EVENT HORIZONS and THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Suppose you have a usual mass like a planet. As it spins around, the centrifugal force balances the gravity somewhat. Because the planet is spinning, the force of the gravity at the outside of the band of mass reduces the weight of a mass on the surface more than it would otherwise. If you have a more massive gravitational source and the escape velocity might be at the speed of light, this wouldn't be changed by piling on more mass because the escape velocity is already at speed of light with an infinite redshift and infinity is infinity and no more mass could be added beyond that point.

-
The extra redshift with no infinite redshift may be allowed beyond a definite mass density, beyond just the basic mass with escape velocity at the speed of light if gravity is faster than light. The light waves might be stretched to the limit of their band, so with maximum redshift the wave of light would be a completely straight line parallel to the radius of the massive source. Since it would stretch no more and no more energy could be wrung out of the electric field the light having a finite energy would also have a finite length. So the wave of light would be a straight line and also have a definite finite beginning and end. The extra redshift of the black holes of more mass than just with the escape velocity at the speed of light seen by astronomers by the mass falling in around them would be by way of more stretching of the lighter gravitational field between the ends of the stretched out light. If the light waves are stretched and no longer connected to other light waves they could move faster than light as a whole relative to the center mass of the massive body, this would be light itself moving faster than the usual speed of light of 186,000 miles per second.

-

For higher and higher escape velocity otherwise with no causology, it might seem we would prove this by way of definite orbits and definite angles of the bending of starlight (sort of like the orbits of electrons in atoms with gaps between the ends of the light waves we would see in the astronomy). Unlike with the atom, overlapping of many of the linear light waves of the supermassive source may make this improbable. Even so like a planet where you lose weight around the outside when you're on the outside belt of the tropics, the bending of starlight as it goes around with spin of the field would be reduced with reduced velocity of escape, so the black hole would have the event horizon reduced in radius on the limb where we see the light from distant star when it would have blended with the flow of the field. The limb with the field flowing toward us would have reduced bending of the starlight.

Instead of physics suddenly just stopping as the gravity and light change with changes in radii and flow within the massive field source, the same science would apply to both more distant masses and the nearby masses like the Earth the same and more massive rates of fall of stars around more massive sources could be taken as a evidence the gravity being the same for both would be also faster than light even for more usual sources of gravity (all gravity in the cosmos). If gravity was between the stretched light and light is stretched in more mundane physics there would be no need to assume it's by other cause. Gravity has never been found to wear out or run down like historically with eclipses of the moon, and this may be explained by the gravity flowing between the interstices of more massive mediating intermediate mass particles like the Higgs (or the particles of the ghost particle theory which seems a good replacement for Relativity see my Physics Links and Synopses.. for more). Unlike a usual electric field or flow of water has waves that slow down and wear out with time, gravity would not meet so much resistance, so it wouldn't wear out or run down , if gravity doesn't have this it would have another cause and this may be about the room between the more massive particles. Gravity is the lowest power field from which all the rest like energy conservation and the uniformity of physics are the same, so at the more basic energy of the field the gravity would be the only field present, it would be the more absolute founding field of physics from which all the higher energy fields would be derived. Since gravity is the cosmic field all the other fields speak fluently it seems probable to assume it would operate by the same mechanism, it all would connect up by gravity, so if it's faster than light inside a massive body, it would be faster than light in more familiar physics of our life, as in my plans for augumentation of Einstein's belief in electrogravity.

The seperation of the light waves in the field from each other may have a parallel (somewhat) in the faster than light jets seen from these massive sources. The speed of light is about relativity and it would form bubbles of the jet because within the bubble the light would reach a distance and no further, so the force of more mass density of the electromagnetic field would hold the bubble with cohesion up to about that distance, beyond that with the light and its cohesive force out of range, the lower mass density of the gravitational field which would also move faster than light would apply force to the bubbles, but they would be seperated by the speed of light. A distant observer would see bubbles of the size determined by the speed of light and the cohesion, but the general motion of the bubbles would be faster than light against the backdrop of the more distant stars of the cosmos.

-

There would be another component of the bubbles, just the oscillation of the massive source of the jets with changes in the pressure with the centrifugal force, lumps of mass falling in and shifts in the mass inside it; while these would be more random the component caused by the speed of light not connecting would be more constant with the constant speed of light so the random components could be subtracted out if the faster than light explanation of the bubbles is viable. If the waves connect faster than the light of the bubbles, the bubbles would be of the right size and more definite.

-

War Is War And Peace Is Peace, And Science Is Summer Heat and Other Fizz Machines!

-

It's believed they may have a power source where motors use the power of your push and pull in the electric field as you walk in the store, this would add more power with the heat or lights of the vendor who sells soap opera biz copy machines. Another sort of power would be a suit for people with the itch so much they use a rake so soothsayers sooth . With a sleeve powered by the itch, it wouldn't be a heartbreak of the itch, when more of the mountain and vista where I live would light up! Even my city of 10,000 uses a Maui's worth of water a day, If I went to Hawaii I'd learn a lot of geology, I'd learn the lu lu of the land, and the land is a lava flow, with toasty feet, 18,000! With sparks flying from your hand or as you walk on the rug it would heat the room or rug, and your bathtub could generate useful power as the water would flow, this could be worth a lot for people who live in luxury 40 story high rises if they are in so much wealth. Like an old gold oldies station where the lady in a british accent says, "The British are Coming!" In 1776! Garlic is used to ward off Vampires, if it already has such power! Another is when if healthy with each PM most of us turn over 100 times in bed as science has it, sleep exercise might be used to power the electric blanket. With no books anymore, no books would be powered by a flip through the volume, with the web and 50,000,000 sites you are in a whole lot more power when you zoom from site to site! Belts around the stomach would power the wokman, build up the breath of life, and help continous weight reduction (when you fidget in a day you burn up to an hours worth of exercise).

-

How Tractor Beams (Like of SF) May Be Of Worth

If you have materials made of electromagnetism that both pull and push, it would seem not impossible that beams that would not only expand outward like laser beams, but also beams that have traction may be used. No doubt just as with heating and cooling it's more convenient and three times cheaper to heat a mass than cool it to the same degree, tractor beams like on Star Trek would be more expensive than beams like laser beams and perhaps only for specialized uses. It might seem to move a ship would be much easier by just throwing a rope and then pulling it between you and the ship then hoovering all the waves round the ship to move it towards you, however with a laser beam like the rope there would be not so much expansion of the tractor beam (like a self focusing beam) and this would be more like the wire between the ship and shore, or if your shore's a ship it moves also! While another real possibility would be adding magnets on both sides, ship and shore using the field to unify beach and chip (if life's a yellow beach) often like with current masses in orbit the magnets wouldn't be available, and just throwing a rope would be much slower than light. So a tractor beam like a laser beam might be of more worth over great distances and when other fields were unavailable. In order for a tractor beam of this type to work it would probably be somewhat slower than light and be made into a wave that would implode from the mass to the source faster than the wave of the beam would travel. By suitably modifying the wavelength so what would have been the expansive component of the waves of the beam would be replaced by the attractive ones also in the beam, a more solid unifying cohesion between the source and what would be moved towards the source.



The beam would also have to be penetrative enough of the distant mass to be moved to blend well enough with the matter of the distant mass to unify that mass with the beam. Materials like metal would not allow the field to blend in some wavelengths, at others they often would, so the traction machine would be able to make many types of beams and use the optimal fields or field combinations.

It is believed that two beams would be most optimal, bot of lower power going through the mass to be moved and then the beam would be combined with another on the other side of the mass, there the combination of the beams would be energised at the point where they meet, like a laser light show at a concert. The beams would attract this energised area because it's an implosion of the two beams that causes it to then be of radiation. Then by the implosion of the wave from this zone the distant mass would be moved by combinations of three or more of these combinination beams (just one would be sort of imbalanced, like balancing a mass on a tip of your nail, two sets of beams would fall off the highwire, three would have 3d stability). To see why it's thought the unit of two beams would be most of value to energise at the more distant realm of the mass (or somewhere optimal within it) with the light show think of a drain with water in it. If you have an implosive wave machine above the drain it may pull up a lot of the fluid in the well but the efficiency is never 100%. For the traction beam, it may actually be much lower just by resonance of the wave alone. If you have the drain with the wave like a wire or rope and you somehow could add a plug at any distance in the pipe to your wire, the plug would add a lot to your efficiency to move the water to you.

There is no theoretical limit to the amount of traction a beam of this type or a laser's force could transmit up to the higher strength of the stronger materials made of electric charges because the beams if perhaps of light are made of the same electric fields that bind the stronger chemical bonds of these types of mass. In subatomic physics it's well known that at higher energy, light behaves like a heavier particle, so not inconceivably the binding or expansion force may be much stronger than any material bound by electric fields. This idea of using lasers to bind mass by way of the strong force in may even be used to make standing waves (so minimal power loss) between atoms bound essentially by the strong force. For super strong materials, it may not need a power source beyond the setup because for example the particles that unify the heavy particles in subatomic physics are being emmited and absorbed continuously, with no loss of power. To achieve strongly bound matter the beam would have to be of the right sort and maintain the particles in a line so the strong force wouldn't cause the heavy particles to wrap around in a nucleus and explode because if massive it would be more volatile than Uranium. Optimally a binding beam of this sort would have the nonvolatility of light so no large electric ionizing charge like protons, and the binding power (or most of it) of the strong force, this might be achieved eventually by optimizing the power of the beam. A way to achieve this might be to put the strong beams in tubes and then use the tubes like small super strong wires that could be embedded in composite materials.

A use of traction machines would be by combining the outward beam like laser generating pressure with the inward traction beam at the same time, so if strong enough and with a good enough lever arm masses would be moved from a distance like moving the sofa for the wife, she knows enriched lunches are good for her to bake, why? Irony!

-

Gravity Power Machines + Power Via + Mass Density

What may be a real way to solve the energy crisis! As I say elsewhere I was falling asleep one night and heard the train and wondered what happened if all that downward force was converted to sideways motion, sort of like converting the gravity to more linear centrifugal force, so the train would go forward more efficiently. I realized a collector could be put in the trucks of the train's wheels that would convert some of the downward force to electric power that would then power the more efficient motion of the train forward. Perhaps the collectors would be like the electric crystals they used to use on in the needle of old record players, these generate electric power by way of mechanical compression of the mass, they converted the pressure exerted by the sides of the groove of the groovy 33 rpm machine to the signals that were then used to make the sound of the box. Using these collecters on the train would be one type of gravity powered machine, the same way the Earth or the Sun generates outward heat by way of the inward compression. It wouldn't be an infinite power source because the heat sources like the sun would run out of helium or other mass eventually, but we may have to wait awhile for this, and we would have a wire that would reach all the way from the sun to a hybrid Lexus of 93,000,000 miles!

If we had a super dense sort of mass or perhaps just used the weight of large buildings with power collection machines at the bottom this may be used as a source of power. The earth generates heat outward by pressing the mass on top against the mass below it and energy conservation shows even if you press one mass on another and no overall motion is observed, heat is always emitted. So if you press two solid masses together with whatever type of motive power even if no motion takes place, heat would be collectable to some extent. If you had a heavy enough mass and a support structure so it wouldn't fall to your fuzzy boots, this may be a gravity powered machine like the Earth. The two masses like plates would be being pressed even if by the gravity of the earth, when work is done heat is emitted, whatever the source of the compacting force.


To build a support structure of a house would be expensive and complex to retrofit, so PROTON SOLIDS may be of future worth. (Protons solids are super dense solids made of protons. The giant electric charge of these super dense proton wires would be cancelled by a tube of electrons on the outside, in a sort of continous stretched out atom.) These proton wires would have super density and this is where gravity powered machines reenter the scene. If you have a proton solid in a composite lump of mass blended in with more usual mass, it would have the right weight, say 10,000 pounds or whatever to be supported well, but components of the mass would be easy to ship and unify onsite or just a machine would take usual mass and convert it to the proton wires perhaps just made of hydrogen from the air and the composite. If the protons are not easy to come by, the machines like Farnsworth's Fusor could make neutrons, and in a few minutes they would be protons by radioactivity. If you then build the support structure (remember the mass is whatever is optimal 10,000 pounds 2000, or whatever) and set it up, because it's gravity powered, it would generate heat by continual pressure between the mass of the composite mass and the mass below like the Earth and Sun, via the pressure between lower and higher layers of mass, with no cost other than construction. The electrons of the atoms of the mass between the layers would have to do a bit more labor to go around each orbit of the atom caused by the change of shape of each atom by the compression, so this would thus cause the electrons to emit heat by work being done. Gravity power machines like this would be a generator that could be built anywhere the earth was solid. The support could be of the super dense solid and just a column that would branch out for a broad support belowground and the column above would take almost no room in a building. To maximise power, the size of the collection plates or other collectors would be reduced, because the pressure is force divided by area. If it were too small it would have no area, and if it were too large it would have reduced power.

An improvement over this may be to dig a well below the building or other URL and use collection motors around the outside of inside of the well (where else, inside it!). If the well is 50 feet deep the well is just an inch wide (easy to drill) and the proton solid or solid composites that would be the motor rotor were small but weighed tons and were dropped so slowly it took a year to reach the base of the well, if the proton masses were an inch deep and more were dropped each year till the well was filled, the well would give power for 600 years. The side of the well would be the stator. For twice the power more wells would be dug. Proton solids made of usual trash weighing 5 pounds (by use as a more dense solid with more mass density at reduced distance) would weigh say 500 pounds because the force of gravity multiplies up for the same mass at reduced distance. Conversion of the atoms of trash to protons might be achieved via subatomic physics where the strong force can be made nonbinding by reverse beta decay. Beta decay is the main radioactive process (of expansion outward of the particles) in physics. To reverse beta decay an electron is added to a proton of the atom converting it to a neutron, by the strong force this won't attract the other atomic neutron, so both atomic neutrons exit the atom and they in turn radiate out to protons and electrons in 12 minutes by the usual physics. More About Beta Decay and Reducing Radioactivity...

(Reverse beta decay may have great worth in reducing radioactive waste and decontamination, and materials science, if we run out of materials on the earth we could take Hydrogen from worlds like Jupiter and make mass in any amount by combination of the elements of the hydrogen up to heavier atoms.)

Another way to get the materials to make the proton wires might be hydrogen from water in the air. Protons from this or other sources would be then rearranged into proton wires with protons combined in small funnels. As usual each proton would combine in the funnel to the tube via alternating S and N magnetic poles to give the theoretical stronger electric binding strength of the field lines compressed by the protons strong force field than any other magnetically or electrically bound solid. With the super mass of weight made of proton solids a well would be dug, and with a rotor in the well powered by the solid, power could be collected from the machine from the day of its construction onward and some of this power could be used in turn to ionize more protons from the air and make more proton wires and solids, generating more power and this cycle could be repeated indefinitely for unlimited totally clean power. (Ovelapping atoms with positive valence would be used to make the inside surface of the funnels so the protons wouln't combine before they were formed into the wires.)

A third way proton wires might be achieved could be to take hydrogen atoms, move them all into a tube (as with the above). Each atom is N-S N-S in the tube so the opposite poles are aligned to attract. The hydrogen atoms would be set spinning so the electrons on the outside would be more outward and the atoms would be more flattened out in pancakes and the N-S poles more unshielded, so they would ettract more than usual. In step three, the pressure on the more flattened atoms would be from both ends of the tube, adding more force so the protons are more linked because they've gone from the outside (in seperate atoms) to the inside of one atom. Once linked by the strong magnetic field, the electrons would stay around the outside to make the tube that would have 0 electric charge so the baneful excess electric charge of the protons would be solved.

Might we build a Journey to the Center of the Earth as has been believed by some by heating a large amount of magma and then blast a fissure with atomic power? In this the molten stuff would then melt it's way down with a probe inside the flow of the magma that would send back information via sonar cyber beeps. The reason drilling is not considered the way to sieve out the information about the earth's deepest unknown geology is because science has given up on drilling deeper than about four miles because when they go deep the they have to pull the drill bit out. They sink another bit and by the time the ersatz bit is down deep the magma has flowed in the well so it has to be dug all over again; no matter how many times they repeat this the magma always wins because it's just a slow flowing lava at depth. This is why the plan to drop the probe inside the magma has actually been considered. With a super dense solid, it may be much easier because the probe would be so heavy it would substitute the lava because it could be cheap, and since pressure is force divided by area it wouldn't need a huge amount of lava or blasting, it would melt down by it's own force. This is a sort of drilling and so gravity powered heavy solids are a sort of heating and melting, even if in machines like a well where only heating would take place, so gravity powered dense weights used in wells by this reasoning would essentially be a source of heat, and thus, power.

Giant power plants could be built onsite for corporate business (or just biz!) this would be a vast clean power source. If the train jostling the weight would make the collectors like of piezoelectric or other sort generate more power, part of the power collected from the gravity would be used to shake the machine, more output than input is like The 20/20 BC History Station!

Why shouldn't more power radiate out thermodynamically than in near the earth? If gravity radiates in, more heat then radiates out at another wavelength, this would be the cause of entropy. Gravity has a sort of opposite radiation of implosion, and it never wears out or runs down (eclipses haven't slowed a bit with shielding since the ancients were good astronomers who had books and insight about authorship). If overall matter is neither created or destroyed part of physics will always be winding it up at no cost or thermodynamics would already have unwound over infinite time. The earth has achieved this for millions of years, like the Cesium Watch the wife got on her birthday when she was 33.248597!
-.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos says if you had a spoonful of the superdense stuff of some stars and dropped it near the earth ("and you could hardly do otherwise") it would go through all the earths layers of rock and lava and out the other side, then back by the gravity, punching holes in the earth at lower and lower power by the friction with each go round of the in and out motion. Finally it would settle down inside the earth, so the weight of density of proton wires may be of worth. If they were on the moon and wanted lots of power they could just dig a well and drop the solid to generate power via electric motors around the spiralling proton solid as it collects gravity power. The mass is already at the top of the well to begin with, by converting it to much higher density at the higher level because mass attracts more when it's more dense it would create more power than usual, this would then be used for power as it would fall to the center.

They have a machine they may use on the moon which would lift up the moon base on wheels like an RV on the Moon and move it and then refound the base, but if they had lots of cheap electric power they could just use the centrifugal force of the oscillations a wheel slice in patented machines for propulsion of the launching machines to move around the Moon or Mars. These would be powered by the stationary gravity well well via a laser beam up to it from the power source to launch the lander and it could go to anywhere on the Moon, and more cheap power may make all the activities of colonization of the Moon or Mars more feasable to achieve.
-
They've used the moon sensors to see what seems to be a lake's worth of ice at the lunar poles and they say this would be worth more than billions or trillions because if on the moon it's at higher orbit than the Earth's more cumbersome mass that would raise the payload cost more than booting even this much water up there, with the high cost of payload per pound. The oxygen in the water may be used for air, the water to booze (99,000 jugs of moonshine on the wall! 99,000,000 bottles of Alka Fizz.) and rocket fuel to go from the Moon to Mars (via the hydrogen). If they could just drop the superdense solid they would make on site just from the usual atoms around them with a small machine and a drill, they could use more of the water to breathe and have enough to drink, so it would last longer than the higher cost of blasting lots of water to the moon, eventually I think they could just crash a watery comet into the pole where the shade is so it won't boil away by the usual small-asteroid-deflected-by-the-beam-to-send-the-larger-asteroid- to-then-move-the-comet-to-the-moon motif, this would put real water and other minerals on the moon cheap. Or the comet could be put in orbit around the Moon or Earth for cheap water, oxygen, hydrogen and minerals, a rotating shade around the outside of the comet would keep it from melting.
-
4.6 trillion out of almost five trillion cigarettes have non biodegradable filters. A good way to stop smoking will be to always have the cigarette burn outward away from the inhaler!
-

Uses Of Magnetic Fields In Air Vehicles, And More

Air Cushion Vehicles (ACV) like Hovercraft have the problem of continually having to pump the air to hold the machine above the land or other surface it moves above. They now have hovercraft with lowered side walls which go below the waves, this seals the air because the wall is below the water and the water is higher on both sides. The problem is this won't work on land, and it only works in deep waves. A good way to seal the air on land has been devised by use of magnets in a field all the way around the base of the machine (for usual water travel the hovercraft would be the same as usual because the surface is often not level and air would be compressed to lift it over the waves). To climb hills lasers could also go the short distance to impress into the surface of the road. This would be better than other uses like adding spray on magnetic bands to the road because the machines could go on any road without having to add the bands so hills would be climbed, and no doubt emergency wheels also used for safe braking would be of worth. The front of the machine could raise to save cats and the cat would just go right on through. In order to not wear out the road, the traction is mostly at the front and rear of the machine (if there are lots of these vehicles and attraction was just on the side in a narrow band, this would wear out the road, and much more traction and steering control than usual road machiunes would be achieved by way of a wide band of lasers at the front rear of the machine at right angles to the direction of motion).

-
The advantage of sealing the air well would mean much less pumping of the air, so it would be cheaper to run the machine on land, and noise would be reduced, the lasers or magnets are also to act as a pump moving a bit of the outside air inward to maintain pressure.

-
And while it would be hovercraft shoes you wear on land, stopping over sewer cesspool conduits wouldn't be the best!

-
Use of magnetic fields for a sort of permanent well sealed sliding air bubble of this type could have many uses such as moving furniture around the room of the house with bubbles on the foot of the box, and to make an air bearing where air supports most of the weight and the magnetic field seals the rest.

Another use of beams like laser beams could be to make a good air seal when you go in the room of a business, this could be used in stores without enough room to build two sets of doors to save on climate control. To make sure it wouldn't burn the customer, cooling beams at another wavelength, or just beams like magnetic beams with enough power to stop most of the air but not enough to cause harm would be used. Even so you have a healthy glow, and this idea might be combined with inventory control, like when we walk through the wall wearing a hat and walk out like a saint!

-
Another good use of lasers or other fields would be to seal off the air around the vegetables at the supermarket, this is achieved in most stores by way of a layer of air in motion that forms a barrier to more air being lost. Electric fields made of standing waves that would maintain power would be used and they would sense when you walked up and just lower it where you are inside the field.

-

Was the Cosmos Created?

CONCLUSION;IT PROBABLY WASN'T BY PHYSICS

If energy conservation says all the mass and energy in the Cosmos can be neither created or destroyed, this would mean the Cosmos has always existed and will always exist. This fits in with the physics of Double Vortex Cosmology, where, like the massive galaxies, the cosmos on more vast scale would have the same general mode of operation, and the Milky Way and the earth would be at one of the (cosmic) jets, expansion of the jet would be what seems to be the expansion of the Cosmos in a sphere when actually the expansion would be just our area the cosmos that isn't round all the way round. The cosmos would have an infinite life because gravity would wind up the disk like the Milky Way and this would cause the expansion of the outward bound jets which would accelerate the mass and energy to the disk with the opposite ions of both jets combining at the cosmic belt with high energy to power the super energy of the most distant cosmic light houses seen, and my spin on this cosmology also would explain why they found recently that the "expansion of the cosmos" observed is speeding up in the outward expansion; when the opposite jets combine there would be more acceleration by way of the attraction of the ions as the matter and energy combined well. Vortex Cosmology of this type also allows energy conservation because it would be an eternal flow of the field, wound up and compressed by gravity and the expansion of the jets would allow the constant motion we observe without infinite expansion or contraction at any time. The expansion (of the jets) and contraction (of the disk) would be completely local (in the cosmic size range) and the balance of the expansion and contraction (except for how gravity would continually wind up the cosmos ) would exactly cancel, so energy is conserved in this view of cosmology.

-

COMPLETE DOUBLE VORTEX COSMOLOGY PHYSICS AND FALSIFIABLE PROOFS


It's thus not implausible or certainly not impossible the universe can be explained by way of energy conservation, and energy conservation has never failed in physics; the cosmos may have existed forever and will always exist. If the universe has existed forever this would solve the problem about how all the regularity of physics and life could be created out of nothing. If there was no time of creation, the universe was not created because creation would have a time before it when there was nothing, then more. Einstein said what's most incomprehensible about the universe is that it's comprehensible. But if meaning always came from other meaning like energy conservation where mass and energy always come from other mass and energy, then the meaning is not incomprehensible or from luck, and it's in much of what we see and hear! For the most part the cosmos would be a set of basic motifs from which all the rest is combined, but the motifs don't have to be absolute for life to do well. The main unexplained motif would be about how gravity continually winds up the field without winding down. Science has been more about how the cosmos works than why because how would be a motif from other motifs, not an absolute meaning caused by luck, with no explanation. Life labors well for thise who make the most of how life labors. While I'm not materialistic in life other than about science and machines, to be good at love and labor both are of worth.
-

What's The Maximum Mass Density Possible?

..

How Observations of High Energy Astronomy May Be Used To Prove or Disprove Relativity And Other Physics

What's the maximum mass density allowed by relativity for a distant power source? If you have a distant massive body radiating out huge amounts of energy, relativity places a maximum output for the given size of the distant mass. If we can know the signal is coherent because it has regular oscillations like blinking, relativity and the speed of light would be an absolute limit on its size because with the assumptions of relativity no coherent signal can link the two separate points that connect by faster than the speed of light, this holds true not only for the circumference of the spinning mass, but also for the radius because of the speed of light. Although Einstein believed that gravity and inertia are the same in his Equivalence Principle, I disagree because with higher speeds of linear uniform inertial motion in Special Relativity there's a redshift and the speed of light remains constant, and in what Einstein named General "relativity" with more acceleration of gravity near a massive body there is a blueshift and the light slows down and changes speed, so there the compression of the field, so because gravity is not relativistic the massive body won't have infinite stretching of the field and infinite room inside explaining the finite mass observed.

If all the massive bodies in the cosmos would have infinite mass inside and an acceleration at just the speed of light, infinity is infinity and they all would have the same mass. These massive bodies which have large output are finite and are not black holes, they are most energy abundant with cosmic jets, not just implosive. The speed of light would be the limit, the distance the light can travel would be determined by the speed, and the volume determined by the maximum distance traveled places a limit on the density. There is no doubt that the speed of light is slower with more fluid density of fluids like water and the gravitational field also causes this, evidence that gravity is a fluid not empty space like Einstein believed, more disproof of (General) relativity. While the speed of light may be much slower inside a massive body, gravity may still have the speed of light limit as Einstein believed and the same limit on the size would be caused by the speed of gravity being no faster than light even if the relativity of light was disproven just by its nonconstant speed (the gravity would speed up to the speed of light but no faster while the light slows down to conserve momentum.)

Another constraint on how much output is about the power source. Because the speed of light is an absolute limit of a size of massive sources of power if we believe in the speed of light limit, only so much mass will fit in this volume if we also believe in fusion or other conventional power sources of the huge output of these masses. Fusion is the highest energy power source known and this combined with the possibility of combination of opposite electric charges (matter and antimatter) place an absolute limit on what the maximum density allowed by the assumed power, and the size and time of oscillation of the light source. Fusion and the possible combination of matter and antimatter are the maximum energy that could be put in the volume of room determined by the speed of light with conventional (non faster than light) physics. It can be easily calculated that the distant high power sources are putting out more energy than Relativity with known power sources allow. Fusion can power stars but not cosmic jets. With conventional fusion the output must be reduced, so Relativity combined with the known most high power physics fails completely as the power source of higher energy cosmic physics. It would seem we need other power sources for these extreme physics.

Superfusion

The sources of massive power are not imploding like with nearby cosmic sources and instead they have large output, so energy conservation, one of the most well proven motifs of science is maintained with the assumption that along with the implosion of gravity there must be a reaction force that stops the implosion and powers the returning expansion. The mass energy wouldn't implode indefinitely because matter and energy otherwise would be being destroyed by being imploded away from the rest of the cosmos permanently. In subatomic physics there is no theoretical limit to the number of forces. So output of high-energy masses could be powered by a fifth force, and a sixth reaction force to balance energy. So the fifth and sixth force may explain the power sources of higher energy masses astronomers see. (No particles of the fifth and sixth force would be seen around us because they would only be stable under the extreme compression of gravity; more and more massive subatomic particles in physics have shorter and shorter lifespans, but if the massive particles of the fifth and sixth force were under more compression they would be more stable but only when the pressure was extreme and it would convert over to usual motes like cosmic rays as they would expand out to lower energy. This would be a possible explanation of the otherwise unexplained cosmic rays.)

By observing the nearer high-powered jets where we can see the mass, size, and power output to find the mass density, this may be used to explain the more distant cosmic sources where we can see the power output and the maximum size by the speed of light limit but not the input mass. If the nearby power houses like BL Lacs or giant radio sources are powered by superfusion, with the speed of light the limit there would still be a maximum power output for the given volume of the high-energy distant massive source. If we know the output from the jets we see a more distant source of higher energy if powered by the same mechanism would behave the same based on the assumption it is the same. By measuring the mass of the disk falling around the distant mass, as it would precess around it would generate forces that would cause predictable changes in the power output by changes in the internal pressure and density, if powered by superfusion with the speed limit the speed of light, the changes would be larger for the given change in the input of mass pressure as measured by the time of the light. For a large mass falling into the larger, the output then seen would be more energetic with superfusion and higher yet with both superfusion and faster than the speed of light allowed. It may have the same power output for the same size, or more output for more mass and this is known from the speed of light, it would be evidence of special relativity if no faster than light. If the power seen is at or below the limit of the geometry of the speed of light and if superfusion is the power source, more mass would fit in the given volume of space, so the power output would be a way to test Einstein's cosmic speed of light limit by way of more power via superfusion. The higher energy sources have more energy than sources like radio stars nearby so if relativity holds up with superfusion and the output of the higher power sources is more near the limit allowed by the volume, it would tend to fit the maximum limit but no more for the maximum distance measured by how fast the massive source is changing. All this is assuming that superfusion inside the massive body would change in a simple way with the force mostly or constant and the masses of the particles that superfuse would change within the general framework of the force the same way the other forces are known to do.

-

SUPERFUSION and FASTER THAN LIGHT

-

Even superfusion may fail to explain the power sources of the astronomical masses with highest mass and the big bang itself, so if we see that the explanation of superfusion with the speed of light limit fails to explain the power output of expansions seen in high energy cosmology, one way to explain it may be to assume that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light being the limit. With no upper limit on the number of forces as physicists believe, it might seem all that would be necessary to generate more power would be to add more density of mass. Since gravity itself would be limited by the speed of light, even with more dense forces the power output has another (definite) limit for each force if we accept that the speed of light is the top velocity of the universe.

Causology of The Speed of Light.

How it is Opposite Ships or Particles in Machines Like The LHC Go Faster Than Light

To achieve stablity there must be more compression of the forces in general than expansion of the forces, and gravity would not be able to compress more than the absolute limit with the speed of light. And because of disconnection of the "slow speed of light", all masses would expand and gravity wouldn't be able to adhere distant (or other) masses well. Alpha Centauri is about four light years away but if the speed of light were the limit the connection is so loose it would always move away from the other masses around it by it's own tendency to just go in a more linear motion and more linear yet over time.. Gravity doesn't allow this generally because the Milky Way is unified by gravity, so gravity would be faster than the lack of connnection caused by "slow" light. The density of forces higher than electromagnetism are disproof of the speed of light being the top speed limit because relativity is about the speed of light and the speed of light is electromagnetic. With more density of an implosive wave it goes faster so at close range for example the strong force being denser would spin at considerably faster than light. All mass energy is motion, the strong force has more mass and if mass is just spinning energy more mass would have faster than light spin (as in the tunneling experiments of Chin please CLICK HERE FOR MY OVERVIEW OF GENERAL WAVE DYNAMICS AND OTHER PHYSICS) This would be disproof of relativity for the strong force even if in more conventional physics Einstein's explanation holds well. Einstein's causeology would be local and my Explanation, GWD (General Wave Dynamics) would be more general because it encompasses both Special Relativity and other forces like the strong force. All of the physics would be based on the idea that the speeds of waves are determined by density, more density than electromagnetism would be faster than light in angular moment and much reduced density of linear motion like gravity mostly would be two minuses multiplied (low density and more linear motion) or a plus, so gravity would go much faster than light even if of much lower energy than the strong force. It would go somewhat faster than light with the fractional charges, they would travel fast when the mass is reduced. For example a charge of 1/3 would go at three times the speed of light and a charge of 2/3 would go at about 3/2 the speed of light, see the experiments about tunneling in the Synopses page in the link above for how this might be proven or disproven.

To find the density of the sources of the expansion of massive energy like cosmic jets, we need a way to do what physics achieves to connect the outside to the inside of the massive body. If gravity is faster than light and it would have many speeds of overlapping waves because it's an acceleration it would connect the many masses of the cosmos so energy is conserved. All energy and mass are quantity of motion (momentum) so in physics by way of gravity if all forces speak the same cosmic language, changes in the speed of gravity would be changes in mass. Even with the light removed for a while from the cosmos inside the massive body, it could revisit Sears for Sales at Christmas if it connected up to the rest of the cosmos by this basic idea of the motion being all there is, an important disproof of the unchanging speed of light in Relativity, because if all is in motion changes in motion would be more general than constant motion.

Since gravity is nonshieldable and if faster than light because it's lighter than light if we find ways to measure Einstein's gravity waves we might then find the inner radius of the supermassive body where most of the mass would be if gravity wave astronomy is achieved (Click Here for some Possible Ways To Achieve This Goal). We know the mass by the rate of fall of the gravity outside it and the density would be found by measuring the small change in the focii of two orbiting mases. The earth falls around the sun faster and the moon falls around the earth faster than the center mass with the more priveledged nonrelativistic frame of rest of more mass they have (Einstein Hoots samewhere). If the center of supermassive masses were infinite all the rest of the cosmos would fall around them and they would all be at the center. And since infinity of the black hole is the same as infinity all the masses falling around them would always fall at the same rate, and this is not observed, it's another way to disprove Einstein's assumption that the mass inside a massive star is infinite. So with a massive source of the gravity like the center of a galaxy and another mass of half the mass of it in orbit if Relativity is correct the smaller giant mass would spin around the exact center of the more massive body, And if you have two of the smaller masses, the density would be found by the distance from the center where they would orbit, since we know the mass by the rate of fall and density by the motion off center, this would then be a way to prove if the density not just the outflow is higher than fusion inside the massive sources of the cosmic jets. By comparing the density with the mass the three models, Fusion/Speed of Light, Superfusion/Speed of Light or Superfusion/Faster Than Light can be compared. To know especially if a sudden change in speed of the orbit of measured masses was caused by just changes in particles leading to superfusion, with the same particles and faster than light, since faster motion is more energized, you weigh less at the earths outer zone of the tropics than the poles with more linear motion. So phase changes to faster than light in general would have more output of the jets and lower density inside, and increases in mass density like with superfusion and no faster than light would have more initial mass density and slower output since the work is done against a more resistant field.

Evidence of faster than light is that the orbiting Wilkenson machine found that the cosmos is quite regular at it's most vast wavelengths, I think this would only be so if the waves were much faster than light or they couldn't connect up to make these cosmic walls and the giant round mass in the center you see in the image (Click Here For Much Much More!). Another proof for example of faster than light is about the light in Special Relativity, how does the light going to the starship "know" the right wavelength to reach the high speed ship at just the speed of light? If the light is made up of higher speed waves connecting all the waves up, it's easy to see why. The lower energy high speed field would shape and mold the light of Relativity, at least in moderation, it both may modulate and be modulated, doing both explains more than Relativity alone.. If the lower energy wave the light is made of was just the speed of light it would never reach any other wave (going in the opposite direction would be twice the speed of light and with the light moving from the high speed observer would never catch it) so the redshift of light would never change and this is the foundation of Einstein's belief about relativity. Please see my physics synopses for my complete synthesis and links.

About superfusion there have been savvy theories that were created in the 80's called eg hypercolor (named after color, the force believed to hold the baryons and mesons together and in the image of the well proven color theory). These ideas used well thought out physics to explain all the quarks and leptons by the usual combinations of the parameters and quantum numbers as combinations of more elementary particles. In a 1984 article in Scientific American one author of a theory of these particles (named rishons hebrew for foundation as in of the cosmos) showed it's worth but said it seemed impossible because faster than light spin of the rishons seemed necessary to explain it and in the final word said even with the advantages of the hypercolor numbers that fit well with the proof, this problem about the speed of light seemed to make it unacceptable. But if faster than light is possible and superfusion was indeed caused by rishons a way to see if they were the same force would be by way of density and changes in the density found by the changes in the rate of fall of masses (with changes in density caused by conversion of mass to energy) and the ratio of input mass to output energy. If the densities and efficiency of the conversion of mass and energy of the rishons were the same as the mass inside a distant massive power beacon, even if we didn't have enough accelerator power to make the rishons, we might be able to see how much it would take to achieve it. -

Some think another way for heavier masses to go faster than light may be just to shield from the electric field, and special relativity's speed of light. I believe that ploughing through the field by way of changes in pressure of the field can be used to explain all the relativistic motifs well, more pressure would squeeze the starship, augument the mass by pressure from the field, cause centrifugal force and so on. This would be the same as inertial mass since inertia is about linear motion of special relativity, at rest in it's own rest frame. If the supermassive distant power sources and the cosmic jets have more mass than fusion the density can be found we would see how much energy it would take to cause superfusion with our "atom smashers." It would seem to make a machine of higher energy than fusion would take more energy than we have. To be able to achieve fusion or more with the atom smashers, it seems they say it would take a machine 3 times the size of the cosmos or some such size to cause as much mass density in the machine as was in the big bang. But if the field is shieldable from the relativistic motifs it's possible we could make the beams that impact go faster than light. It's believed by a good number of theorists about the speed of light being electromagnetic that if we shield from the low powered electric field, it would be easier to go through the field at faster than light and they envision faster than light starships with shielding on the outside. The method might be of worth for accelerators of the 21st century by use of the method of machines like the "planes" of ships (what else?!) that go four times as fast as other machines of it's type by pumping some of the exaust from the jet engine up and out the leading edge of the machine so a layer of air is around it and it goes much faster through the air around it than the resistance of the water around the air. A starship of this sort might likewise have a layer of lower energy radiation like the light so the starship would move much faster, like the boatif the machine were just shielded instead of made smoother to the flow to the field, when it perhaps wouldn't go as fast. Ships have paint and this is a sort of shield from the water but they don't go as fast as they would if there is a layer of air. In a real sense the outside of a boat is a shield and it's of worth but not as much as the air for speed. If this motif of using a lighter field to smooth the ship is eventually used to make starships as others believe it might be good for smaller ships like a sort of miniature capsule in the "atom smasher" that would carry a payload of the mass like to make the pressures like superfusion on impact after moving faster than light by way of this smoother flow of the field around the outside of the machine. I don't know if this will actually be feasable, but with all the reasons for faster than light and this possible use of this type of faster than light machine like a small starship from it, it may be worth experiments with the wavelengths of light that would most effectively smooth machines of this type. -

More extreme accelerators may help us see in the lab what powers the Big Bang of cosmology. The uniformity of physics and energy conservation would have some connection between the inside of massive power sources and the Big Bang and the rest of the cosmos, if it's all connected up it's not impossible we may be able to achieve the physics that link us to it, it's somehow connected to the nearby mass at any rate, what physics can achieve we will often achieve, it's what we're made of in most of the VW's we're in!!

PHYSICS SYNOPSES

-

HOW WINDY THIS MARCH!!??

It 's so windy our elevation is 20 feet all month!

So windy the weather map is a paper airplane!

-

Have you heard about the 40 mph moto unicycle in Popular Science (June 2008)? It goes around on two wheels and one story like so many PopSci sells! Clowns on the high wires won't fall off!

-

LOW SPEED WEB

What was a computer in 25,000,000 BC? A block of stone, a box top with a Save As If Real Boom box!

-