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!!
-
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!
-
