall change in time much at the wavelengths of mass at shorter distances, just more overall than electromagnetism, and locally in truth gravity may seem to radiate inward as I say about the implosion of the heavy mote above.
..
There are other predictions than just Faster Than light in General Wave Dynamics, GWD has to distinguish it from General Relativity. If mass and energy aren't the same they would be in some violation of Relativity, so a hot iron would weigh less than a cool iron, not more with more energy as Einstein believed and so more mass and matter and antimatter might not fall at the same rate, and this may also explain why there is more matter than antimatter (one has more mass than energy and mass like gravity is more important than energy to physics). In truth the entire wave causology of light seems to be evidence against relativity being about acceleration. Einstein believed light is a particle in Special Relativity in order to explain the unchanging speed of light, as if the light had no interaction between observer and source (with a nonexistant field, Maxwell had used the assumption of to predict the speed of light exactly via) while he believed it to be both a wave and a particle in quantum physics to prove mass energy equivalence by way of energy conservation. Only if we believe in no waves is relativity possible.
..
Where's The Gravitational Blueshift?...
..
The above about the speed of gravity and the sideways change in the torque may be ways to improve relativity. We see that if you take two masses attached to an L shaped boom and toss them up in the air and they spin around a point in empty space, proof the field is there, not "empty" space time, not only is the field there changing the center of mass according to the masses, this is proof that the field of attraction holding the masses together is attractive; add more mass and the center of mass moves toward the heavy mass via the mass moments. Mass a times the distance to the center always = the smaller mass times more distance. The field is thus compressed with more mass so the momentum of the two masses is conserved when they spin around. More mass compresses the field. If we have a rope we held to two anchor points over the entire diameter of the earth and we have only gravitational redshift, the rope must expand, or the mass moments would make the distance between the masses increase. If instead the distance actually decreases, where is this blueshift of the field? As above, the relativistic reflection of the change of the lower energy gravitational field present even with the two spinning masses would be small or it would already have been found with the atomic clocks (as the other author says) with the possible exception of the Mossbauer change in the sidewise motion of the torque of the field. The gravitational blueshift would not be just a small change in the atomic clocks. It would be the force of the rope or wave contracting to bring masses together and holding us to the massive earth. If not and gravity were increased, a world's inner moons would spin slower, not faster with inner radius and more redshift.
..
To find the compression of the field, I believe it may be the gravity waves themselves at another wavelength and energy. The rope of the waves of the "electromagnetic" relativity with the speed of light being all important would be being constantly stretched by the flow of the much faster waves of the gravity, they would move faster in GWD so the "reflection" in GR of the wavelength of light would be changed as if by "spacetime". (You may say that in all of relativity, the speed of light is constant, in general I speak of changes of wavelength of light as "changes in the speed" of the light, and changes in wavelength are changes in motion with acceleration as Maxwell believed, thus the nonconstant speed of light in General Wave Dynamics). Only the illusion of spacetime is maintained however because the high speed of these waves would give the impression of instantaneous, and continuous spacetime. Indeed any motion of any kind in any direction relative to light is Faster Than Light. Relativity can't solve this by saying light has no mass, the bending of massive light by massive gravity is a hallmark of GR and research has shown that at high energy, light behaves like a heavy particle.. The gravity waves may contract and speed up like the moons of Jupiter where the light waves of GPS and atomic clocks would "slow down" to conserve momentum here too, because mass and energy in GWD are generally opposite, gravity tries to move masses inward, while the thermodynamic entropy of relativity and the speed of light would try to reradiate outward. Even so even though the light redshifts in GR in GWD there is more blueshift than redshift. In GWD gravity is more important and holds stars, the cosmos and comets together, so the amount of the blueshift would be more than the redshift of GR and so time indeed would speed up with more mass.
To prove or disprove we may use the experiments I describe and the use of the new IP that uses the dense shockwaves of the heavy particles, to both predictably emit and absorb gravity waves.
..
An Inclusive Insurance Policy is When Mom receives the business after being missed by a 10,000 altitude realtor's ad for The Shack in the heat at the beach while being paid for not watching TV if she's a musician!
..
..The Former Miss America 1998 Kate Shindle is in the lead female role in the musical "Jekyll & Hyde". She had been waiting tables at Artie's a diner at 82nd and Broadway but quit after landing the part in the chorus. She says the publicity about her waitressing job probably helped jumpstart her acting career.
..
Sounds like she's singing and dancing better and with better limelights than on a good silverware stage, sometimes contenental! ..
..
