How Uniform Motion Would be Possible Without Deceleration by The Ghost Particles..
Why The Particles Don't Hit The Earth And Make The Earth Fall Into the Sun in A Few Million Years As Calculations Show?
...The inertia without mass is what may cause the union of Einstein's Equivalence Principle if inertia is a sort of gravity without motive power. Inertia and gravity would act (much) the same because of the particles only. In a centrifuge there is no gravity but the particles would spin outward picking up motion from the spin via other particles like a marble on a radial track spins outward faster and faster. For gravity there are waves in addition like Einstein's gravity waves that here power the particles, the waves are never felt directly. If they were, the Equivalence Principle wouldn't (mostly) be true, and in fall in the gravity if the waves are at the speed of light or faster, they whiz past and you would feel the force either at rest or on fall because there would be little change in their speed relative to the falling or observer at rest (Note that in most of my comments about gravity and these waves to weigh in about it I use the word relative not often, this would be because I'm relating what may be a deeper realm of physics, if all is relative, what is relativity relative to? All motion is relative mostly, but why are so many masses at rest. I refute it thus, said the observer when told relativity was true and stomped his foot on the ground. Relativity is about sight and light, yet all around a feeling is more what we sense the most.)...
To have inertia but no mass the virtual photons would indeed be the cause of centrifugal force. Because we can have gravity completely without the wave sensation since we don't feel the waves even if present, the particles and waves can be real distinct or mostly. Mass without inertia, inertia without mass. I have another idea about the 0 interval, it's not the speed of light, rather it may have many speeds where the waves and particles might balance, thus there is neither a great dividing line at the speed of light nor at other speeds to be found and this is not what is seen.
I use the spacelike and timelike photons to also explain the finding that black holes gain mass as predicted by the ghost particles as found except they do so at half the rate. If the escape velocity of a black hole was always at the absolute speed of light, all black holes would have a fundamental construction map (gps of the stars) so they would all have exactly the same size and mass. The distinction of these masses would be the same as change in the escape velocity, since it would indeed be a fundamental measure of the gravitational mass of any object. (Relativity would only allow much smaller changes in the speed of light and this couldn't explain why e.g. a smaller and a larger mass move exactly that much faster and slower with the same force applied by F=ma. changes in mass would have direct changes in the momentum of the field a large change in mass say between a mouse and all the web sites of the world's light reading would involve that much larger change in the momentum of the field if mass is always just spinning energy; I propose we measure the spectra of this field of masses like the mouse and cheese which may be much distinct from relativity near each mass by slowly moving atomic clock probes, perhaps over months or years between the masses. I believe gravity being a FTL acceleration would have a much different pattern around each masses standing wave.)
If black holes have changes in accelerations already at the speed of light, continuous extra changes of more mass might be all FTL and this would be caused by the implosion of the spacelike particles exerting the force of acceleration. Nonetheless, the timelike photons being FTL also but lighter would often escape the black hole. In general the spacelike and timelike intervals being like the opposition of matter and energy or, e.g. particles and antiparticles would be mostly equal though opposite. Thus about half the expected mass would be won by the massive, masses! Even so note there is neither any absolute sharp line between mass and energy in GWD (so there is union of all the physics that share them in common, and by F=ma for low energy fields they are in a continuous union in ratio so you weigh less at the equator than N or S, if they were the same here you would weigh the same too.). Thus instead of exactly 1/2 the mass won, there may be generally only about this much. Yet at higher masses, if there is more and more acceleration faster than FTL, so larger and larger black holes will win more mass than relativity itself may allow, a prediction of this idea. If there was an exact acceleration at c all particles including ghost particles would fall in and the higher scale wouldn't fit GWD.
Does the Higgs' Give Mass?
We see the Higgs' is thought to be the god particle and the cause of mass. Even a low energy Higgs' has problems because particles are discontinuous, they don't connect, they radiate. Thus here too waves are needed. I see all this stuff about how the unified physics will always be by quantized gravity. "QM is well proven, gravity is, thus we quantify gravity and all is solved." By this line of reason if gravity is about space and time itself, space and time must also be quantized. But there has been no quantum gravity seen. I think the solution may not be in quantum gravity, rather in all there is being waves or standing waves mostly. Einstein noted that it's impossible to conceive a fundamental particle that coundn't absorb or emit a wave so I believe waves are mostly the foundation.
In other words instead of trying to quantise gravity perhaps the best way is to make the quanta more like waves.
.. . Gravity to implode would use the waves as I say to implode the particles. The particles might implode just to the center of mass and then convert to waves and reradiate. The waves reradiate as I agree with Einstein so the Earth doesn't gain huge mass per second.. The particles are the dark matter, and the waves are the dark energy. The reason the particles convert automatically to waves at the com is because gravity being a foundation field is much sensitive to changes in speed. Conservation of momentum is conservation of motion. There would be much less delay in the conversion of mass to energy here if the waves are much Faster than Light because they're lighter than light as by my interpretation of Maxwell's method of predicting the speed of light. If gravity has a much lighter field, by F=ma not Emc2 it could be much higher speed in what I call GWD, General Wave Dynamics, see my physics synopsis link upper left.
...
Particles would adhere to centers of mass via the wave power, but the particles don't give mass here rather both the waves and particles, but ultimately the waves are the source. At low intermediate range we might find the Higgs (virtual photons perhaps) and perhaps make good use of it via "wires" and "currents" (perhaps to someday shield centrifugal force and gravity, ect.) but ultimately there may be no ultimate particle, only waves. The Higgs' may give more mass, but not the extra needed to hold all the fields together, only waves can do this because waves are continuous and unify, particles would only radiate otherwise.
..
A NEW WAY TO MEASURE THE FITZGERALD CONTRACTION?
This has been an accepted prediction of SR though never actually seen only surmised to be there because of all the rest of relativity (SR) being so true. To observe the Fitzgerald Contraction if we use not one particle alone but instead a line of the particles, the degree of the Fitzgerald Contraction might be much multiplied up allowing us to finally prove if Einstein was correct about this.
My belief is like the cushion at terminal velocity there are two levels of the force, the waves like gravity and the particles like the air resistance. You might say, if you have the pillow and have just the gravity and remove the force of it's motion all the speed is one, there is no adjustment to more than one speed by this. I believe the light has essentially adjustable levels of it's acceleration ahead of the starship.
At any rate if we look at the cushion with more force and more pressure like the air of say, Jupiter, there is compressive force. I think this might tell us something important about the Fitzgerald Contraction. Einstein believed an observer travelling at near the speed of light wouldn't notice anything unusual about the light past Mcdonald's Hamburger sendins, all in his starship would be usual physics, the inertia, any whizzing of cosmic fizz in the room and so on. But the Fitzgeral contraction has not yet been proven. If you have different energys for the waves and particles, compression is compression, and there is a real force on a cushion in the air, perhaps Einstein was wrong here about the Fitzgerald Contraction too. In GR he describes a particle of light as not huffing and puffing to escape a gravity field, but don't we huff and puff to climb a hill? Thus in these experiments to find the Fitzgerald Contraction I think we could also put nano force measuring machines to see if Einstein was wrong about this.
Another effect here may be about spin. Particles that travel at slower than the speed of light have sidewise spin states not seen in particles like light (that move at near the speed of light no doubt!). For a high speed starship or particle I believe the particles may line up their spin like the light with their spin axis and direction of motion and FM sounds on the 78, and no sideways spin involved since the surface of the particles here would either spin at almost 0 with the motion forward cancelling out or on the other side at 2c. This lining up would also unify the particles and perhaps set the starship spinning too. Even larger objects may start to spin. This may be worth seeing if the Fitzgerald Contraction also has this effect also measured with same related machines to finally try to find the Fitzgerald Contractions and these other effects perhaps not common with SR.
...
*********
.I read in Carl Sagan's great volume of this dude in the old days and he's saying of "the gods" as an explanation of physics or science, when a person explains a process by the god explanation, he's only substituting something he doesn't know for the ignorance of his own mind. Sir Issac Newton when asked what about the nature of light if it was a substance or an accident, he just laughed, and I see these sites where they quote Wehrner Von Brain as saying if asked what holds the moon up there so the gravity doesn't pull it down and he says just centrifugal force, and they laugh, to me the idea of Einstein that there's nothing there, no low energy fields is substituting lack of knowledge for Einstein's belief. If there's nothing there it seems to have many definite ratios and manifestations, perhaps the most obvious to me being Maxwell's exact prediction of the speed of light based on the resilience of the low energy field, the wave way of light with all the experiments in favor of it ect, and Einstein's other idea that while in SR light is only a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption and thus constant in speed, and yet contradiction of this with both waves and particles in quantum physics, his own discovery, "disproving SR". If one or the other is true I would believe quantum physics because waves and particles are more general than just particles.
Maxwell's method relied on the force between constant electric charges, giving constant resilience to the field, thus the speed of light between the particles. More resilience or less, more or less speed seen. In my reconciliation of Maxwell and Einstein, and we have the weight and counterweight in an elevator like the small weight and counterweight of electric charges if they are a bit unequal, the elevator will actually accelerate. You may say, right the electric charges are exactly the same right? There is no acceleration because of this and this is uniform motion. The problem here is if there was no distinction of the charges light wouldn't have the resilience to move at all, the light itself needs a source of change to move. In GWD at low energy mass and energy are not equivalent, e.g. if particles and antiparticles are the same, we wouldn't have as much matter as antimatter. It's been well known a particle has a good bit more mass and less energy and its antiparticle has more energy and moves faster. But this distinction would also seem to pull a mass forward if at first in constant motion and it would accelerate, where's the acceleration?
In my earlier belief about the weight and counterweight I was a bit puzzled about air friction, I just thought by enough balance of the force between the electric charges, what particles or air might be around the elevator would be past a threshold, and there would be no change in the speed of light or the constant motion as we need to fit the experiments that have both constant. (Some elevators are so fast they have air shields to streamline and reduce noise and add speed up to the cinema shows so high up in the air. A good improvement here might be just to pump air around the elevator from below and if it fell somewhat the cushion would be a second way to make it safer yet, sail United the elevators show movies!) So I'm thinking of ways the field can be fluid and give way completely in constant motion, with the speed frozen in by the pressure, yet showing up as pressure with any force added to the ship in SR. I thought of "a see saw in a block of ice" that somehow was resistant to motion, and then once in motion was constant. Here I realized a problem would be that a see saw won't melt the ice to continue in motion even if it's melted it with some pressure. The ice would resist, the see saw would stop.
No doubt at high energy mass and energy are numerically equivalent, the quanta just as by Maxwell's method itself are constant, add more energy, and the quanta has more energy and spins just that much faster always. There is "no disproof of relativity" at higher energy than the level of light (though perhaps the neutrino since it's a bit lighter than light it MIGHT be a bit faster than light, though not necessarily since even if the quantum cup is more like a saucer and the neutrino COULD change its mass as it does in travel, it's also near enough to the quanta of light, and electromagnetic relativity it would be either under the influence of relativity at just the speed of light (or perhaps a little fast. I have no definite prediction of this in GWD my explanation is if it's at the speed of light this would be because it's quanta enough to be under the spell of SR and the nearby speed of light.).
Even though Einstein was well aware of philosophy, he seemed to be unaware of his own contradictions e.g of the wave particles both yet not so in relativity. CLICK HERE for my observations about Einstein's "goofs". I believe there are deeper truths. Mass and energy seem the same at higher energy but heavy is not the same as light. Boost a heavy and light mass at low energy with the same force, and the heavy one will move slower, the light one faster and so on. Heat rises and mass sinks, the many and the one, ect.
Why don't the weight and counterweight accelerate at least some with the resilience of the field in SR? What has constant speed even under acceleration? And I realized, terminal velocity of a cushion falling with gravity..... Uniform motion under acceleration...
What I believe here is this would be the waves pulling the mass forward at one wavelength, and the particles resisting it at another frequency, the cause of the Fitzgerald Contraction..the result is Maxwell''s speed of light and the uniform motion too. If we have the cushion falling and with more and more pressure with more and more gravity, there would be more and more compression. The balance of the acceleration and the particles resisting would cause contraction on both sides even with uniform motion. This explains the gain of mass at near c, the particles hit the usual type of common quanta and give them more mass than usual via the motion.
A prediction here might be that the particles nearer the direction of motion would actually heat up, thus if we find a way to measure the temperature of the high speed body, we might find it would heat up a bit more here. This wouldn't follow via SR because there is no field here or there to exert the pressure, no particles no heat, ect.
We may ask about the wave, what it is attractive by, if by internal cohesion but light being internally cohesive at the speed of light it may have an internal cohesive wave at faster than light or it would not be in union like in lasers. If gravity is a wave to be cohesive this is what the light is made of so that the energy doesn't radiate out and energy is lost to the cosmos which is infinite in time because of mass being either neither created or destroyed. At least locally I believe gravity may violate energy conservation winding up the universe in time so it wouldn't have fizzled to 0 density. If the universe is winding down something must be winding it up more yet. In my cosmology, the universe would expand out like via jets and the jets would combine at the quasars powered by the ionized charges of both jets powered by the gravity, and this would then combine and recycle in the disc like a giant galaxy. I dub this the Double Vortex Jet Cosmology. I've improved and elaborated this idea though I couldn't remember if it was my own, I was involved with much more on my site at the time ect.. With the Vortex Cosmology we would perhaps be looking down one of the jets as in found by the Wilkenson telescope. If we look at the image and it has a circular realm, with what looks like two sides, and I interpret this as the center moving our way from the center of the cosmos, and the two sides being at higher speeds and with relativistic heating with the angle more toward us via a sort of laminar flow of the jet. Vortex Jet cosmology would explain paradoxes of time; if time is infinite and entropy is increasing, why are we not at 0 density? If time has an end and beginning, what about energy conservation never being violated in all experiments (except perhaps gravity as I say below). If the cosmos winds up at the disc by gravity the gravity overpowers the entropy, and if it radiates out at the jets there is the thermodynamic entropy, both entropy and energy conservation are mostly observed and certainly always at high energy in Vortex Jet cosmology. Click here for complete model.
This could be a cosmos of energy being eternal, of continual cycles of implosion and reradiance, via essentially unlimited energy via the gravitational field.
The wave of light in SR might have eternal flow via internal cohesion like gravity. If you have the starship being pulled forward by the internal cohesion of the field, we might imagine if we put a machine to see in the front of a high speed mass, there might be traction ahead not predicted by relativity.
In his book "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Caulder observes that there is the problem of virtual particles in Special Relativity, they seem to be a problem. For each doubling of speed the particles are to the third power of the speed. Aha he says, the experiment shows these particles are indeed just so, they fit in with SR exactly, at just the right change of frequency for "no force" to be exerted on the moving starship. The problem is that particles are discontinuous, they exert force. It seems improbable if these virtual particles would exert pressure as all particles do on impact, that they wouldn't slow down the ship. If we believe that the field is resilient, like all fields and all mass and all energy, there are two components one that will speed up the motion and another to slow it down, like e.g. centrifugal and centripetal force some have said it's impossible to conceive of one without the other. Thus if there's something tending to slow the starship, there must be another component needed to overcome the particles. We can't just imagine by coincidence the particles are at just the right force to fit, because if they fit at one speed, why would they fit at twice the speed. Twice the speed would have twice the resistance. This seems to relate to my idea about why Einstein was wrong about his prediction that particles in the Earth's gravity would gain mass with time. Why don't old electrons weigh more than new ones? If we believe the particles are imploding and the field is flowing through us now (if we aren't millionaires on the ISS so we are in 1000Gs of cash) there should be a gain of mass as Einstein believed. (One solution of this problem also of the earth gaining lots of mass each second might be Einstein's other idea that there are low energy reradiant fields that would not have huge increase in the earth's mass to balance inflow with outflow and to be the cause of the cosmic acceleration, this would also be needed to explain how gravity can radiate at all, as in the physics of gravity waves and pulsars, and implosion alone would have causality problems (the water around the lake starts outside and then radiates to the stone, and then the ripple, don't think so.)). We would indeed expect that old electrons might weigh more than new ones, why don't they?
My belief is that the quanta are like small cups that only hold so much gravity, the rest flows over and reradiates back out in cycles, like a spring that just stretches some and then no more. There's extra field for gravity unlike the higher energy quanta because gravity violates just this law of E mc2 at lower energy, otherwise there mass and energy are equivalent and the galaxies aren't spinning too fast by centrifugal force as seen in observations, ect.
By the general much alikeness of gravity and inertia (though they're not the same exactly or you couldn't weigh out at the poles and tropics, and you couldn't tell them apart in any way as I say here) if gravity has particles like the electron not gaining mass, then the inertia too might have the same. The particles give more mass for more motion, but the extra flows around. Just like the terminal speed in the air as masses nearer do. We might say the velocity of fall in the air doesn't have to have the gravity to be near the force of the air to be the constant speed we find, and so too the particles may not be even that closely related to the wave of attraction, after all for gravity and fall in the air this isn't so.
This would also explain another problem of particles which both Maxwell, Newton and others have considered; if the Earth is moving through the particles, simple calculations show the friction would make it fall into the sun in just a few million years. By particles alone it would, but by the attraction at another energy, the earth could be in "perpetual motion".
Here's where an interesting possibility is; somewhere light. If there are two components and these particles that I liken to the Higg's were shieldable, we might have centrifugal force without the centripetal, or vice versa. Find some way to shield from the Higgs' and the resistant component is gone, e.g. gravity shielding. I know there is little evidence for this yet; but here's my line of thought, if the particles mostly don't shield (in current experiments either for centrifugal force or gravity) they may be like the neutrino. Asking questions about the neutrino might thus tell us more about gravity and the Higgs'. Why doesn't the neutrino itself shield? If we liken the neutrino to mostly a wave, it could be rather like a splash when it hits say one side of an atom. It goes around to the other side and then could reunify on the other side just as gravity has no shielding, a wave has internal cohesion so it could do this, this could be how gravity might work except the gravity could gain more acceleration. With all mass and energy having both waves and particles there is still a certain amount of particulate pressure the neutrino or the graviton would exert, the familiar force of gravity pressing you down into down comforter at grama's when you are youth. Note that even if gravity overflows the entropy and the neutrino does mostly it still has to have a certain amount of local particulate pressure on one side. Indeed the reason for no shielding may not be because of the union on the other side of the field, on the side of the impact the particles might exert considerable force like a particle, or almost completely so. Otherwise no pressure could be exerted, the pressure has to be strong enough to exert the force of gravity yet not shield and this could explain both. I believe the Higgs' of the right wavelength might be how we may one day do this. If gravity and inertia are caused by particles we might eventually find the wavelength and cancel the field locally.
WHY NO HIGGS' YETThe Higgs' is called the "god particle" because it might unify all of physics. The prediction was for a high energy Higgs' to be found if so somewhat in the LHC. But no Higgs's has yet been seen. I believe the answer is simple, no high energy Higgs' is needed to mediate electromagnetism with the strong force because, the strong force is just a high energy electron beyond the point of the muon, the electromagnetic field itself with the strong force does all the mediation, ect. even so I think this is possible because some unexplained mediation might be there. Nonetheless the standard theory is a well proven way to the foundations of leptons and baryons, if there were any real "loose ends" we would then use the Higgs' to explain them.
There is however the one important "loose end"; particle mass on a continuous scale. This wouldn't be by way of a high energy Higgs' since high mass and energy are quantum, and there are no discrete changes in the masses seen. Thus I believe in the low energy "particles" like Einstein used to explain his way out of the Uncertainty Principle, this may be the real Higgs' and also the way to gravity or even antigravity.
The reason no low energy Higgs' has been found yet may be the resonance of this particle may be so unlike say a meson that the machines to measure them or change them may be only in reach of other like machines, sort of like the nano world that takes giant ways to even do simple changes here.
There may even so be a moment where we bridge this gap, and then the rest might be ours.
To find this Higgs at the foundation, I believe we might be able to use methods like with twisting the light around as in recent research and then measuring a reduced degree of change than is allowed by light and QM otherwise.
Other possibilities I note are to line up huge numbers of particles in a tube and see if there is one more than should be with changes in the continuous wavelength of each particle, this would tell us the mass to look for since each electron would add say one more of the particles in a way unseen in common physics.
There is another type of experiment also underway using interferometers like the Michealson Morley in hopes of finding small changes where the fields balance out.
If the Higgs' were found and it were used to cancel centrifugal force, gravity, or inertia we might imagine, the attraction of the field up to the speed of light like Maxwell's resilience, I think it's not impossible the Higgs' might allow us not just to shield from the field to go FTL as some believe we may, just shield from the particles and we move foreward in acceleration for any amount of energy we might want. I had wondered if fusion might be possible by reducing the resistance of the quanta by cooling before we try to fuse the particles together, ect. (Think BEC. Even if the quanta of the strong force are much reduced in wavelength they wouldn't have the outside quantum well of the speed of light and SR with the unified charge on the outside, inside with relativity removed here too, the Higg's might allow much higher levels of conversion of the mass to energy). If we also could reduce the quanta with the Higgs' by changing where the implosion and reradiance of the fields balance in electromagnetism (this is why SR was so successful, all the forces gravitate to electromagnetism where the forces balance) essentially we are cancelling the centrifugal force of the quanta or ect. and the efficiency of converting the mass to energy might be much higher.
Galileo when asked why if the particles are there for the gravity don't we feel the force as we move in our ride around the solar system each month we save in Ma Bell savings, and he would say, the particles are like an atmosphere carried with the Earth and the particles only hit the outside of the field. If the particles turn out to be true this would seem to be the way that even if the moon has an acceleration in the opposite direction toward the near side from us this doesn't cancel the gravity between the earth and moon, a river flowing in both directions would cancel and the gravity would shield, and so on. If each mass has an aurora of the dark matter, like the neutrino, the outer field could bend and travel to the other side and unify on the other side and have net acceleration of gravity. If this sounds familiar, the physics might be like the new cloaking technology where light is bent around an object so it seems invisible. Gravity is invisible to shielding so as anti shielding methods may be divised we may even learn how to shield it here by way of improvements in this realm.
Has The Higg's Already Been Found?Einstein predicted the spacelike and timelike intervals in SR. The spacelike intervals were to be always faster than light and the timelike were slower than light with a 0 interval where they balance at the speed of light. No one may have taken Einstein seriously because the FTL interval seems in direct contradiction to SR with all the well proven proofs of Special Relativity. By the early 80's however, spacelike and timelike virtual photons had been found experimentally. The physics book I read then noted with consternation that "the spacelike photons have mass but no inertia, and the timelike photons have inertia but no mass. This seems in counterintuitive but this is what experiment shows to be true." I puzzled over this through the 80's and beyond. My first idea was that SR was completely right and Einstein was just wrong about the intervals, so to explain his idea I tried to fit this with particles and antiparticles; an electron has mostly mass and some energy or inertia and a positive charge the reverse. The 0 interval would perhaps be just near half the speed of light and the backward through time problem of SR at faster than light is mere time reversal in Feynmanns spin on the physics of matter and antimatter. The problems here are first there is no balance of thermodynamics seen at half the speed of light where all there is would balance. Second Feynmann believed particles and antiparticles only reverse in time for a while then there is no reversal as they move deeper in the field of complexity of other particles and can't be simply reversed. SR's time reversal, though it could help explain this somewhat would seem to be more profound. Third, particles and antiparticles have more mass and less energy and vice versa. The virtual photons by the evidence have all mass or all inertia. Thus I was left with this puzzle, I've solved many things in physics, but this seemed not to fit in with matter and antimatter and I didn't know what in the world this might be. Finally by the above I think I may have the answer;
Maxwell's method relied on the force between constant electric charges, giving constant resilience to the field, thus the speed of light between the particles. More resilience or less, more or less speed seen. In my reconciliation of Maxwell and Einstein, and we have the weight and counterweight in an elevator like the small weight and counterweight of electric charges if they are a bit unequal, the elevator will actually accelerate. You may say, right the electric charges are exactly the same right? There is no acceleration because of this and this is uniform motion. The problem here is if there was no distinction of the charges light wouldn't have the resilience to move at all, the light itself needs a source of change to move. In GWD at low energy mass and energy are not equivalent, e.g. if particles and antiparticles are the same, we wouldn't have as much matter as antimatter. It's been well known a particle has a good bit more mass and less energy and its antiparticle has more energy and moves faster. But this distinction would also seem to pull a mass forward if at first in constant motion and it would accelerate, where's the acceleration?
In my earlier belief about the weight and counterweight I was a bit puzzled about air friction, I just thought by enough balance of the force between the electric charges, what particles or air might be around the elevator would be past a threshold, and there would be no change in the speed of light or the constant motion as we need to fit the experiments that have both constant. (Some elevators are so fast they have air shields to streamline and reduce noise and add speed up to the cinema shows so high up in the air. A good improvement here might be just to pump air around the elevator from below and if it fell somewhat the cushion would be a second way to make it safer yet, sail United the elevators show movies!) So I'm thinking of ways the field can be fluid and give way completely in constant motion, with the speed frozen in by the pressure, yet showing up as pressure with any force added to the ship in SR. I thought of "a see saw in a block of ice" that somehow was resistant to motion, and then once in motion was constant. Here I realized a problem would be that a see saw won't melt the ice to continue in motion even if it's melted it with some pressure. The ice would resist, the see saw would stop.
No doubt at high energy mass and energy are numerically equivalent, the quanta just as by Maxwell's method itself are constant, add more energy, and the quanta has more energy and spins just that much faster always. There is "no disproof of relativity" at higher energy than the level of light (though perhaps the neutrino since it's a bit lighter than light it MIGHT be a bit faster than light, though not necessarily since even if the quantum cup is more like a saucer and the neutrino COULD change its mass as it does in travel, it's also near enough to the quanta of light, and electromagnetic relativity it would be either under the influence of relativity at just the speed of light (or perhaps a little fast. I have no definite prediction of this in GWD my explanation is if it's at the speed of light this would be because it's quanta enough to be under the spell of SR and the nearby speed of light.).
Even though Einstein was well aware of philosophy, he seemed to be unaware of his own contradictions e.g of the wave particles both yet not so in relativity. CLICK HERE for my observations about Einstein's "goofs". I believe there are deeper truths. Mass and energy seem the same at higher energy but heavy is not the same as light. Boost a heavy and light mass at low energy with the same force, and the heavy one will move slower, the light one faster and so on. Heat rises and mass sinks, the many and the one, ect.
Why don't the weight and counterweight accelerate at least some with the resilience of the field in SR? What has constant speed even under acceleration? And I realized, terminal velocity of a cushion falling with gravity..... Uniform motion under acceleration...
What I believe here is this would be the waves pulling the mass forward at one wavelength, and the particles resisting it at another frequency, the cause of the Fitzgerald Contraction..the result is Maxwell''s speed of light and the uniform motion too. If we have the cushion falling and with more and more pressure with more and more gravity, there would be more and more compression. The balance of the acceleration and the particles resisting would cause contraction on both sides even with uniform motion. This explains the gain of mass at near c, the particles hit the usual type of common quanta and give them more mass than usual via the motion.
A prediction here might be that the particles nearer the direction of motion would actually heat up, thus if we find a way to measure the temperature of the high speed body, we might find it would heat up a bit more here. This wouldn't follow via SR because there is no field here or there to exert the pressure, no particles no heat, ect.
We may ask about the wave, what it is attractive by, if by internal cohesion but light being internally cohesive at the speed of light it may have an internal cohesive wave at faster than light or it would not be in union like in lasers. If gravity is a wave to be cohesive this is what the light is made of so that the energy doesn't radiate out and energy is lost to the cosmos which is infinite in time because of mass being either neither created or destroyed. At least locally I believe gravity may violate energy conservation winding up the universe in time so it wouldn't have fizzled to 0 density. If the universe is winding down something must be winding it up more yet. In my cosmology, the universe would expand out like via jets and the jets would combine at the quasars powered by the ionized charges of both jets powered by the gravity, and this would then combine and recycle in the disc like a giant galaxy. I dub this the Double Vortex Jet Cosmology. I've improved and elaborated this idea though I couldn't remember if it was my own, I was involved with much more on my site at the time ect.. With the Vortex Cosmology we would perhaps be looking down one of the jets as in found by the Wilkenson telescope. If we look at the image and it has a circular realm, with what looks like two sides, and I interpret this as the center moving our way from the center of the cosmos, and the two sides being at higher speeds and with relativistic heating with the angle more toward us via a sort of laminar flow of the jet. Vortex Jet cosmology would explain paradoxes of time; if time is infinite and entropy is increasing, why are we not at 0 density? If time has an end and beginning, what about energy conservation never being violated in all experiments (except perhaps gravity as I say below). If the cosmos winds up at the disc by gravity the gravity overpowers the entropy, and if it radiates out at the jets there is the thermodynamic entropy, both entropy and energy conservation are mostly observed and certainly always at high energy in Vortex Jet cosmology. Click here for complete model.
This could be a cosmos of energy being eternal, of continual cycles of implosion and reradiance, via essentially unlimited energy via the gravitational field.
The wave of light in SR might have eternal flow via internal cohesion like gravity. If you have the starship being pulled forward by the internal cohesion of the field, we might imagine if we put a machine to see in the front of a high speed mass, there might be traction ahead not predicted by relativity.
In his book "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Caulder observes that there is the problem of virtual particles in Special Relativity, they seem to be a problem. For each doubling of speed the particles are to the third power of the speed. Aha he says, the experiment shows these particles are indeed just so, they fit in with SR exactly, at just the right change of frequency for "no force" to be exerted on the moving starship. The problem is that particles are discontinuous, they exert force. It seems improbable if these virtual particles would exert pressure as all particles do on impact, that they wouldn't slow down the ship. If we believe that the field is resilient, like all fields and all mass and all energy, there are two components one that will speed up the motion and another to slow it down, like e.g. centrifugal and centripetal force some have said it's impossible to conceive of one without the other. Thus if there's something tending to slow the starship, there must be another component needed to overcome the particles. We can't just imagine by coincidence the particles are at just the right force to fit, because if they fit at one speed, why would they fit at twice the speed. Twice the speed would have twice the resistance. This seems to relate to my idea about why Einstein was wrong about his prediction that particles in the Earth's gravity would gain mass with time. Why don't old electrons weigh more than new ones? If we believe the particles are imploding and the field is flowing through us now (if we aren't millionaires on the ISS so we are in 1000Gs of cash) there should be a gain of mass as Einstein believed. (One solution of this problem also of the earth gaining lots of mass each second might be Einstein's other idea that there are low energy reradiant fields that would not have huge increase in the earth's mass to balance inflow with outflow and to be the cause of the cosmic acceleration, this would also be needed to explain how gravity can radiate at all, as in the physics of gravity waves and pulsars, and implosion alone would have causality problems (the water around the lake starts outside and then radiates to the stone, and then the ripple, don't think so.)). We would indeed expect that old electrons might weigh more than new ones, why don't they?
My belief is that the quanta are like small cups that only hold so much gravity, the rest flows over and reradiates back out in cycles, like a spring that just stretches some and then no more. There's extra field for gravity unlike the higher energy quanta because gravity violates just this law of E mc2 at lower energy, otherwise there mass and energy are equivalent and the galaxies aren't spinning too fast by centrifugal force as seen in observations, ect.
By the general much alikeness of gravity and inertia (though they're not the same exactly or you couldn't weigh out at the poles and tropics, and you couldn't tell them apart in any way as I say here) if gravity has particles like the electron not gaining mass, then the inertia too might have the same. The particles give more mass for more motion, but the extra flows around. Just like the terminal speed in the air as masses nearer do. We might say the velocity of fall in the air doesn't have to have the gravity to be near the force of the air to be the constant speed we find, and so too the particles may not be even that closely related to the wave of attraction, after all for gravity and fall in the air this isn't so.
This would also explain another problem of particles which both Maxwell, Newton and others have considered; if the Earth is moving through the particles, simple calculations show the friction would make it fall into the sun in just a few million years. By particles alone it would, but by the attraction at another energy, the earth could be in "perpetual motion".
Here's where an interesting possibility is; somewhere light. If there are two components and these particles that I liken to the Higg's were shieldable, we might have centrifugal force without the centripetal, or vice versa. Find some way to shield from the Higgs' and the resistant component is gone, e.g. gravity shielding. I know there is little evidence for this yet; but here's my line of thought, if the particles mostly don't shield (in current experiments either for centrifugal force or gravity) they may be like the neutrino. Asking questions about the neutrino might thus tell us more about gravity and the Higgs'. Why doesn't the neutrino itself shield? If we liken the neutrino to mostly a wave, it could be rather like a splash when it hits say one side of an atom. It goes around to the other side and then could reunify on the other side just as gravity has no shielding, a wave has internal cohesion so it could do this, this could be how gravity might work except the gravity could gain more acceleration. With all mass and energy having both waves and particles there is still a certain amount of particulate pressure the neutrino or the graviton would exert, the familiar force of gravity pressing you down into down comforter at grama's when you are youth. Note that even if gravity overflows the entropy and the neutrino does mostly it still has to have a certain amount of local particulate pressure on one side. Indeed the reason for no shielding may not be because of the union on the other side of the field, on the side of the impact the particles might exert considerable force like a particle, or almost completely so. Otherwise no pressure could be exerted, the pressure has to be strong enough to exert the force of gravity yet not shield and this could explain both. I believe the Higgs' of the right wavelength might be how we may one day do this. If gravity and inertia are caused by particles we might eventually find the wavelength and cancel the field locally.
WHY NO HIGGS' YETThe Higgs' is called the "god particle" because it might unify all of physics. The prediction was for a high energy Higgs' to be found if so somewhat in the LHC. But no Higgs's has yet been seen. I believe the answer is simple, no high energy Higgs' is needed to mediate electromagnetism with the strong force because, the strong force is just a high energy electron beyond the point of the muon, the electromagnetic field itself with the strong force does all the mediation, ect. even so I think this is possible because some unexplained mediation might be there. Nonetheless the standard theory is a well proven way to the foundations of leptons and baryons, if there were any real "loose ends" we would then use the Higgs' to explain them.
There is however the one important "loose end"; particle mass on a continuous scale. This wouldn't be by way of a high energy Higgs' since high mass and energy are quantum, and there are no discrete changes in the masses seen. Thus I believe in the low energy "particles" like Einstein used to explain his way out of the Uncertainty Principle, this may be the real Higgs' and also the way to gravity or even antigravity.
The reason no low energy Higgs' has been found yet may be the resonance of this particle may be so unlike say a meson that the machines to measure them or change them may be only in reach of other like machines, sort of like the nano world that takes giant ways to even do simple changes here.
There may even so be a moment where we bridge this gap, and then the rest might be ours.
To find this Higgs at the foundation, I believe we might be able to use methods like with twisting the light around as in recent research and then measuring a reduced degree of change than is allowed by light and QM otherwise.
Other possibilities I note are to line up huge numbers of particles in a tube and see if there is one more than should be with changes in the continuous wavelength of each particle, this would tell us the mass to look for since each electron would add say one more of the particles in a way unseen in common physics.
There is another type of experiment also underway using interferometers like the Michealson Morley in hopes of finding small changes where the fields balance out.
If the Higgs' were found and it were used to cancel centrifugal force, gravity, or inertia we might imagine, the attraction of the field up to the speed of light like Maxwell's resilience, I think it's not impossible the Higgs' might allow us not just to shield from the field to go FTL as some believe we may, just shield from the particles and we move foreward in acceleration for any amount of energy we might want. I had wondered if fusion might be possible by reducing the resistance of the quanta by cooling before we try to fuse the particles together, ect. (Think BEC. Even if the quanta of the strong force are much reduced in wavelength they wouldn't have the outside quantum well of the speed of light and SR with the unified charge on the outside, inside with relativity removed here too, the Higg's might allow much higher levels of conversion of the mass to energy). If we also could reduce the quanta with the Higgs' by changing where the implosion and reradiance of the fields balance in electromagnetism (this is why SR was so successful, all the forces gravitate to electromagnetism where the forces balance) essentially we are cancelling the centrifugal force of the quanta or ect. and the efficiency of converting the mass to energy might be much higher.
Galileo when asked why if the particles are there for the gravity don't we feel the force as we move in our ride around the solar system each month we save in Ma Bell savings, and he would say, the particles are like an atmosphere carried with the Earth and the particles only hit the outside of the field. If the particles turn out to be true this would seem to be the way that even if the moon has an acceleration in the opposite direction toward the near side from us this doesn't cancel the gravity between the earth and moon, a river flowing in both directions would cancel and the gravity would shield, and so on. If each mass has an aurora of the dark matter, like the neutrino, the outer field could bend and travel to the other side and unify on the other side and have net acceleration of gravity. If this sounds familiar, the physics might be like the new cloaking technology where light is bent around an object so it seems invisible. Gravity is invisible to shielding so as anti shielding methods may be divised we may even learn how to shield it here by way of improvements in this realm.
Has The Higg's Already Been Found?Einstein predicted the spacelike and timelike intervals in SR. The spacelike intervals were to be always faster than light and the timelike were slower than light with a 0 interval where they balance at the speed of light. No one may have taken Einstein seriously because the FTL interval seems in direct contradiction to SR with all the well proven proofs of Special Relativity. By the early 80's however, spacelike and timelike virtual photons had been found experimentally. The physics book I read then noted with consternation that "the spacelike photons have mass but no inertia, and the timelike photons have inertia but no mass. This seems in counterintuitive but this is what experiment shows to be true." I puzzled over this through the 80's and beyond. My first idea was that SR was completely right and Einstein was just wrong about the intervals, so to explain his idea I tried to fit this with particles and antiparticles; an electron has mostly mass and some energy or inertia and a positive charge the reverse. The 0 interval would perhaps be just near half the speed of light and the backward through time problem of SR at faster than light is mere time reversal in Feynmanns spin on the physics of matter and antimatter. The problems here are first there is no balance of thermodynamics seen at half the speed of light where all there is would balance. Second Feynmann believed particles and antiparticles only reverse in time for a while then there is no reversal as they move deeper in the field of complexity of other particles and can't be simply reversed. SR's time reversal, though it could help explain this somewhat would seem to be more profound. Third, particles and antiparticles have more mass and less energy and vice versa. The virtual photons by the evidence have all mass or all inertia. Thus I was left with this puzzle, I've solved many things in physics, but this seemed not to fit in with matter and antimatter and I didn't know what in the world this might be. Finally by the above I think I may have the answer;
...The inertia without mass is what may cause the union of Einstein's Equivalence Principle if inertia is a sort of gravity without motive power. Inertia and gravity would act (much) the same because of the particles only. In a centrifuge there is no gravity but the particles would spin outward picking up motion from the spin via other particles like a marble on a radial track spins outward faster and faster. For gravity there are waves in addition like Einstein's gravity waves that here power the particles, the waves are never felt directly. If they were, the Equivalence Principle wouldn't (mostly) be true, and in fall in the gravity if the waves are at the speed of light or faster, they whiz past and you would feel the force either at rest or on fall because there would be little change in their speed relative to the falling or observer at rest (Note that in most of my comments about gravity and these waves to weigh in about it I use the word relative not often, this would be because I'm relating what may be a deeper realm of physics, if all is relative, what is relativity relative to? All motion is relative mostly, but why are so many masses at rest. I refute it thus, said the observer when told relativity was true and stomped his foot on the ground. Relativity is about sight and light, yet all around a feeling is more what we sense the most.)...
To have inertia but no mass the virtual photons would indeed be the cause of centrifugal force. Because we can have gravity completely without the wave sensation since we don't feel the waves even if present, the particles and waves can be real distinct or mostly. Mass without inertia, inertia without mass. I have another idea about the 0 interval, it's not the speed of light, rather it may have many speeds where the waves and particles might balance, thus there is neither a great dividing line at the speed of light nor at other speeds to be found and this is not what is seen.
I use the spacelike and timelike photons to also explain the finding that black holes gain mass as predicted by the ghost particles as found except they do so at half the rate. If the escape velocity of a black hole was always at the absolute speed of light, all black holes would have a fundamental construction map (gps of the stars) so they would all have exactly the same size and mass. The distinction of these masses would be the same as change in the escape velocity, since it would indeed be a fundamental measure of the gravitational mass of any object. (Relativity would only allow much smaller changes in the speed of light and this couldn't explain why e.g. a smaller and a larger mass move exactly that much faster and slower with the same force applied by F=ma. changes in mass would have direct changes in the momentum of the field a large change in mass say between a mouse and all the web sites of the world's light reading would involve that much larger change in the momentum of the field if mass is always just spinning energy; I propose we measure the spectra of this field of masses like the mouse and cheese which may be much distinct from relativity near each mass by slowly moving atomic clock probes, perhaps over months or years between the masses. I believe gravity being a FTL acceleration would have a much different pattern around each masses standing wave.)
If black holes have changes in accelerations already at the speed of light, continuous extra changes of more mass might be all FTL and this would be caused by the implosion of the spacelike particles exerting the force of acceleration. Nonetheless, the timelike photons being FTL also but lighter would often escape the black hole. In general the spacelike and timelike intervals being like the opposition of matter and energy or, e.g. particles and antiparticles would be mostly equal though opposite. Thus about half the expected mass would be won by the massive, masses! Even so note there is neither any absolute sharp line between mass and energy in GWD (so there is union of all the physics that share them in common, and by F=ma for low energy fields they are in a continuous union in ratio so you weigh less at the equator than N or S, if they were the same here you would weigh the same too.). Thus instead of exactly 1/2 the mass won, there may be generally only about this much. Yet at higher masses, if there is more and more acceleration faster than FTL, so larger and larger black holes will win more mass than relativity itself may allow, a prediction of this idea. If there was an exact acceleration at c all particles including ghost particles would fall in and the higher scale wouldn't fit GWD.
Does the Higgs' Give Mass?
We see the Higgs' is thought to be the god particle and the cause of mass. Even a low energy Higgs' has problems because particles are discontinuous, they don't connect, they radiate. Thus here too waves are needed. I see all this stuff about how the unified physics will always be by quantized gravity. "QM is well proven, gravity is, thus we quantify gravity and all is solved." By this line of reason if gravity is about space and time itself, space and time must also be quantized. But there has been no quantum gravity seen. I think the solution may not be in quantum gravity, rather in all there is being waves or standing waves mostly. Einstein noted that it's impossible to conceive a fundamental particle that coundn't absorb or emit a wave so I believe waves are mostly the foundation.
In other words instead of trying to quantise gravity perhaps the best way is to make the quanta more like waves.
.. . Gravity to implode would use the waves as I say to implode the particles. The particles might implode just to the center of mass and then convert to waves and reradiate. The waves reradiate as I agree with Einstein so the Earth doesn't gain huge mass per second.. The particles are the dark matter, and the waves are the dark energy. The reason the particles convert automatically to waves at the com is because gravity being a foundation field is much sensitive to changes in speed. Conservation of momentum is conservation of motion. There would be much less delay in the conversion of mass to energy here if the waves are much Faster than Light because they're lighter than light as by my interpretation of Maxwell's method of predicting the speed of light. If gravity has a much lighter field, by F=ma not Emc2 it could be much higher speed in what I call GWD, General Wave Dynamics, see my physics synopsis link upper left.
...
Particles would adhere to centers of mass via the wave power, but the particles don't give mass here rather both the waves and particles, but ultimately the waves are the source. At low intermediate range we might find the Higgs (virtual photons perhaps) and perhaps make good use of it via "wires" and "currents" (perhaps to someday shield centrifugal force and gravity, ect.) but ultimately there may be no ultimate particle, only waves. The Higgs' may give more mass, but not the extra needed to hold all the fields together, only waves can do this because waves are continuous and unify, particles would only radiate otherwise.
..
A NEW WAY TO MEASURE THE FITZGERALD CONTRACTION?
This has been an accepted prediction of SR though never actually seen only surmised to be there because of all the rest of relativity (SR) being so true. To observe the Fitzgerald Contraction if we use not one particle alone but instead a line of the particles, the degree of the Fitzgerald Contraction might be much multiplied up allowing us to finally prove if Einstein was correct about this.
My belief is like the cushion at terminal velocity there are two levels of the force, the waves like gravity and the particles like the air resistance. You might say, if you have the pillow and have just the gravity and remove the force of it's motion all the speed is one, there is no adjustment to more than one speed by this. I believe the light has essentially adjustable levels of it's acceleration ahead of the starship.
At any rate if we look at the cushion with more force and more pressure like the air of say, Jupiter, there is compressive force. I think this might tell us something important about the Fitzgerald Contraction. Einstein believed an observer travelling at near the speed of light wouldn't notice anything unusual about the light past Mcdonald's Hamburger sendins, all in his starship would be usual physics, the inertia, any whizzing of cosmic fizz in the room and so on. But the Fitzgeral contraction has not yet been proven. If you have different energys for the waves and particles, compression is compression, and there is a real force on a cushion in the air, perhaps Einstein was wrong here about the Fitzgerald Contraction too. In GR he describes a particle of light as not huffing and puffing to escape a gravity field, but don't we huff and puff to climb a hill? Thus in these experiments to find the Fitzgerald Contraction I think we could also put nano force measuring machines to see if Einstein was wrong about this.
Another effect here may be about spin. Particles that travel at slower than the speed of light have sidewise spin states not seen in particles like light (that move at near the speed of light no doubt!). For a high speed starship or particle I believe the particles may line up their spin like the light with their spin axis and direction of motion and FM sounds on the 78, and no sideways spin involved since the surface of the particles here would either spin at almost 0 with the motion forward cancelling out or on the other side at 2c. This lining up would also unify the particles and perhaps set the starship spinning too. Even larger objects may start to spin. This may be worth seeing if the Fitzgerald Contraction also has this effect also measured with same related machines to finally try to find the Fitzgerald Contractions and these other effects perhaps not common with SR.
...
