Convenience in Relativity.
Einstein like Mach believed that the concave surface in a bucket of spinning water was because of the relative motion of the cosmos. By relativity all observers are equally valid so the point of view that the universe is spinning when you spin a small wheel is equally valid to say that the wheel is spinning though not as convenient.
By relativity the relative motion of the two masses is all the counts. The problem is about changing force on the small wheel and this would presumably cause huge torsion forces on the universe as well as huge centrifugal force and motion faster than light relative to the wheel if both are equally valid.
Here convenience becomes of huge import because it's usually more convenient to say that by having more mass the universe has a more valid frame of reference relative to the wheel, or certainly we could say this is true as far as the concept of rest is important.
About relativity since the cause of the Lorentz contraction is not mechanical and only a given by the speed of light, there is no way to distinguish motion from non-motion.
There is no low energy Higgs' field with relativity and so the Lorentz contraction has no cause. (Einstein said if the low energy field is found relativity will be disproven.. but as I say on my other posts I believe Einstein was wrong because the dark energy and dark matter fields may both cause centrifugal and centrifugal force and inertia but also change phase to be faster than light as well as not interact much with the high energy fields like the classical electromagnetic field lines, because the dark matter and dark energy waves which are pure and low energy might go in the lines between the electric electromagnetic field lines making them coherent and so they stay unified and don't break or bunch up. By this relativity is not disproven but rather it's extended or at least certainly I believe that the relativity of acceleration and forces of this type are not viable.
Many of most people didn't believe in relativity at first and I think this was not a coincidence.. because while special relativity is good as far as it goes and explains a lot of things, I believe it's incomplete because there are all kinds of events around us that don't seem to match up to relativity and as I say on my other posts there seemed to be about 50 and more of these as I write more of them here often I had found.)
By relativity about rotation we can also say the water in the bucket can't know if it's spinning or not and cause the distinction of the surface of the water as the bucket rotates if it's not actively comparing itself to the field around it.
The "inconvenience of convenience" about relativity reminds me of gravity and in philosophy how the employer is not the same as the employee in business.
The employer favors convergence down to a point like gravity. Think about a commercial where the boss has set it up to converge on the point where someone pays for this, a customer, not a dummy we hope!.. this about gravity is non-relativistic where all points of view are equivalent..
The equality of the laborers is more about a sort of consideration where with near distance it seems all the observers are more equivalent. Gravity seems important and the boss has the advantage of the economy of scale or more convenience to do business.
In some of his books Bertrand Russell had a chapter called "What's Seen and What is Felt". For special relativity no star or mass in the cosmos in general can be said to be at rest more than any other or in motion more than the other as the motion is without friction and often at high speed. Light and sight are what are so important to special relativity and not contact forces.
But when we have the speed of light being constant because light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption as Einstein held, this means nothing would ever wear out or run down because in special relativity light has no interaction or contact force as it moves.
Yet by friction in the frame of the Earth all kinds of things are running down and wearing out all the time.
Much of this is because gravity is converging things downward and then they reradiate back out.
As an author I once wrote a story I named "Flatland". Flatland is like being in youth because the resources were seemingly unlimited in a way without much gravity or weight involved and so the geometry is linear like in special relativity and because of this most observers are equal..
As we grow older however it's apparent that resources are limited and this is literally because the world is round "like the boss" well who says so..
This means that resources and the possibility that all observers are not equivalent becomes obvious..
We might ask why we go to work day after day because the boss has more convenience and we "say we think it has something to do with rent!"
While relativity tells us that all observers are equivalent and this is indeed based on energy conservation and the first law of thermodynamics, it doesn't tell us about the second law and this is about how convenience becomes involved with the physics.
Einstein was saying in some of his later writing that he believed time didn't even exist, and by the great success of special relativity of course by the in and out waves of energy conservation exactly balancing.. if the boss is equal to the employees and all the observers are the same we would also say that by energy conservation there is such balance that all events can be reversed with no problem..
As an engineer and inventor I once asked..
If we had a blast to seek out the explosion of something like a volcano, could we actually just totally stop it from erupting by "using it's own force against it" by using something like a nuclear blast that implodes..
What can we say about Einstein's idea that time can be reversed?
I started to think what we might need to reverse an explosion..
At first I thought of a nuclear blast imploding inward.. But then I started to look at Einstein's idea about this and just as a thought experiment I realized it would need something more complex, and for this I started to think of ideas like setting up an MRI as the blast went outward to polarize the atoms so then sending in electrons with a second beam might then convert more of the radioactive protons in the neuclei to neutrons.
These no longer attract the nucleus by the strong force and radiate out as neutrons and decay in 12 minutes to protons and electrons which become like useful hydrogen to convert more of the radiation outward from the blast for useful energy and and then doing something like then sweeping them up with another high energy beam like a laser (the MRI wouldn't work as well because hydrogen atoms don't have that much magnetic field) this ended up turning to need four or five super high energy beams..
While a thought experiment of this type might seem useful to do something like stop nuclear blasts by this roundabout method it's reversing the time by no means or only in a roundabout way.
By this thought experiment it's quite apparent to me that Einstein was wrong about time not existing..
My sister's fiance was saying he was working in demolition and that they had implosives for buildings like white powder that made them implode.. so I looked this up on the web and this is a sort of demolition myth because like with cooling you need a working fluid to move inward and I even believed that we might be able to use a large machine that implodes a lot of air inward rapidly with a motor to actually achieve this. (It also needs somewhere for the imploding air to go and I thought of using an exhaust pipe for this type of use.) Even so reversing the flow of an explosion can be really a complex event and I think it relates directly to the evidence that shows that it's much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass.
Mass and energy are conserved but they aren't converted and I would hold that if relativity was complete it would be easy to convert them easily in a time symmetrical way.
Einstein was a Spinozan and by this he believed that if you had a bunch of particles and you controlled them you could reverse time and control the whole system with no problem no matter what.. so Einstein believed in determinism.
Many types of events are not easily reversible or controllable as if they were only particles. A bit of reduction here of Einstein's idea because of his other idea.. the one I think that was wiser, was his quote
"it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can both emit and absorb a wave"..
so waves are ultimately going to be more fundamental and they're more complex, and Einstein by saying this apparently wasn't a Spinozan. He wrote over 200 books and when he finished each he revised his memory!
If the in and out waves were strictly balanced by energy conservation and the volcano could just be reversed by nuclear implosion, like the equivalent rotation of the universe or a small wheel I would say this would be a lot more convenient but also not much probable.
But if we say that the spinning bucket is comparing itself by its rotation to the constant Higgs' field even while time is not so reversible by this at any rate, we still have a way to distinguish motion from non-motion and also the mechanical cause of the Lorentz contraction by mechanical compression with the field as a mass accelerates forward and this is lacking in special relativity.
An experiment I propose is that instead of the universe rotating by small changes in the wheel instead we find ways to try to change the constant Higgs' field..
I think we might be able to do this by some kind of electromagnetic influence since like gravity and the Higgs' these three fields are long range so I think these might have the best way that we could change the influence of the field. We might need a high energy source to change it but then we would also change it by way of the electromagnetic field from this source.
My belief is that we could set the bucket or its equivalent wheel spinning and measure the centrifugal force and by changes in the Higgs field itself externally we might have a lot more chance of changing this than we have of changing the entire universe just by spinning the wheel..that is to say the wheel is spinning relative to the field and its immediate vicinity and by no means is the entire Cosmos spinning, and if we can change the field around the bucket and change the bucket then by changing centrifugal force we may see that relativity is not complete.
The Nonradomness of Pi, Centrifugal Force, Gravity and Time.
We see that the round wheel is comparing itself to the more constant Higgs field. The recent finding that pi is non-random and has non-periodicity of the repetition of say the number six is only 20% likely to repeat with the next loop.
This might be because the constant Higgs field is a lattice and it has edges so the round wheel has less resistance moving with the side of the box but when it reaches the edges they're jagged and at this point the measure of Pi is not random because it's not as stable. A number may try to land on these areas but it's really less probable that it will repeat than elsewhere because of the instability.
This may be one reason why the lattice confinement calculations of the strong force have been successful because it's measuring the lattice at higher energy. (By changing the size of the units of the lattice the strong force changes phase from the strong force to electromagnetism at just the right energy as it radiates out in space just like the change of phase of a crystal that melts and converts to a gas.)
As a mass spins around the areas of instability this would create a slightly different amount of centrifugal force as it spins around the instability areas than otherwise.
With higher energy the boxes of the field are larger in the spacing and this might imply that at short radius like nuclear radii centrifugal force may not be the same strength as with more distance.
If we succeed in changing centrifugal force by this method of changing the Higgs field a prediction of this idea would be that we can change it by different amounts for different sizes of the wheels because the constant Higgs' field stays the same while the size of the wheel changes.
It's been found that electrons in atomic orbitals don't have centrifugal force so it seems not impossible we could change it. On the larger scale because the spinning wheel has much larger size relative to the small size of the lattice which stays the same, it seems that gravity and centrifugal force both may be changed. Thus the non-randomness of Pi might be why the galaxies are rotating much faster than they should be without exploding outward and as a solid body, something relativity doesn't allow.
Because the wheel is much huger here and the Higgs field is constant, centrifugal force is reduced for the galaxies but not the more common size masses around us so much. This could be a possible mechanical explanation for why Modified Newton Dynamics might be viable and not just how.
The larger masses don't have the instability of the edges of the lattice areas and this reduces their centrifugal force, rotating as a solid body because without the instability areas there's less resistance to the field as a body spins around.
The areas of the instabilities around a spinning quanta might also be the way that the quanta are sources of gravity. Even so I've tended to believe that the main cause of gravity is the spin of quanta and the gravity is going to spin hugely faster than the quanta even though gravity would only spin one way because it attracts. But if it spins 100 trillion times around a quanta and the quanta only spins once in the positive direction, gravity would still attract mostly but somewhat less in one direction than the other.
This might be why recent observations have shown that the galaxys spin more clockwise than counterclockwise in the early Universe by about 60%. The gravitational field of the cosmos will be radiating outward at high energy and clockwise spin is not quite the same as counterclockwise especially for large masses.
Some have believed this is only evidence that the early Universe rotated but if it's like a jet of a black hole this is mostly in its majority linear momentum and none of the spin the cosmic black hole may have much influence, if it's possible as in my belief the cosmos is like a giant galaxy with the same physics scaled up.
These galaxies may not only be spinning non randomly because of gravity.. I believe that we might find also that the ones that are spinning in one way might move faster outward in the motion of the cosmos falling sort of outward at another rate then by usual conservation of momentum (just as with the galaxies violating conservation of angular momentum except for linear momentum) by way of the change of the spin and gravity would care about spin if so. So gravity may care about spin a bit for the quanta and even so antimatter antimatter might fall downward contrary to relativity where time is unified with space so if the antimatter spins in reverse it will be moving backwards through time and it would fall upward by way of relativity.
Instead by my ideas I have named GWD General Wave Dynamics, the antimatter falls downward like the matter but at a slightly different rate just as the galaxies might be moving outward at a slightly different rate because of the force of the field on them moving outward from the center of what we might call the cosmos.
Recent Quantum experiments had seemed to show that gravity doesn't care about spin but I think maybe the experiments aren't at high enough energy.
Another way the nonrandom pi events may be important may be about time. George Ellis (the British physicist from South Africa where else!) And others have believed that the collapse of the wave function is important to time and something in the background must be collapsing it like gravity because perhaps because of the gradient of gravity changing with radius from the source. My belief about this was that since time goes on in a starship much unchanged and there was no gravity there this wouldn't be the cause as recent experiments have found.
But if these small instabilities are around the edge of all the quanta would cause scintillation as well as the spin (because time is always measured by periodic fluctuation not just whatever you measure with a clock as Einstein said in his famous quote!) and these combined could create time by the periodic fluctuations of these instabilities.
Mach and Einstein believed that since both the motion of the wheel or the cosmos are equivalent that somehow the spinning bucket of water is connected to the distant mass of the universe and so if we could somehow remove the mass and energy of the rest of the universe, the bucket of water would be constant with acceleration.
But the problem of the huge torsion force on the universe by the small wheel could be easily solved if we can prove that the wheel is only interacting with the field beside it.
I've had some chats with AI about this as you see on my other post about the electromagnetic motor made of the asteroid and spinning around the moon for lots of energy, I was asking AI about anything else I would need for this kind of plan and the AI says "I ask great questions!" No problem!
So I started to ask about my ideas about relativity and the AI is saying that while my perceptions were quite perceptive and insightful it arrives at this objection and repeats this more often..
"Low and high energy light bend exactly the same in a gravitational lens as by distant light sources".
..even so this tends to be something I wanted to improve about relativity.
Before I noted how in relativity you have the two masses falling at the same rate in the gravitational field and so Einstein is saying that it's equivalent to say that the Earth's field is rushing up to meet it at 32 ft per second.
My objection was that we would be at the speed of light and with infinite mass by way of special relativity in less than a year (this cause by special relativity is well proven and there's no problem with this, and the low energy field itself doesn't disprove relativity).
It seems arbitrary that we lift the masses to the same height because if you use force to determine what the change is and use the same force on the different masses they rise to different heights and fall at different rates just as otherwise the Earth around the Moon should fall at the same rate by relativity because they're both equally privileged.
So here is where I thought I had found my answer and that is that different masses really do fall at different rates.
And of course I say Right.. the high and low energy light do indeed bend by the same amount (because both have zero rest mass) and yet the masses within that frame can accelerate at any rate we want.
Relativists have argued because the speed of light is constant in the gravitational field and it all gets back to the speed of light by way of energy conservation, this idea of convenience having any import is actually trivial.. supposedly the constant acceleration of the light is about space and time itself and this cannot be changed. But I would ask the same question why is it that this works for light with zero rest mass but not for bodies with rest mass?
(My belief is bodies with rest mass made of fermions are spinning faster than light inside and this is why they can't reach the speed of light because they can't add their own speed as easily to that speed.. this is something fundamentally different that relativity doesn't describe because it doesn't describe the cause of rest mass because if all the particles were spinning at the speed of light they could all move at the speed of light and they would all have plus or minus one mass because they have plus for one minus spin electromagnetically)
So the constant bending of light is one idea which I hold is the general frame by energy conservation of the physics where the waves balance as by relativity and yet even so the local change by way of convenience seems to be a way we can add on to relativity by more physics because relativity seems incomplete if the wheel spins more definitely than the cosmos.
The essential truth would seem to be that relativity describes the first law well and works well for it but not the second law and if you ask any employer or employee convenience also is not to be ignored.
About the Michaelson Morley Experiment
As I say it's much more probable that a small wheel will spin and not the universe.
The Michelson Morley experiment is based on the wheel of the Earth spinning in uniform motion, if we could ignore acceleration then there's no huge torsion force that the universe would exert.
Special relativity works well for uniform motion and the speed of light is constant and the Lorentz contraction is set. Notice the essence of special relativity is by definition the constant speed of light in uniform motion and the Lorentz contraction. These are the essence of relativity, the foundation of a LOT or "all" of modern physics.
But this ignores acceleration and during acceleration for the high speed observer, pressure on the field the speed of light is essentially changing. If you have 20 different wavelengths of light, all that light has different energies of spin and so you have 20 speeds of light in a non-trivial sense.
The light with different momentum is spinning at different speeds for each speed of the high speed observer. If you accelerate the high speed observer 20 times to different speeds and just by luck you stop at that one speed this speed is only the speed of light if the wavelength had changed to fit the motion of the high speed starship observer.
A wheel spinning in uniform motion is fine also. But if we use a larger wheel and we accelerate it and we use a small interferometer (to fit on the side of that spinning wheel) like the Michaelson Morley experiment then the speed of light may be non-isotropic because it's more valid to say that the wheel is spinning than the cosmos or there will be the huge forces the cosmos would exert just for changing the acceleration of the wheel.
An accelerating train changes the air around it like the Lorentz contraction, and this changes the wavelength or the energy of the sound reaching it but it could only do this by first changing the air in between. This doesn't mean that there is no air and it doesn't mean that the air is not interacting with both the sound and the train.
The low energy dark matter and dark energy fields would interact considerably with the classical electromagnetic field lines and in a loose sense because they're mostly wave-like but they're still there and the information about the field is only stored in uniform motion and not absent.
My belief is that because the Einstein Podolski Rosen effect is a weak interaction, and because of the huge success of quantum electrodynamics based on the assumption a major component being made of the matter wave fields, this is evidence both the low energy fields are certainly there and also that they are interacting but only at a low energy level and even so this means definitely that some of the information does make it through from the faster than light motion of these dark energy and dark matter fields. So there is some interaction of the low energy field as we might find with a Michelson Morley experiment performed on a rotating accelerating larger wheel with a smaller interferometer on the outside of the wheel.
Advancements being made in accelerators and interferometers and small shelf top accelerators that have the energy of giant machines of this type maybe useful for this type of science.
I can imagine that in the future we might have wrist band interferometers that we could use to measure the change in acceleration as we jog around the room. In a way this is what gyroscopes are about and this change in the acceleration may be a measure of a non-isotropic field if the speed of light changes as we move around the room.
Even if this doesn't turn out to be true about the change in the speed of light for the change of the wavelength at any rate still I would hold as evidence for the low energy field having influence on the light by way of the wavelength by the faster than light connection of the field and this doesn't rule it out but it may only delay that we might find it, this is the contraction of a train by the air pressure in front of it and how the sound is not interacting with the train doesn't mean there is no air.
If this doesn't turn out to be true that the light shows no change with acceleration other than the change in its wavelength by special relativity, this could still be evidence of the low energy field because if it's so fast that you can't measure it yet because it's lower energy doesn't mean that the air of the train is not there and it doesn't mean that sooner or later we may not have fast enough machines to measure it.
The air for the train or the matter wave field for light mighy be there for a causal connection since all the points of all the fields are connected in the cosmos for energy conservation to be able to compute. By this the field makes the changes during acceleration but it also stores them during uniform motion and I believe both would be needed for energy conservation if we allow also that light itself is influenced by a faster than light connection like the air around the train maintains the sound.
The Three Foundations of Physics and What I Think of as the Opposition of the Continuity of Gravity and Special Relativity..
"Why I find good reason to believe in a low energy field for the quanta of light around it because the more electromagnetic fields of light in special relativity are derived from the attractive field of gravity, (the quanta are created in the center of black holes and they then all become sources of gravity so gravity mostly creates the quanta there and that's where they are originating) to unify, all the fields need cohesion to hold them together, otherwise the world would be changed beyond recognition if there was nothing more holding all the fields together than radiating out..."
As I say the employees and the boss are not the same and so gravity and relativity may not be the same either.
Gravity is an acceleration moving downward to a point and electromagnetism and its attendant speed of light for relativity radiate outward to the cosmos more by disconnection.
One of the predictions of my idea is that if we finally find true gravity and not the inertial influence of relativity of the speed of light by LIGO, the gravity waves themselves which would radiate outward would be an acceleration like with LIGO.. these would be the true dark energy and dark matter waves; while they would indeed interact with the classical electromagnetic field lines being the opposite of relativity they also may have overlapping changes of wavelength and speed because they're jostling back and forth between the quanta of those electromagnetic field lines and so they are here the opposite of special relativity where the speed is constant and only the wavelength changes. This would be a fundamental mathematical description of the opposition of relativity and acceleration or gravity.
In this way of describing the opposition of Relativity to gravity, gravity is an acceleration and relativity needs to ignore acceleration for the speed of light to be constant.
Relativity lacks connectivity due to the quantum nature of light Einstein assumed for it even while for gravity he holds the opposite truth that the field is continuously connected.
Both of these ideas as I'll say are not consistent other than if we allow continuity for gravity and both continuity and disconnection by special relativity.
This is because of what I call the
Three Foundations of Physics.. what can we say about physics at its fundamental level? First of all the field has to attract more than reradiate or we couldn't be here..
Second at a certain energy the field is going to have to start to radiate back out and third..
"no inconsideration of Einstein here" No infinities are allowed like for singularities. (This would violate energy conservation).
Since attraction of the field and holding itself together seems to be more fundamental than almost anything else, the basic field of gravity only needs continuity and the radiation out of the matter wave dark matter so the particles of gravity would radiate in exerting the force.
(Since particles have friction problems as Feynman and others calculated about this kind of idea, Lasage or particle gravity, my solution was to remove the particles to inside what I call the radius of the action ROA, an area of enough energy on at the right radius of each quanta where the waves externally convert to particles at high enough energy to exert the force of gravity or centrifugal force. This could be a way to have theoretical advantages of the particles without the friction problems. Newton Maxwell and Galileo all considered LaSage gravity.)
Like the chicken and the egg you can't have the waves between the electromagnetic field lines without the quanta also and so the idea that gravity is completely pure is not true because it's also interacting with those electromagnetic field lines.
Otherwise due to causality problems I don't believe a source of gravity could be created by a time reversed picture of the waves at the edge of the pond converging to the stone that is dropped and this then causes the gravity.
But if the lines radiate out and then the gravity waves follow them by induction back to the source this would be logically consistent for all the fields that radiate out to have a source. Even so, by this gravity being more fundamental is the foundation since it has to attract more would be more continuous.
The waves that would exist between the lines of electromagnetism for relativity would be there because continuity is needed for all the fields not just gravity but electromagnetism radiates out to the many and gravity implodes to the one so unlike in relativity gravity is the opposite not the same as relativity.
For this reason I would say that greater continuity is important for gravity but both continuity and the quanta are important for special relativity. So the low energy fields that Einstein thought were not viable by relativity would seem to be there by this sort of proof.
Einstein's idea that continuity is important for gravity is only lacking not for gravity but for the continuity of special relativity.
You might say if Einstein held there was complete continuity for gravity and there was the discontinuity of the quanta for special relativity then this would fit well as two opposites at any rate.
Even so the beliefs of the employees and the employer are often not the same.
At the most basic level all around us the physics are based on a balance between balance and imbalance like by Neuther's thereom. Gravity is more imbalanced and not as much about efficiency like the boss because the boss doesn't care about details of the employees. By this metaphor gravity only sees the electromagnetic fields as a blob or like a mass like the Earth, and mostly cares about attraction. The employees are more common than the boss like the electromagnetic fields. These are based on in and out waves unlike gravity which is simpler and are based more on energy conservation.
So we can say that gravity is mostly more about a wave but relativity is more about both waves and particles with the in and out waves and particles.
While the waves are more fundamental like with gravity once the field implodes to the level of the electromagnetic field then the in and out waves are more balanced. But unlike what Einstein boldly proclaimed about relativity where light is only a particle both waves and particles become necessary for relativity, In an every other breath as he talks about relativity he's not just talking about the quanta where the light is uninfluenced and constant and speed from emission to the observer, Einstein repeatedly says the Doppler shift of light has great import for relativity.
And the Doppler shift is about waves which would seem to be disproof of the whole foundation of what Einstein claimed about relativity being based on no low energy field being present.
In a way I think of this symmetry between waves and particles or just mostly waves for gravity as the way that in the atoms of the periodic table the atomic number based on the odd or even number of protons and neutrons is stable or not, so too relativity is stable and based on energy conservation but gravity is based on the idea that the basic field has to attract more than anything else to hold all the rest of the fields together.
Even if the light is a quanta and gravity reacts back to the radiation inward at its optimum energy, if it's more derived from gravity and more about the radiation inward of the field than not, it would seem to need not just the quanta by the constant speed of light but also the attraction to hold itself together because all the attraction of all the fields are derived from gravity itself being the most fundamental of all the foundations.
