How Opposite Starships May Move Faster Than Light, (As Astronomers See For Opposite Speeding Galaxies Moving away from the Milky Way on Both Sides)..

..

How This May Be Explained By My Causology of General Wave Dynamics (GWD) But Not Via Relativity Alone

If you have two light waves travelling in opposite motion at the speed of light their speed is twice the speed of light relative to each other. If one beam starts out at the speed of light and another at the same time in opposite motion, if the starting out wave travels at any speed at all it's travelling at faster than the speed of light relative to the other as measured by the stationary observer between the two light waves and at a distance because the first wave is already at the speed of light. This may be disproof of relativity because with the faster than light motion, the signal between the two high speed observers is cut due to the faster than light motion, and Einstein said no information carrying signal can go faster than light, and this seems to be like saying with the signal cut by faster than light motion, no faster than light motion is seen! Einstein also said no matter having mass can travel faster than light, this is like two planes made of matter travelling faster than sound, the communication by sound is out of reach, but they are actually at faster than sound even though it's not apparent by way of sound till after the trip. While Einstein might say that no signal is sent between the beams, so the motion isn't faster than light, when they both reach the center if any information is found to be exchanged between the waves, this is proof Einstein was wrong except in a limited sense about the speed of light. Each wave is just travelling at the speed of light itself, but the information encoded in each ray from the origins of each, is connected at half the distance, and in half the time. This is proof the information is faster than light. Neither ray is faster than light itself relative to a stationary observer, both travel at just the speed of light, but in opposite directions.

The light waves are information carrying signals. If you measured the two waves and the distance they travel, the measured space time is evidence the speed is faster than light.

(It's been found more safe when you go in an airliner than if you receive a blood pressure cuff for 300 at the ER at 250 mph. It's where it's not AHH! and they howl, it's where they say, AHH! what a relief, who could afford to be ill!)

Another way of looking at this about the ships is if you had two airships in the air, and they were out of ways to go faster than sound (perhaps in the months before the faster than sound dude, when he was named What's his Name!) If two planes at say 3/4 the speed of sound were moving in the opposite path and they were connected by the sound at lower speeds, beyond half the speed of sound of each airplane, the sound would lose connection.

Even with motion seen from the ground of both planes at faster than the speed of sound, the signal between the F1 and 1/2's by way of sound wouldn't go, they would obviously be seen from the land to be moving faster than sound. Likewise if you have two high speed starships both at 3/4 the speed of light, the light would be connected up at low speeds. But beyond the point where the starships move faster than light like the planes there would be no connection of the light like no connection of the sound in the air would. This is a prediction of my theory of the faster than light motion of General Wave Dynamics (GWD). Particles in the "atom smashers" would be able to go at more than half the speed of light each in opposite motion, (e.g. 3/4 the speed of light each). The starships or other motes won't gain the infinite mass of relativity because relative to each high speed starship, if not faster than light in their own frame, the speed of light is the same of each observer as they measure the light flowing in through the realm around their ship.

To the stationary observer (in Ohio no doubt!) the planes would be going faster than sound in opposite motion. And for higher speed with light likewise each high speed ship measures their own speed to be no faster than the speed of light relative to the cosmos except when the other ship is reached. This is the same with the airplanes, even if they couldn't go faster than sound relative to the air.

The Starship's Enterprise would win mass in special relativity by friction with the field when moving at higher and higher velocities. This is how the observer is important in relativity. The field around the observer changes how the field of the rest of the cosmos looks to them by way of the induction. (Note that some sort of information has to be sent out at faster than light to actually shape the redshift of the light before it reaches the starship. If it were just at the speed of light it couldn't reach fast enough to change it. I identify this component of the field with the low energy matter waves of subatomic physics, strong enough to shape the field but faster than light to reach it because of the low energy. Like gravity these waves cannot be shielded in the lab.)

Airplanes have the sound waves around them and this would be about friction, the same as the extra weight of relativity, but since the sound is out of the realm of the other ship there is no friction between them and so the weight put on from the field is just that of the airships ununified when if in disconnected motion as in the above. And in relativity, even if faster than light in relative motion from the vantage point of the observer at rest, both starships would just weigh more by the mass of the field around them by the usual math of Special Relativity but not the augumentation that would be caused by the overall motion of the starships. They are disconnected so there's no mass gain associated with this component of the higher speed motion.

With the "slow speed of light" between here and alpha centauri it's impossible to know what event is before or after in Einstein's theory, so there is a loose connection. Disconnection of points of space time allow other masses of the starships than via Special Relativity.

The assumption of a resilient medium thus explains why the two opposite starships won't gain infinite mass even if faster than light, and the observations of astronomers, e.g why galaxies are seemn moving away from us on both sides at Faster Than Light with the expansion of the cosmos, as well as other evidence. Click Here for my high velocity supersound Faster Than Light synopses!

A genuine relativist may say,"If you think of relativity as sort of as if seeing the space and time as if at an angle, by contraction of the field with the Fitzgerald Contraction, this makes the high speed motions all fit in the frame of light and so none of the motion of the starships is with any observation seen to be faster than light. You can't add your velocity to the other velocities." This is true, but this is for stationary observers. And light itself is the great absolute of relativity, it can't be transformed away by change of wavelength of opposite light rays. Any light travelling in any direction must somewhere else have another wave of light travelling toward it, so all light or heavier Faster Than Light particles or other high speed observers anywhere would have to have infinite redshift, and all the light we see has just usual redshift.

GWD seems to predict there will be at least somewhat more relativistic mass augumentation for two nearer high energy high speed observers moving away from each other than towards each other because with no connection at the start, there would be no connection to cut or overcome, so the resistance to the general motion of the field wouldn't cause friction and the added weight.

Einstein believed there was no medium, just empty space and time. If so the space and time between the starships would be empty. Empty space and time would have no disconnection of the field at faster than light and the high speed ships would be infinite, and this is thus a disproof of Einstein's theory and a proof of my more general explanation of GWD, General Wave Dynamics. Einstein didn't just define high speed signals carrying information at no faster than light, no mass is allowed to either. Mass at the most basic level is made of information, this is a basic truth about physics. Like a relay runner with a memo who reaches a distant olympia at high speed, if faster than sound and the memo was a sound clip, if the memo is read following the race, even while there was no way to know what the runner was up to enroute by sound, when he reaches the olympic goal there is proof he was faster than sound and the memo "of mass" is the information he reached with. Matter is stored information without as much reach as energy, like parallel processing in computers, disconnected memos can be connected and compared, if there was higher speed motion like the airliners even if disconnected during the relay, this is information travelling faster than light. So I don't think just half of Einstein's definition of no information or mass both can be used to disprove the possibility of faster than light. All matter and energy are unified by energy conservation, the uniformity of physics, and other laws like gravity, so the distant galaxies are massive and are faster than light. When they would move up to exactly the speed of light in opposite directions relative to each other there would perhaps be something like a shift of phase and a sonic boom except of light with the snap back of the field lines, and then the finite field lines would become more local to the field around each high speed mass. The standard explanation about more space between them being created by the expansion of the cosmos would be disproof of relativity because no matter how much room you have of any field around us two points in the field are always connected by a given speed of the points; more space just means the starships would be going faster than light in relative motion but no explanation has been offered for this by cosmologists, so some other way to go Faster Than Light than by this explanation would still be needed to explain the observed speed of some masses in cosmology. If the galaxies are seen to go Faster than Light and they don't have infinite mass, this may mean something more like with the phase shift of sound may actually take place.

Why No Infinite Faster Than Light Mass Augumentation?

Most people believe that Relativity says that no signals can go Faster Than Light. Actually Einstein believed a signal Faster Than light wasn't impossible, the only limit of the physics was that waves of the type that were already faster than light alone could achieve this. If the field lines are disconnected at faster than light like the sound around opposite airships or subatomic events, the field lines wouldn't be able to gain the infinite mass they would attain with stretching nearer and nearer to the speed of light. The galaxies might move away from us at Faster Than Light because at the great distances the light won't connect. By the laws of radiant energy, the field is also of such low energy the connection is much weaker and so this may make it so it can't multiply up beyond a certain point. The main thing unlike with air and sound is that the speed of light around the area of a high speed observer is still not passed because of Relativity even if with more distance the field connection is unconnected. With no connection at greater distances or lower energies in general for the whole bubble of field around this observer there would be no resistance to higher speed motion because without the general long distance connection, the field couldn't build up more and more mass of a high speed observer moving through it via resistance. In it's rest frame it's still at rest. If a high speed airship has faster than sound motion, and then would lose connection even if they gain a lot of heat from the field, it would seem reasonable to believe that high speed starships might do the same by the same general motif. While the field has heat, the heat is finite. It may have just so much mass, then let go with a snap just like the air of the opposite airships with a sonic boom. Either this effect may be found, or perhaps only the Faster Than Light motion that's disconnected from the start so the mass won't build up so much there would be too much resistance to moving at higher speed to go Faster Than Light. With two photons moving toward a middle point there can be no (electromagnetic or light wave) connection between them before they meet so there is no general resistance to their motion and they would have no infinite mass augumentation with Faster Than Light. Two photons or other more massive particles moving away from each other would be moving at slower than light as most do, and with more and more motion, since the connection wasn't cut at the outset would have all the effects of Einstein's belief. Even here it may be possible to augument the distance and reduce the mass so much that these higher energy motifs are bypassed. Like two antennas of much different wavelength that don't resonate, I believe that gravity being much lighter than light may go faster than light, or the fractional charges of subatomic physics may spin around go say 3 times the speed of light with 1/3 the charge, the lighter you go the faster you move. If faster and slower than sound are allowed for the same airplane it seems possible the same could apply to high speed masses in cosmology, otherwise the Faster Than Light motion of the cosmic whirlwinds whizzing away is without causology via Einstein.

Physics Synopses; More About GWD and Other Observations.
.

Copyright 2008 by Charles Frederick Lawson.
-

Air HasThe Power Of Life When She Breathes

Popular Science March 2004, page 14 says "A radically new type of battery takes advantage of the way water molecules line up when they come in contact with glass. The battery, developed by Larry Kostiuk and his colleagues at the University of Alberta uses the water molecules which have postive and - ends (sort of a river that flows upstream half the month, so the flowers of the power revive us.) Glass takes on a postive charge when it contacts the wall. The opposite molecules of the water line up with it, flowing past it in small channels." A battery powered by water. When you go anywhere, for power you just find the beach and you're right where you were going! I don't know much about air, but one definite thing can be deduced, if any major constituent of the atmosphere has polarized molecules like water, a generator powered by the air could be based on the same principle. This way you wouldn't even have to fill the battery with water to get continous power! Giant power stations might be built powered by air or water. Another use of batteries of this type may be with more polarized molecules of something else that would take the place of the glass and water, e.g., waste. This would make the waste with often high valence of worth for power, reducing it's volatile chemistry, so it's clean. I'll finally be able to see Must See Soap Operas! If the power generated was large, the power could be used to recycle the rest better.


How I'm On the Web Without Millions of Years of Wait

If it would take many times the lifetime of the known cosmos to randomly type out the words "to be or no to be or not to be or not to be" at a go, how has evolution created the huge complexity of life as we have lived it for millions of reruns of MTV? The world is value in evolution from which the higher and higher levels of life are built up from the world of mass/energy, which is simple. At the level of each time of evolution the luck is watched by ways to see if of worth to the building. If you typed in all the letters of "to be or not to be" with just random luck at it would take much longer than if you had simple rules to pick the words such as of idioms. And if you have a way to choose each a,s,d and f instead of ones and zeros, you could speed up the way to much win a Ma Bell authorship prize, a sort of line item veto of evolution. Evolution is not random, it's randomness used to achieve goals. It's more than my yearbook of 85. My image has both low and high res via special eyewear I wore to honor a jug of Stop Signs she wore with when I was in my prom month in college! Evolution has made us complex by starting slow and by shortcuts, multiplying up the speed and complexity, with higher and higher speed, like how civilization started slow, and with more evolution the right complexity to solve more problems is achieved. This is a good bit of proof that while randomness is of worth because life is change, it's not as worthwhile as lots of labor.
.

TRAVEL... VIA ROAD POWER!

Today I was thinking of the proverbial roads of yore. They now are trying to put up roads that store summer heat in super insulated tanks of water and then use the heat in the winter to heat the road. Not only is a new use of lasers and piezoelectric generators much-so is rich and ingenious-I'm the Author of Most Letters to The Editor! A better use of existing science has been devised from the actual compression of the road by the Mazdas and other Volvos as they travel on panels. This would be made just the same as with usual roads, except via compression panels that would just be on the road or perhaps of the web for roads the 1990's that stopped potholes by a continuous web below the level of the wheel. Some say the panels would be cheap since they would be perhaps a mile each such as mileposts and the power would be piped to heat beams in the posts. The beams would radio waves at night (so no one would be blinded by the AM FM, no doubt!). They would power the beam to road with a complete travel of the beam so the snow would melt in the air or on the road. A beam that cools by a shift of the wavelength of the wave would be a good use of the timing of the wave, so the force in the wave that would make it wave out is balanced (if there weren't both attractive and expansion forces inside a wave the wave would expand or contract indefinitely and with infinite speed). The balance of usual waves like this is where a point on the wave is just where the expansion would have been the wave having moved just one unit of distance to match the point and the motion, except the general timing of the motion of the wave makes it hold the wave together so the waves go through wires better with no loss of power. These waves that don't lose power are named solitons. This is how long distance call is a rich blessing for Ma Bell (My computer modem sometimes won't move on the information superhighway, except when "I sign all the presents and she signs all the gossip" is involved.). A laser of light would have good internal adhesion and it thus could hoover heat up, thus a beam for frosty roads or hot parking lots even in summer. So both a cooling and heat beam may be of power by the plates on the road. The plates would be stuff like memories of Beatles reunions are of. When the diamond of the LP was compressed by the sides of the cut of the LP it generates power, so the plate would use this or some other method they have. The plates could be wired to the power companies, and perhaps pay for all the roads plus pay for a cheap dish if I can't decide where to go an my luxury visit to Peru. This is exalted about a 2007 shopping splurge or 400 a mile-The Scottish Tourist Bureau decides which is most sighted! Elvis is making the most of any nonliving person in 2008, I win more on the Price is Right!
..

More Elevator Orlon Is Rich And Up Is In Sight!

They have Polaroids that fill with a fluid and this fills the prescription of the lense which stretches to the right line of sight so anyone can have good eyesight at low cost. Remember those Real Lemon Jugs that would say "Buy more Real Lemon?" They had a port in the wrapper where if the level of the jug was low you were able to see and you were feeling around for lemons! The innovaters say the visual version for eye wear might be via a beam and this would go through the eye with low power and return and with a chip it would see if it was of worth to buy more. Another use of lasers like this would be adjusting so when the wearer was reading or cleaning (no operation of machines) they would have more than 20/20, and another would be auto eye exercising, and headphones that make the person's ear strong, so they would play by ear.


If I want to stop a telemarketer, I always make sure they're not my long distance ISP when calling, Nice Boss!... They have these machines which recognise speech, when will it just be where the sales rep would type in with her lips?

It's been "well" known for months and months, geologists think deep when they read!

Let's face it, there's a lot about Santa Fe, where else can you go out for a walk to a cinema and end up in reruns of 1,000,000 BC, the second oldest US village!

They now have this machine that uses the usual song where the musicians play the the guitar or drums and if they're out of tune it tunes them up with the Solid Gold song as the background, so no errors by the machine. This may be the end of songs on the radio without computerized influence. Any one or band can make a good song just by being in the general area or will be, it still would be better if musicians on the road wouldn't have to make it to the arena on the hour. Me I just sing in the shower, like September, where if the heat wave is past, the rich use weather maps to mop up!

Many can remember the Halloween of 1966, for some reason I can't remember Halloween of 67, 40 years ago. I think if we may have had a quiet celebration with just neighbors and family; if it were The Adam's Family I'd remember!
.

Why We Win With Labor And Lose With Talent...

They are finding in brain research that we have many things determined by evolution that aren't just about learning. Einstein's brain had more developed and unusual parietal structures, used to process spatial and numerical motifs. And identical twins have a great range of common traits (These twins Theresa an Lisa who own a shop where I live here, they've seen sales, seen a mall!)

-

The brain has structures that are determined in shape by genes and these shapes determine if the person is bright or a engineer. While this is causing many to say that what we inherit is of more import than what we learn, some may hope all the people with genes that were "poor" would perhaps be not allowed to try to win more.

-

Obviously evidence for both evolution and learned behaviour will be seen in any complex part of life, life is complex, more complex than just a villa and a GPS machine to map it. And you hear all this like in biology where they say about form and function, it's turned out the question of which is more important has turned out to be meaningless, they are so much unified by millions of years of evolution, thay're the same in all life science. But life is motion even if the overall rate of evolution is slow, change is the opposite of this.

-

If they were exactly the same they would be so much in balance no change would take place, and evolution would have stopped ages ago (Unlike a slow stop Sign that says GO to top 40 ). Like the gravity of the earth flowing in at one wavelength and the heat out at another, I would hold that evolution and learning or form and function are two different ways of life that are in balance, but one or the other would be of more worth on a day to day basis in general just as in a healthy world worth usually wins out over error. If evolution and learned behaviour are the same in all senses nothing we could achieve would change anything. Gravity or heat, form or function, hot or cool, bad or good, one or the other is going to generally be of more worth to us. (Air is a marathon, heat is when my brightbells have memory foam!) While you may say about causology and experiment, both are essential if science wins out, and neither is of more worth than the other, change and savvy is of worth to more of our life than no change, all is in motion in life science, so I think we win more with labor than with talent. This is if most of us won't be the boss or be a Roman in ancient times, so being strong and labor and what we learn may be of more value to most (If you see a high heel footwear at the beach, fathers's boss mom, has arrived!) There were always a lot more labor than bosses in evolution, "Life works out the most optimal for those who make the most of life".
-
There will always be evidence for both evolution and learned behavior in what we see. But learned behaviour I think is more important because life is change, what evolution we receive, learning may make it even that much more so.

-

Masses Hot and Cool; Do They Weigh The Same?

-.Einstein held that a hot iron would weigh more than a cool iron. This is because of his theory of the Equivalence of mass and energy. All the ins and outs of mass energy equivalence I explain by one simple motif; quantity of motion is always the same. All is motion, motion like energy can never be created or destroyed, that is motion is all there is so I think motion is the key to unlock the underlying unified field Einstein hoped for in his old and wise life. If all is motion and mass and energy are motion, mass like energy must move in some definite way to be mass. This would by why no particles with mass without spin have been found in subatomic physics (except two opposite masses that locally cancel out. I hold at reduced enough distance all elementary particles would have spin because all particles move through time at all times, even when at rest, and time is periodic and always measured by periodic motion like the spin of the small building blocks of the cosmos whatever they turn out to be). If mass is spin this is an obvious form of motion. If all has to be of motion for energy to be conserved since all is made of motion, and with mass just as rest but still having to be in motion a way to store up power and move even at rest would be by spin. All in the cosmos is made of lines or accelerations, linear and angular motion. This would also explain why a mass like Morris or his TV may be at rest and still move through time, aging. By the experiments time is always found to be an acceleration and not linear, with periodic motion.

Energy is not the exact equivalent of mass (in the way it acts) I think because what's light like energy rises like an airship and what's heavy like a semi tends to fall and weigh more, up is the opposite of down. If energy is the opposite of lacally mass and mass is what accelerates stuff, the opposite of an acceleration is linear motion.

You may say, in atomic reactions and relativity, it's well known that mass and energy are the same! E=mc2! Arriba!

Let me say this much, My Aunt Effie goes nonstop on the train of Relativity where she lives in Ohio round trip!

The two equations E=mc2 and F=ma are two forms of the same general formula, both have energy and force on the left side and mass and acceleration or the speed of light on the other. But many speeds are going on all around us not just the speed of light. Maxwell used the equation on the right to predict the speed of light based on the density of the field. These are equations of pressure. Mass attracts so it has pressure and the field has resilience, the greater the mass the more the resilience and the speed is changed. Maxwell predicted the constant speed of light based on the constant known electric charges, so the speed of light was constant, but all around us there are many speeds. If the speed of light were the only speed the world would be noncontinuous. The speed Maxwell predicted was based on a continuous range of values, the resilience could have been any value like the usual fields around us fit into the quanta that make the speed of light. If quanta were more necessary and E=mc2 were more fundamental than F=ma, quanta being more unchanged wouldn't be able to power up from one orbital to another in subatomic physics and life wouldn't have evolved because life likes molecules unlike metals that have too much jump in the valences of the electrons, life likes moderation. A connection must exist between the orbits and connection means connectiity, i.e. not quanta. After all in relativity while "the speed of light is constant" the wavelength can be of any size, and continuous. Same world, Same Station ID.

In subatomic physics the mesons, baryons, and leptons all have many non quantum masses from low power to high, if they were all of quanta alone and the speed of light were the only quanta it seems they would all have the same mass or units of electric charge alone (the same if relativity with the electromagnetic speed of light was all powerful) as the foundation of the universe.

So relativity and quanta may be derived from the continuous field more than the field from quanta, while you can have the compression of gravity making more dense particles, to make attraction or waves out of particles is not so easy or the same. They already have adhesion so would expand outward without the more long range field connection to conserve mass energy, and the cosmos would lose mass and energy conservation would not be upheld. If you wear your coat with a shout, must be a heat wave, and will be in months!

This may seem unimportant physics if in E=mc2 you just increase the mass and multiply by the speed of light and you always have your answer. Is F=ma a reliable connection if a mass like Venus has angular mo that tends to be and isn't actually just spinning faster if it has more mass? (Venus has lost lots of her spin in impact with some other body.) If we go back to a continuous world where quanta are created out of continuous smooth waves, the physics are more general, and though (special) relativity is not disproven my more general derivation of higher energy physics from lower energy fields since all there is is connected up by gravity and energy conservation, may allow some new physics of great worth, e.g. the possibility of faster than light motion of gravity and the strong force, the heights and foundation where other than being derived from the more basic physics, relativity may not be involved. For F=ma if the mass density, m is real small like gravity, the speed o the gravity waves would be much faster than light. Because a line that is linear is the opposite of an angular motion, the strong force being more angular and dense both would also spin at faster than light.

If by the equation F=ma you have a continuous non quantised general field for the given force, F when you increase the mass (angular momentum because mass attracts and spins like the earth with more mass) you decrease the linear energy and vice versa. So mass and energy, while they seem to be the same in relativity, are actually the opposite in general. Like particles and waves, they are both made of the same field, but because they're opposite like waves and particles you can't have both at the same time and place. Special Relativity would be derived from the more general low energy physics, and this opposition of mass and energy is more important since special relativity is about the speed of light and all mass is fluent in gravity, not thermodynamics. If the Earth is thus more at rest than the moon, and the earth has a more privileged rest frame, special relativity would hold just for the local physics of the speed of light. And if we allow more optimal rest frames and the more general idea of the nonrelativity of gravity, with a non quantum field of the low energy physics, faster than light wave motion of gravity and other forces is allowed. Emc2 has the speed of light constant but F=ma allows other perhaps much higher speeds. By allowing non quantum lower power physics to be the more general, both slower and faster speeds than light are allowed.

If you have two like masses and add heat to one mass Einstein believed the hot mass having more energy and more mass would weigh more. While this would be true for the E=mc2 and quanta (high power field) for the more general low power field like the two masses, I think the hot mass will be lighter. When you add more heat and radiance, radiance is lighter and if it's light it has reduced weight.

In a system, in physics where no work is done, the quantity of the motion is conserved, and it would seem that mass and energy are equivalent. While they are, after all, both made of motion as this my basic explanation shows, they are not convertible without work being done. This is what Einstein's theory doesn't prove, acceleration. He may have said, "Wihle mahss unt..." (Excuse me, my Speech SoftWare is out! If I marry a softwear in a cyber church she'll be always up.) Einstein actually said, "While mass and energy are equivalent, and all observers are equally valid, not all are equally convenient." I think this is like saying all values are the same, but not all prices, but what's important about price? If mass and energy were the same thing like in Einstein's theory, they would be not just equally valid but equally convenient too. Einstein's theory has no offer of proof of why mom visits the StopN Ship when she's at rest! If mass and energy were exactly the same, light would be the same as heavy and a massive body like the earth would spin at the same speed around the moon as the moon around the earth.

.
If mass and energy were equally valid and equally convenient, it would take no work to convert mass to energy and vice versa, or not much. So the sun would convert it's mass to energy at a much faster speed than 8 billion years.

.
Einstein might say, hey! Ach! All the interactions of subatomic physics are in neat units of E=mc2. The units are of the speed of light. Light is of course the foundation of relativity. While relativity holds that no observer is more valid than any other, I think while some are more convenient than others, acceleration is of value, and special relativity is without acceleration.

.
Einstein's constant speed of light has no work being done in special relativity because all are in their rest frames and in linear motion when the speed of light is constant, please see this link for more about how the field is balanced on all sides in uniform motion. In a system where with the conversion of mass to power the field is accelerating, not of constant power so unlike the inertial frames of special relativity that are transformed away just by picking the most optimum rest frame of motion, something important goes on when mass is converted to power that is unsolved by special relativity. Shakespeare said it well, when he word processed "If dreams are all life is about, A poor man's shack would be a rich mans moat."

Einstein's theory seems to say all observers are always in the same democracy of validity, and the seemingly trivial name of convenience is actually a euphemism (good word) for actual labor based on price, obviously of import. If all observers were the same all employees would have a life of ease, and bosses would be selling RV laundry machines! When it takes me an hour to swim the ocean, I am wet. When the boss swims in the giant machine, she is clean!

.
So I think a field filled with mass like gravity is the opposite of a field with power and not much density (like in special relativity). The force and gravity are without proof by Einstein and the hot and cool iron proof of Einstein's theory has not been proven. While it's above the resolution of our experiments in the lab in 2008, as science improves with our machines, my theory may be eventually be contrasted with Einstein's.

In Einstein's formulation of General Relativity, the motion of different weights dropped to the earth are the same since they fall at the same rate and so whether the gravity of the earth or the inertia of the rocks was more important was the same as special relativity. Either the mass of the earth or the inertia of the rocks was of the same worth because of the same rate of fall, and so Einstein reached his conclusion that either the rocks or the earth were equally at rest. But the earth would fall around the moon at the same rate as the moon around the earth. Einstein then used this incomplete evidence (more complete if you look up to the stars) to make his predictions of opposite experiments, that are thus disproof of General Relativity. All the experiments of Einstein's General Theory, the bending of starlight the Shift of the Perihelion of Mercury, and so on are proofs of changes of acceleration not unchanging like the two masses near the earth. These are not proofs of uniform acceleration! There are no uniform fields of gravity. The more mass a body has, the more attraction if has and so the more mass you add on the more nonuniform the mass becomes. It takes more effort to lift a heavy mass than a light mass so only when you drop them from higher up for the light mass are they actually equivalent, like the moon falling around the earth.

So if the heavier mass has another sort of heat than the light mass if you heat the light mass more, the lighter mass would actually be easier to lift to its height, or you may lift it to more height than the Einstein's Equivalence Principle would allow. This would not be if masses fall at the same rate, and while it would be more proof of unlike accelerations it would also be disproof of the relativity of gravity. When you lift a mass you are doing work and heat is revised a bit.


WAYS TO IMPROVE OUR RESOLUTION OF PROOF OR DISPROOF Of EINSTEIN'S IDEA THAT A HOT MASS WEIGHS MORE

To prove a hot mass weighs not as much as a cool mass perhaps the masses would be put on a beam with a laser attached to make the motion much more findable at great distances with sensors where the ray from the scale would reach, the detector would see the laser or other beam with such as a microscope to make it more of higher resolution. Another aid to resolution of the change in the laser with the weight of the mass as heat was added is via interferometry. When the laser or other beam reaches its goal, a mirror at 90 degrees this would reflect to another mirror that would reflect the beam head on back to the 90 degree mirror, and so on converting the sideways motion of the laser from the weights via the laser to measurable changes in the interference of the light. The masses would be more massive to multiply up the force. And instead of electric cooling of the weights, cooling the nucleus of each atom of the heavy mass by such as MRI (strong fields) may be much of much use for this proof because the strong force stores more of it's heat. And if the heating took place over much time by combination of all these methods the beam's travel would be more measurable by the way of astronomers who used the photographic plates where they slowly pick up the light from distant realms by way of slow but reliable sensors hour by hour.
.

If lifting is to change the electromagnetic field's ratio to gravity in general since these are the only two long range forces, heating or cooling would change mass. A light mass rises higher than with the same force applied to the heavy mass when you lift it. If it rises higher it wishes to be more like inertia, or linear motion as much as possible (resistance to change in motion). Inertia is centrifugal force, centrifugal force is the same in my theory as expansion of heat, i.e. entropy. If a hot iron has lower weigh like a hot air airship it would rise more with the same force. Or equivalently, to lift a mass is to change it's heat. Even if Einstein believed a hot iron weighs more than a cool iron, by the above arguement (if your fiancee always wins when asked! I can't answer this because I remember VHS!) if heat sensors were on a mass you lift not only will it lift higher, it has a bit more heat.