Einstein and The Uncertainty Principal by The Zeno Method

 Einstein hated the idea that you needed to collapse the wave function to find out what the low energy field was about and I agree.

Einstein was looking for a way to essentially get around this necessity of measuring what's measured with what's measured and nothing else, and he thought of a low energy particle that we might use to find the information about the low energy field yet without collapsing the wave function.

I agree with Einstein here because of my idea about the definition of information. The signal between two electrons as they move from disappearing to reappearing on the other side apparently at faster than light is based on a signal; change in one place with exchange of energy with probabilistic changes in the other electron by way of the Feynman diagrams as it resurfaces.

By the physics so far, it's well known that we can't find Einstein's low energy particle although so-called low energy quantum experiments have proven Einstein was at least partially right, sending a quantum mouse past Schrodinger's quantum cat and watching how the mouse behaves to see if the cat is dead or alive inside the box..

This would be by way of the Feynman diagrams because the low energy waves aren't 100% wavelike and they have particulate events in order to be even unified to any degree as measured by the diagrams. In a way this is partial proof of Einstein's low energy quanta he hoped to find. The waves are neither infinfinitely wavelike or superluminal but they are above the degree of relativity perhaps to many levels just as the Earth is more at rest and privileged than the moon with degrees of value. There is no absolute rest frame but in science as life some are moreso than others.

I agree with Einstein that quantum uncertainty is unnecessarily binding, both because he believed in a non-relativistic framework for this and also because relativity I believe relativity is not complete. If the observer is not absolute in quantum mechanics, then it may not be absolute elsewhere as in relativity for the uniformity of nature.

By relativity however, we couldn't have the underlying stability of the quanta so that you collapse the entire couch when you collapse one quantum of the couch with the light. Instead of relativity being the foundation here, I believe inside the quanta the waves are also spinning faster than light for the central charge of the electron to be so much off the chart when you measure it with inelastic scattering experiments, and contrary to relativity the world around us is stable because of a phase change with this faster than light spin and that makes it there the quanta have underlying stability like gyroscopes because if the quanta collapse there is no phase change allowed by relativity and there would be nothing to keep them from collapsing indefinitely. The change of phase would be a good solution I think. And as Einstein said, by wave mechanics the underlying stability of the world would be non-relativistic and so relativity itself as I say may not be complete.

                       Photo by Gerd Altmann

I think we may be able to find most of the information that Einstein hoped to search for with research and that is by what is called the Zeno method of finding low energy events recently devised. This is where you take the "tube of light" like a laser tube and you twist it like a balloon and you measure much smaller events at much lower subquantum energy levels. This may be the best way we can come up with to improve on quantum uncertainty which Einstein was saying about why can't you can't measure the quantum without another quanta of another level energy. And Einstein quipped "Do you seriously think the Moon is not up there if we don't look at it?"

So I propose that we use the Zeno method by taking an electron on one side and then doing repeated experiments where we slide that tube of light at much much lower energy back and forth between the two seeming like superluminal electrons and hopes of sussing out all the events of the Feynman diagrams and Einstein's other hope of the non-relativistic general value of solving quantum mechanics and "don't forget relativity"..

Convenience in Relativity.

Einstein like Mach believed that the concave surface in a bucket of spinning water was because of the relative motion of the cosmos. By relativity all observers are equally valid so the point of view that the universe is spinning when you spin a small wheel is equally valid to say that the wheel is spinning though not as convenient.

By relativity the relative motion of the two masses is all the counts. The problem is about changing force on the small wheel and this would presumably cause huge torsion forces on the universe as well as huge centrifugal force and motion faster than light relative to the wheel if both are equally valid.

Here convenience becomes of huge import because it's usually more convenient to say that by having more mass the universe has a more valid frame of reference relative to the wheel, or certainly we could say this is true as far as the concept of rest is important.

About relativity since the cause of the Lorentz contraction is not mechanical and only a given by the speed of light, there is no way to distinguish motion from non-motion.

There is no low energy Higgs' field with relativity and so the Lorentz contraction has no cause. (Einstein said if the low energy field is found relativity will be disproven.. but as I say on my other posts I believe Einstein was wrong because the dark energy and dark matter fields may both cause centripital and centrifugal force and inertia but also change phase to be faster than light as well as not interact much with the high energy fields like the classical electromagnetic field lines, because the dark matter and dark energy waves which are pure and low energy might go in the lines between the electromagnetic field lines making them coherent and so they stay unified and don't break or bunch up. By this relativity is not disproven but rather it's extended or at least certainly I believe that the relativity of acceleration and forces of this type are not viable. 

Many of most people didn't believe in relativity at first and I think this was not a coincidence.. because while special relativity is good as far as it goes and explains a lot of things, I believe it's incomplete because there are all kinds of events around us that don't seem to match up to relativity and as I say on my other posts there seemed to be about 50 and more of these as I write more of them here often I had found.)

  The waves between the electromagnetic or inertial field lines would be like the ghost in the machine that would keep the quanta spinning and moving through time, by moving between the quantum lines and being more pure waves they would add the invisible oil to the clockwork universe of the dark matter and energy and also give it essentially motive power with other degrees of freedom and different speeds than the speed of light at least to the degree that they are influencing the field lines and they are in turn reacting back in loops that go on continuously.

The extra degrees of freedom may show up in the mass of the proton which has 97% percent more mass than there can be found a source for. 

These matter waves would have many different overlapping changes in both wavelength and speed unlike in relativity where the light only changes wavelength.

Actually any body in motion in the universe will have two forces, one trying to speed it up and the other trying to slow it down, but the force trying to speed up something like a wave has to have more energy to do so than the force trying to slow it down like the quanta has..until it doesn't win this competition..

Relativity tells us that mass energy is conserved but it doesn't tell us how it got that weigh!

If the heavy quanta are all spinning faster than light to give them their rest mass because I believe mass is spinning energy, this  violates relativity, but not energy conservation as long as whatever causes the spin is balanced, so it can't speed up more than the amount of spin it has even though it has extra spin than what relativity tells us it should have.

By relativity about rotation we can also say the water in the bucket can't know if it's spinning or not and cause the distinction of the surface of the water as the bucket rotates if it's not actively comparing itself to the field around it.

The "inconvenience of convenience" about relativity reminds me of gravity and in philosophy how the employer is not the same as the employee in business.

The employer favors convergence down to a point like gravity. Think about a commercial where the boss has set it up to converge on the point where someone pays for this, a customer, not a dummy we hope!.. this about gravity is non-relativistic where all points of view are equivalent..

The equality of the laborers is more about a sort of consideration where with near distance it seems all the observers are more equivalent. Gravity seems important and the boss has the advantage of the economy of scale or more convenience to do business.

The employees favor efficiency to live well so they don't lose their job and the boss has a roundabout way of influence, after all the gravity wraps around the other masses and sees them as a blob of mass, this is efficient to gravity but the advantage of the boss makes it so he tries to separate out the more priveleged employes (or the ones he can't take advantage of) from the less advantaged employees. So indeed by relativity the observers tend to favor pay for the worth of their labor so they aren't cheated, but also they favor all the other employees being as valid as each other by unifying in hopes of minimizing the bosses ire. Like a responsible accountant.. The boss says if anything goes wrong, the accountant is wrong!

In some of his books Bertrand Russell had a chapter called "What's Seen and What is Felt". For special relativity no star or mass in the cosmos in general can be said to be at rest more than any other or in motion more than the other as the motion is without friction and often at high speed. Light and sight are what are so important to special relativity and not contact forces.

But when we have the speed of light being constant because light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption as Einstein held, this means nothing would ever wear out or run down because in special relativity light has no interaction or contact force as it moves.

Yet by friction in the frame of the Earth all kinds of things are running down and wearing out all the time.

Much of this is because gravity is converging things downward and then they reradiate back out.

Resources are finite because the world is round and the possibility that all observers are not equivalent becomes obvious..

We might ask why we go to work day after day because the boss has more convenience and we say "we think it has something to do with rent!"

While relativity tells us that all observers are equivalent and this is indeed based on energy conservation and the First law of thermodynamics, it doesn't tell us about the Second law and this is about how convenience becomes involved with the physics.

Einstein was saying in some of his later writing that he believed time didn't even exist, and by the great success of special relativity of course by the in and out waves of energy conservation exactly balancing.. if the boss is equal to the employees and all the observers are the same we would also say that by energy conservation there is such balance that all events can be reversed with no problem..

As an engineer and inventor I once asked..

If we had a blast to seek out the explosion of something like a volcano, could we actually just totally stop it from erupting by "using it's own force against it" by using something like a nuclear blast that implodes..

 What can we say about Einstein's idea that time can be reversed?

I started to think what we might need to reverse an explosion..

At first I thought of a nuclear blast imploding inward.. But then I started to look at Einstein's idea about this and just as a thought experiment I realized it would need something more complex, and for this I imagined setting up an MRI as the blast went outward to polarize the atoms so then sending in electrons which would attract the polarized nuclei and hopefully combine with them by the magnetic field with a second beam might then convert more of the radioactive protons in the neuclei to neutrons. 

These no longer attract the nucleus by the strong force and radiate out as neutrons and decay in 12 minutes to protons and electrons which become like useful hydrogen to convert more of the radiation outward from the blast for useful energy and then doing something like then sweeping them up with another high energy beam like a laser (the MRI wouldn't work as well because hydrogen atoms don't have that much magnetic field). This ended up seeming to need four or five super high energy beams..

While a thought experiment of this type might seem useful to do something like stop nuclear blasts by this roundabout method it's reversing the time by no means or only in a roundabout way. 

By this thought experiment it's quite apparent to me that Einstein was wrong about time not existing..

It's equally valid to say that an explosion can be moved inward as out and time reversed, but it's not equally convenient..

My sister's fiance was saying he was working in demolition and that they had implosives for buildings like white powder that made them implode.. so I looked this up on the web and this is a sort of demolition myth because like with cooling you need a working fluid to move inward and I even believed that we might be able to use a large machine that implodes a lot of air inward rapidly with a motor to actually achieve this. (It also needs somewhere for the imploding air to go and I thought of using an exhaust pipe for this type of use.) Even so reversing the flow of an explosion can be a complex event and I think it relates directly to the evidence that shows that it's much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass.

Mass and energy are conserved but they aren't converted and I would hold that if relativity was complete it would be easy to convert them easily in a time symmetrical way.

 Barach Spinoza the philosopher believed that if you had a bunch of particles and you controlled them you could reverse time and control the whole system with no problem no matter what.. So Einstein considered himself to be a Spinozan about this.. so Einstein believed in determinism.

Many types of events around us are not easily reversible or controllable as if they were only particles. A bit of reduction here of Einstein's idea because of his other idea.. the one I think that was wiser, was his quote 

 "it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can both emit and absorb a wave"..

 so waves are ultimately going to be more fundamental and they're more complex, and Einstein by saying this apparently wasn't a Spinozan. He wrote over 200 books and when he finished each he revised his memory!

If the in and out waves were strictly balanced by energy conservation and the volcano could just be reversed by nuclear implosion, like the equivalent rotation of the universe or a small wheel I would say this would be a lot more convenient but also not much probable.

But if we say that the spinning bucket is comparing itself by its rotation to the constant Higgs' field even while time is not so reversible by this at any rate, we still have a way to distinguish motion from non-motion and also the mechanical cause of the Lorentz contraction by mechanical compression with the field as a mass accelerates forward and this is lacking in special relativity.

An experiment I propose is that instead of the universe rotating by small changes in the wheel instead we find ways to try to change the constant Higgs' field..

I think we might be able to do this by some kind of electromagnetic influence since like gravity and the Higgs' these three fields are long range so I think these might have the best way that we could change the influence of the field. We might need a high energy source to change it but then we would also change it by way of the electromagnetic field from this source.

My belief is that we could set the bucket or its equivalent wheel spinning and measure the centrifugal force and by changes in the Higgs field itself externally we might have a lot more chance of changing this than we have of changing the entire universe just by spinning the wheel..that is to say the wheel is spinning relative to the field and its immediate vicinity and by no means is the entire Cosmos spinning, and if we can change the field around the bucket and change the bucket then by changing centrifugal force we may see that relativity is not complete.

The Nonradomness of Pi, Centrifugal Force, Gravity and Time.

We see that the round wheel is comparing itself to the more constant Higgs field. I had read that pi is non random but I was unable to refind the link, which seemed to imply the finding that pi is non-random and has non-periodicity of the repetition of say the number six is only 20% likely to repeat with the next loop. For now mathematicians say this question about the Nonradomness of pi is undecided.

I consider pi to be related to prime numbers and according to the science news article a definite non-patternacity of the last digit of prime numbers has been found. The reason that I consider them to be related is because you're rolling the wheel to find the prime number by what numbers don't fit the wheel so this is comparing the more constant line to the roundness of the wheel just as in pi the roundness is being compared to the Higgs' field.

On the Science News article note that the non-patternicity decreases for large prime numbers, just as watching a larger and larger number of pixels in a monitor makes it so a circle will seem be more and more perfectly round.

Click here for the article or you can see the same link at the end of this post. 

While research has not yet apparently found patterns or non-patterns and Pi like this, this may only be because there hasn't been enough research done. If Pi is generally related to prime numbers we may be able to predict what changes we might find in pi by considering a sort of abstract version of primes that might measure the same sort of antipatternicity with pi.

My idea here is that both pi and prime numbers maybe both related to the comparison of the constant field to the roundness which aren't necessarily the same.

While this seems to not yet prove some of this about centrifugal force and the wheel for pi, I was also predicting that galaxies would spin more clockwise than counterclockwise due to this kind of event and I had read later that this wasn't true by a Galaxy count. But recently astronomers have found that near the center of the cosmos the galaxies are indeed spinning more clockwise than counterclockwise. Click here for the link if you like.

(The Smithsonian page says this might be because of the Milky Way's rotation but I would think we would see more of the asymmetry in the near galaxies than just more distant ones. Spin might create a red shift but it wouldn't seem to reverse the rotation. 

 Certainly linear motion or motion of any sort doesn't seem to reverse the spins of quanta or other masses. Even so if we reverse motion through space we might expect to reverse motion through time by relativity at any rate and the spins ahead might reverse from the spins from behind us. 

I seriously doubt this because most other events are not where you reverse motion through space and also through time. Actually relativity fails in doing this and this works only for near radius events at most. I would say this would not be more evidence in favor of special relativity.  Instead galaxies would have non-symmetrical spins because special relativity fails because of the asymmetry of time and not because of the value of even special relativity.)

 Spinning more in one direction than the other implies interaction with the field, and so there would need to be some way to interact with the field for this to take place.

 At any rate to me the infinity of pi seems to directly relate to the question of why you input the quantum mechanical equations into gravity and you get infinitys.

General relativity tells us that the roundness or gravitational mass and the inertial mass of uniform motion are equivalent.

But if this were true an ultra centrifuge with millions of G's would have huge amounts of gravity around the gyroscope.

On the other hand there's a loose association between centrifugal force and gravity. You weigh a slightly different amount in the N than in Venzuela and this determines how much you weigh.

Unlike Einstein though I hold that because gravity and inertia are more wavelike then the quanta of electromagnetism, Einstein's hopeful method of unifying inertia and gravity by the same method that Maxwell used is incomplete. The quanta can force the electricity and magnetism to match up but the gravity and inertia have a looser association by f =ma and not e=mc2 as Einstein believed.

An acceleration or the round wheel of pi or prime numbers aren't the same as linear motion.

But they are indeed related by way of the gravity and the weight as I say and so I think with the ultra centrifuge we might find a small amount of gravity but not nearly the amount that relativity tells us and also pi indeed may not be quite random and also by the same degree we might hope to plug in the equations of quantum mechanics and get a slight reduction in the infinitys, as well as changes in things like the degree of a ballistic arc because supposedly they're completely independent of each other this is because the acceleration is not the same as the uniform motion.

Of course energy conservation would have no forces not having anything to do with any of the rest of the forces and so I think it's pretty definite that these effects will be found even while much smaller than relativity would tell us they might be.

This might be because the constant Higgs field is a lattice and it has edges so the round wheel has less resistance moving with the side of the box but when it reaches the edges they're more random and at this point the measure of pi might be somewhat more non random because it's not as stable. A number may try to land on these areas but it's really less probable that it will repeat than elsewhere because of the instability.

This may be one reason why the lattice confinement calculations of the strong force have been successful because it's measuring the lattice at higher energy. (By changing the size of the units of the lattice the strong force changes phase from the strong force to electromagnetism at just the right energy as it radiates out in space just like the change of phase of a crystal that melts and converts a solid to a gas.)

As a mass spins around the areas of instability this might create a slightly different amount of centrifugal force as it spins around these  areas than otherwise.

With higher energy the boxes of the field are larger in the spacing and this might imply that at short radius like nuclear radii centrifugal force may not be the same strength as with more distance.

If we succeed in changing centrifugal force by this method of changing the Higgs field a prediction of this idea would be that we can change it by different amounts for different sizes of the wheels because the constant Higgs' field stays the same while the size of the wheel changes.

It's been found that electrons in atomic orbitals don't have centrifugal force so it seems not impossible we could change it. On the larger scale because the spinning wheel has much larger size relative to the small size of the lattice which stays the same, it seems that gravity and centrifugal force both may be changed. Thus the non-randomness of Pi might be why the galaxies are rotating much faster than they should be without exploding outward and as a solid body, something relativity doesn't allow.

Because the wheel is much huger here and the Higgs field is constant, centrifugal force is reduced for the galaxies but not the more common size masses around us so much. This could be a possible mechanical explanation for why Modified Newtonian Dynamics, MOND might be viable, and not just how.

Einstein strongly believed in Mach's Principle, so the distant mass there influences inertia here. So different amounts of mass density would influence centrifugal force. If centrifugal comes from a constant Higgs' field no matter what the scale only the geometry of the interaction, with that field as the wheel goes around and compares itself to it would determine centrifugal force if the mass is held constant. Einstein's idea predicts therefore that any change in mass outside it will change the centrifugal force and so the galaxies should have increased centrifugal force not reduced but my idea only holds that changes in the size of the accelerating wheel and more specifically its interaction with the edges of the constant Higgs' field for the given mass in rotation will determine centrifugal force and inertia.

The larger masses don't have the instability of the edges of the lattice areas and this reduces their centrifugal force, rotating as a solid body because without the instability areas there's less resistance to the field as a body spins around. It's easier and more relaxing watch a show on a TV with millions of pixels than it is to watch with a hundred. Higher resolution gives a more smooth transition for something like a wheel you would see on TV.

The areas of the instabilities around a spinning quanta might also be the way that the quanta are sources of gravity. Even so I've tended to believe that the main cause of gravity is the spin of quanta and the gravity is going to spin hugely faster than the quanta  even though gravity would only spin one way because it attracts. But if it spins a huge number of times around a quanta and the quanta only spins once in the positive direction, gravity would still attract mostly but somewhat less in one direction than the other.

These might be related ideas because some kind of interaction between the constant field and the spinning wheel may be possible because any spinning body like the weak Force metabolites would have the asymmetry of time and convenience and like a small clock the spin would not reverse time completely and the quanta might be creating the acceleration of gravity for the quanta by comparing on both sides of the spinning body and also that time is not completely conserved by this type of event.

 Time assymetry might be why recent observations have shown that the galaxys spin more clockwise than counterclockwise in the early universe by about 60%. The gravitational field of the cosmos will be radiating outward at high energy and clockwise spin is not quite the same as counterclockwise especially for large masses.

 Some have believed this is only evidence that the early Universe rotated but if it's like a jet of a black hole this is mostly in its majority linear momentum and none of the spin the cosmic black hole may have much influence, if it's possible as in my belief the cosmos is like a giant galaxy with the same physics scaled up. 

  These galaxies may not only be spinning non randomly because of gravity.. I believe that we might find also that the ones that are spinning in one way might move faster outward in the motion of the cosmos falling sort of outward at another rate then by usual conservation of momentum (just as with the galaxies violating conservation of angular momentum except for linear momentum) by way of the change of the spin and gravity would care about spin if so. So gravity may care about spin a bit for the quanta and even so antimatter might fall downward contrary to relativity where time is unified with space so if the antimatter spins in reverse it will be moving backwards through time and it would fall upward by way of relativity.

 Instead by my ideas I have named GWD General Wave Dynamics, the antimatter falls downward like the matter but at a slightly different rate just as the galaxies might be moving outward at a slightly different rate because of the force of the field on them moving outward from the center of what we might call the cosmos.

Recent Quantum experiments had seemed to show that gravity doesn't care about spin but I think maybe the experiments aren't at high enough energy.

I believe that the asymmetry of the weak force about the spin metabolites is a measure of how counterclockwise spin is not completely equivalent to clockwise spin generally for masses in the universe. Because time is not reversible as much as Einstein believed and the spin of the quanta and everything spinning is like a clock because it's got periodic fluctuation, gravity and the other forces like the Weak force may separate time and future and past and thus spin.

Another way the nonrandom pi events may be important..George Ellis (the British physicist from South Africa where else!) And others have believed that the collapse of the wave function is important to time and something in the background must be collapsing it like gravity perhaps because of the gradient of gravity changing with radius from the source. My belief about this was that since time goes on in a starship much unchanged and with no gravity there this wouldn't be the cause as recent experiments have found.

But if these small instabilities around the edge of all the quanta would cause scintillation as well as the spin (because time is always measured by periodic fluctuation not just whatever you measure with a clock as Einstein said in his famous quote!) these combined could create time by the periodic fluctuations of these instabilities.

 Some people like Hawking have believed that we could influence the past and people have called that bad science, but we could say also that Einstein considered this kind of possibility like with the ER Bridge.

 This is because if mass and energy are completely equivalent then we really could reverse time and these ideas about convenience tell us there's more than relativity in science.

 Heat radiates out from hot to cold and so time is not easy to reverse. Even gravity might depend on the radiation outward of the electromagnetic field lines for the gravity waves to then follow to the source. We can't go backwards in time because it doesn't exist anymore, just the record in the events around us.

  In quantum mechanics there's a slight degree that this is true because the waves connect backwards into time somewhat for a short distance and this is what Hawking and Einstein were considering and this is certainly not completely without value because mass and energy indeed are equivalent even if they're not as easily converted and convenient. Time reversal as described by Feynman is only viable for short distances and it's not strictly speaking a property of subatomic quanta. The reason for this is easy to see if we consider that convenience is important, even if it's not as important as special relativity perhaps but the spinning wheel tells us that the cosmos doesn't have huge spin of the same value.

Mach and Einstein believed that since both the motion of the wheel or the cosmos are equivalent that somehow the spinning bucket of water is connected to the distant mass of the universe and so if we could somehow remove the mass and energy of the rest of the universe, the bucket of water would be constant with acceleration.

But the problem of the huge torsion force on the universe by the small wheel could be easily solved if we can prove that the wheel is only interacting with the field beside it.

I've had some chats with AI about this as you see on my other post about the electromagnetic motor made of magnets on the asteroid and spinning around the moon with wires on the moon for lots of energy, I was asking AI about anything else I would need for this kind of plan and the AI says "I ask great questions!" No problem!

So I started to ask about my ideas about relativity and the AI is saying that while my ideas about physics seemed insightful, it arrives at this and repeats it more often..

"Low and high energy light bend exactly the same in a gravitational lens as by distant light sources".

 ..so this tends to be something I wanted to improve about relativity.

Before I noted how in relativity you have the two masses falling at the same rate in the gravitational field and so Einstein is saying that it's equivalent to say that the Earth's field is rushing up to meet it at 32 ft per second.

My objection was that we would be at the speed of light and with infinite mass by way of special relativity in less than a year (this cause by special relativity is well proven and there's no problem with this, and the low energy field itself doesn't disprove relativity).

It seems arbitrary that we lift the masses to the same height because if you use force to determine what the change is and use the same force on the different masses they rise to different heights and fall at different rates just as otherwise the Earth around the Moon should fall at the same rate by relativity because they're both equally privileged.

So here is where I thought I had found my answer and that is that different masses really do fall at different rates.

And of course I say Right.. the high and low energy light do indeed bend by the same amount (because both have zero rest mass) and yet the masses within that frame can accelerate at any rate we want.

  Relativists have argued because the speed of light is constant in the gravitational field and it all gets back to the speed of light by way of energy conservation, this idea of convenience having any import is actually trivial.. supposedly the constant acceleration of the light is about space and time itself and this can't be changed. But I would ask the same question why is it that this works for light with zero rest mass but not for bodies with rest mass? 

Why does the light obey relativity but not the mass? The mass would seem to have internal changes that aren't as much controlled by relativity. This could be because internally, the masses have the phase change to faster than light explaining as they say "why the muon weighs" because the electron is spinning up to that energy and then suddenly it has the phase change to faster than light, otherwise unexplained. Because the electron is a heavier quanta and already spins at faster than light inside this would be the only way that it could also energize up to the level of the muon because it's almost already  at the muon level anyhow.

This itself could be a major expression of the inequivalence of mass and energy.. and of inertia and gravity. The masses fall at a different rate when you apply the same force but not the light..

The internal spin at faster than light of the heavier quanta would also allow Einstein's other (nonrelativistic) idea about how the observer doesn't control what's observed so much in quantum mechanics because the heavy quanta have underlying stability by the phase change which doesn't know the external field of energy conservation yet by the light externally. 

 Basically everything adds up to relativity in the long distance range outside the heavy quanta and the quantum numbers indeed add up to plus or minus 1 for the spin at the speed of light. But if mass and energy were completely equivalent, there would be no such order by Einstein's famous quote about relativity "Do you really think that the moon is not up there when you don't look to see it!" and the in and out waves would be equivalent, so truth and false would be the same, and there would be as much matter as antimatter and this would cause annihilation.. We may need truth so much to survive, in essence truth here is also evidence against relativity being complete.

You may say, the standard model is so perfect and it's been said " there are no loose ends". And relativity is of worth but because of this inequivalence, I believe relativity is incomplete. 

 The standard model doesn't tell us about many of the other events in subatomic physics, like about why constants and how the quantum numbers are what they are. These are indeed loose ends. 

Although we can't yet derive the constants from first principles I offer the following..

 Any wave in motion in the cosmos has two forces acting on it one like the quanta of light in relativity tending to limit its acceleration, the other tending to increase the acceleration based on tension and waves, thus the resulting speed is constant.

I've tended to hold that mass is spinning energy and the only way you could explain changes in rest mass itself is by faster than speed of light spin even for the mass at rest.

 Mass tends to exist even at rest by the quanta moving through time by their spin like small clocks, while by relativity energy only exists by motion.

For example electromagnetic fields are changed by motion but not gravity.

 Mass at rest has balance unseen by light moving at the speed of light because it has both in and out waves that balance there. Mass seems to be more fundamental because it makes it so there's motion by motion through time by the spins of the quanta even while you're at rest. 

 

 At rest you're moving through time even though you're not moving through space. With higher speed motion you're moving through both space and time but time would be more fundamental because motion is what all the fields are made of, so some kind of motion even if it's only motion through time is essential for the field or mass or anything to exist.

So spin is fundamental and from this we could maybe perhaps derive the quantum numbers by way of different types of spin or currents of the field even if more the abstract type like isotopic spin, especially if by way of faster than light connections for many of the quantum events.

 To do this method as a way to derive the constants themselves, as with the quantum numbers, I propose that we attempt to look at the constants as made of loops of these types, of physical currents of the fields. Here too we have resistance by whatever type of quanta are involved, and waves that tend to speed up the flow of the current. 

Like the quantum numbers the circulation may have components that are faster than light in order to accurately calculate them and only by this assumption and as with isotopic spin these currents may be abstractions of the flow, but nonetheless they are in loops that circulate and complete the loop to limit problems like infinities.

(My belief is bodies with rest mass made of fermions are spinning faster than light inside and this is why they can't reach the speed of light because they can't add their own speed as easily to that speed.. this is something fundamentally different that relativity doesn't describe because it doesn't describe the cause of rest mass because if all the particles were spinning at the speed of light they could all move at the speed of light and they would all have plus or  minus one mass because they have plus for one minus spin electromagnetically. Einstein called his ideas about relativity electrodynamics but I would call them more like electrokinematics because relativity describes motion without cause, my ideas I call General Wave Dynamics because they're about both the cause of motion and the motion itself, not uniform motion but also acceleration.

More privileged frames involve force because they have a source, the Earth's gravity has a source unlike what Einstein believed )

Some scientists have proposed that only the surface of a system is fundamental and there is no independent  information dependent other than going in or out of it and how each surface has a tangle of strings on it that contain all the information inside that surface. But where surface of strings is nowhere to be found. For example the electron has been found to have no size and only a given energy at a given radius.

 There's information inside the surface of the gravitational field for the life and biology has resisted mathematization. Not a large degree of the information about life has made it outside the Earth's gravitational field and yet life has been highly important! Externally all the fields obey energy conservation going inside and outside the radius but there's a definite nonlinearity about life that's special to that particular type of life.

If gravity only wraps around the outside of each quanta by Line Removal because it doesn't shield or have heavy quantum numbers it won't see the complex inner chemistry and stuff of life as significant, even while energy is conserved and relativity wins out in general about light being bent the same no matter what it's energy.

Carl Sagan was saying that when you see another life you should remember that you'll find no other like them anywhere in the whole Cosmos.

So the constant bending of light is one idea which I hold is the general frame by energy conservation of the physics where the waves balance as by relativity and yet even so the local change by way of convenience seems to be a way we can add on to relativity by more physics because relativity seems incomplete if the wheel spins more definitely than the cosmos.

The essential truth would seem to be that relativity describes the first law well and works well for it but not the second law and if you ask any employer or employee convenience also is not to be ignored.

About the Michaelson Morley Experiment

  As I say it's much more probable that a small wheel will spin and not the universe.

The Michelson Morley experiment is based on the wheel of the Earth spinning in uniform motion, if we could ignore acceleration then there's no huge torsion force that the universe would exert.

 Special relativity works well for uniform motion and the speed of light is constant and the Lorentz contraction is set. Notice the essence of special relativity is by definition the constant speed of light in uniform motion and the Lorentz contraction. These are the essence of relativity, the foundation of a LOT or "all" of modern physics.

But this ignores acceleration and during acceleration for the high speed observer, pressure on the field, the speed of light is essentially changing. If you have 20 different wavelengths of light, all that light has different energies of spin and so you have 20 speeds of light in a non-trivial sense. 

 The light with different momentum is spinning at different speeds for each speed of the high speed observer. If you accelerate the high speed observer 20 times to different speeds and just by luck you stop at that one speed this speed is only the speed of light if the wavelength had changed to fit the motion of the high speed starship observer.

A wheel spinning in uniform motion is fine also. But if we use a larger wheel and we accelerate it and we use a small interferometer (to fit on the side of that spinning wheel)  like the Michaelson Morley experiment then the speed of light may be non-isotropic because it's more valid to say that the wheel is spinning than the cosmos or there will be the huge forces the cosmos would exert just for changing the acceleration of the wheel.

 An accelerating train changes the air around it like the Lorentz contraction, and this changes the wavelength or the energy of the sound reaching it but it could only do this by first changing the air in between. This doesn't mean that there is no air and it doesn't mean that the air is not interacting with both the sound and the train. 

 The low energy dark matter and dark energy fields would interact considerably with the classical electromagnetic field lines and in a loose sense because they're mostly wave-like but they're still there and the information about the field is only stored in uniform motion and not absent.

 My belief is that because the Einstein Podolski Rosen effect is a weak interaction, and because of the huge success of quantum electrodynamics based on the assumption of a major component being made of the matter wave fields, this is evidence both the low energy fields are certainly there and also that they are interacting but only at a low energy level and even so this means  definitely that some of the information does make it through from the faster than light motion of these dark energy and dark matter fields. So there is some interaction of the low energy field as we might find with a Michelson Morley experiment performed on a rotating accelerating larger wheel with a smaller interferometer on the outside of the wheel.

Advancements being made in accelerators and interferometers and small shelf top accelerators that have the energy of giant machines of this type may be useful for this type of science.  I can imagine in the future we might have wrist band interferometers that we could use to measure the change in acceleration as we jog around the room. In a way this is what gyroscopes are about and this change in the acceleration may be a measure of a non-isotropic field if the speed of light changes as we move around the room.

Even if this doesn't turn out to be true about the change in the speed of light for the change of the wavelength at any rate still I would hold as evidence for the low energy field having influence on the light by way of the wavelength (as we make changes in the wavelength of light that match up seemingly instantly) because if it's so fast that you can't measure it yet because it's lower energy doesn't mean that the air of the train is not there and it doesn't mean that sooner or later we may not have fast enough machines to measure it.

 If there's a connection and it's instant this is improbable because as Aristotle said a completely empty field would allow motion of infinite speed. The field is not empty because when you move around the room there's evidence for this.

   The air for the train or the matter wave field for light might be there for a causal connection since all the points of all the fields are connected in the cosmos for energy conservation to be able to compute. By this the field makes the changes during acceleration but it also stores them during uniform motion and I believe both would be needed for energy conservation if we allow also that light itself is influenced by a faster than light connection like the air around the train maintains the sound.

What is the definition of mass? Mostly that it occupys space.

Of course matter compresses down to itself and resists back but this seems to need an internal field, or at any rate it seems much easier to believe that it occupies something that also has matter, even if like Maxwell believed it's a different kind.

Einstein and Mach's ideas about how basically there's just nothing there between when masses move, and only their relationship counts counteracts Aristotle's idea that an empty field is impossible because it would allow infinite speed of motion.

It's much easier to believe that matter occupies a field made of mass of another sort and then that interacts with distant matter. This was how Descartes believed that the low energy field was like a sort of blind man's sight dog.. Perhaps the dog wears eyewear with windshield wipers when it rains!

What does this mean that matter occupies space? If space is made of nothing, is occupies nothing. If you have a house or something that occupies nothing that house doesn't exist.. It only exists if it occupies something made of matter.

Consider the clypsydra.. it's an ancient greek device for holding water. It has the tube on top and a sphere with holes for the water like a sprinkler at the base connected to it so when you grip the tube you can fill it with water with your thumb up. Once you've filled the sphere and the tube with fluid, you can lower your thumb and lift the clypsydra above all the water with your arm and then by lifting your thumb any or all of the water can be released from the sphere below. 

 This might seem much like a tube with a pump on one side that pumps air out. This is the usual explanation for how air implosion supposedly works. It removes the air from one side of the tube and on the other end the pressure of the air from the gravity of the earth then flows into fill up that empty space.. this may be true but it doesn't answer the question of why it wants to flow into that empty space. If space was made of nothing the air in the pipe wouldn't know how to want to flow where there was no air.

 You might say right the molecules of air are only comparing themselves to each other and radiate out like heat from hot to cool when they find the cooler area of the lower pressure of the air inside the tube. However consider the clypsydra again.. We might say that the force of gravity on the water is pulling it down inside  the sphere and then the air pressure from the outside is pushing it back upward as much as it can. The result by somebody like Einstein would show that the water reaches the height it does inside the tube by way of the balance of these two forces.

But there's a problem here; if you release more water from the clypsydra it has reduced weight..with the air pressure being the same on the outside almost we would expect that it would rise to a higher height not lower! On the other hand if we consider that there's a medium made of some sort of matter between the water and your thumb, when you release the water the gravity is moving it down but its tension on that field is keeping it from going down any further and if you release your thumb again it flows down further yet because while the field has tension like Newton Maxwell and many others believed about how mass has tension, it's also finite.

This is part of the evidence that Einstein's idea was incomplete and I believe about the the physics events that are incomplete about relativity, Maxwell, Tesla, myself and others may eventually emerge victorious.  You feel the force of this field just by changing your speed as you move around the room, and this may be what dark matter and dark energy are made of basically, an important part of my explanation for inertia and centrifugal and centripetal force.

This reminds me of the common explanation about why only the wavelength of light changes when the high speed observer changes their speed in Special Relativity. Certainly the wavelength does change, but something must change it. If we change the observer's speed at random 20 times and the wavelength of the distant light changes 20 times also to exactly match up, this would not seem to be a coincidence since it does match up. If there are 20 different changes in the wavelength of the light then we've changed the momentum of the spin of that light 20 times and so we've changed the speed of its motion 20 times so in a  non-trivial sense I hold that we've changed the speed of light itself by doing this what would be "a measure of the change of the tension of the field."

The idea that the asymmetry of matter and energy is much like the asymmetry of thermodynamics so heat radiates from hot to cold but the two aren't completely time reversible may be about mass energy equivalence or it's inconvenience.. the inconvenience predicts a certain small amount of inequivalence about the conversion of mass to energy. This may seem to be something like the fractional charges in qcd where they did large-scale geological searches and found no evidence if there are any fractional charges ionizing the fields where they can be found. 

Indeed I tend to believe that the confinement of the fractional charges is actually much related to the necessity of them having a unified electric charge externally to fit relativity. At nearer radius the strong force is not as strong because electric charge is divided up and the fractional charges are spinning around at faster than light.. they're fractional because you lighten to travel faster. The strong force is in control at near radius and with more distance is not as strong and for the fractional charges as the distance is greater the strong force and the relative effects combine to create enough resistance to the motion further and it all adds up to the speed of light and a unified electric charge externally.

In essence mass energy equivalence wouldn't be upheld for the fractional charges because they're spinning faster than the mass energy conversion method allows although not by another term that's much faster than light for the conversion.

Of course this would mean that externally the equivalence of mass and energy holds well.. I think it's worth more research to see if  the small degree that heat and cold are not equivalent might also even be scaled to the mass energy equivalence level.

 Physicists doubt there any fractional charges outside the heavy quanta exist because even a small change in energy conservation or relativity would seem to imply if it were multiplied by the large number of quanta  there would be a large explosion of the Earth by the electric charge. And while indeed mass energy equivalence holds well for the fractional charges we would say there's no guarantee that this will ever explain where the proton gets its extra mass without essentially the violation of relativity at any rate by another term to convert mass to energy. 

 One possibility here is also that since the gravitational fields move through the high speed observers in special relativity that while the gravity is much less strong it also may be influencing that mass energy conversion slightly with the term plugged in for the much higher speed of gravity according to its density and speed and this then actually might subtract a small amount from the mass energy conversion of special relativity. This being small and negative because gravity attracts down to one and the "thermodynamic" speed of light and relativity radiates outward.

We can say that the mass of a proton is equivalent to that of a higher energy electron if they're the same, but not that the energy conservation of the conversion is determined by relativity itself. It would still be made of motion but motion of a much different speed than relativity tells us.

If the heavy quanta are spinning faster than light they may be like gyroscopes that stabilize the physics as Einstein thought about how the observer in quantum mechanics is not absolute even though he thought so in relativity. There needs to be something to stabilize and anchor down all the fields so that they don't just have complete equivalence of mass and energy with the in and the out waves the same, truth the same as falsehood, or we wouldn't be here doing the best we can with what we have where we are now! 

 The main distinction here between relativity and my idea is about how the changes are stored not absent when the mass is in uniform motion and this could be how the field can both create changes and store them both just like any computer.

More particularly relativity is essentially a quantum event because beneath a certain threshold by causing motion in my belief, the field is actively changing the distant light's wavelength even while when it's underneath the quantum level in uniform motion if the speed of light is indeed constant. 

But just to say that the wavelength of the distant light doesn't change is also based on the idea that there's no field there and we can't ignore this because of evidence about the need to explain how dark energy and dark matter are involved with both relativity and gravity.

 The Three Foundations of Physics and What I Think of as the Opposition of the Continuity of Gravity and Special Relativity..

 I find  good reason to believe in a low energy field for the quanta of light around it because the more electromagnetic fields of light in special relativity are derived from the attractive field of gravity, (the quanta are created in the center of black holes and they then all become sources of gravity so gravity mostly creates the quanta there and that's where they are originating so this unifies gravity with the heavy quanta by the common source)  to unify, all the fields need cohesion to hold them together, otherwise the world would be changed beyond recognition if there was nothing more holding all the fields together than radiating out...

 Gravity is an acceleration moving downward to a point and electromagnetism and its attendant speed of light for relativity radiate outward to the cosmos more by disconnection.

 One of the predictions of my idea is that if we finally find true gravity (and not the inertial influence of relativity of the speed of light by LIGO, the gravity waves themselves which would radiate outward would be an acceleration like with LIGO) if what LIGO has found are waves that radiate out at constant speed I would hold this is not gravity because gravity radiates in not out and it's an acceleration not a constant motion.

You might say the constant speed of light is the mediator of all the exchange of the rest of the fields, so with LIGO haven't we just found another expression of the same value as Einstein might have believed?

But in essence since gravity is non relativistic and more about convenience I would hold that for every change in any mass there's going to be a change in the speed of that gravitational radiation.

 The particles both for inertia and gravity are much easier to find the effects of than the waves even so and so while the inertial waves of my belief radiate inward at much faster than the speed of light, the events associated with the inertial particles radiating outward that LIGO has found are only moving outward at the speed of light.

The waves would be the true dark energy and dark matter waves; while they would indeed interact with the classical electromagnetic field lines, being the opposite of relativity they also may have overlapping changes of wavelength and speed because they're jostling back and forth between the quanta of those electromagnetic field lines creating the acceleration by being waves and non-quantum and so they're the opposite of special relativity with the quanta of light where the speed is constant and only the wavelength changes. This would be one fundamental mathematical description of the opposition of relativity and acceleration or gravity.

 In this way of describing the opposition of relativity to gravity, gravity is an acceleration and relativity needs to ignore acceleration for the speed of light to be constant.

 Relativity lacks connectivity due to the quantum nature of light Einstein assumed for it even while for gravity he holds the opposite truth that the field is continuously connected.

Both of these ideas as I'll say are not consistent other than if we allow continuity for gravity and both continuity and disconnection by special relativity.

This is because of what I call the

 Three Foundations of Physics.. what can we say about physics at its fundamental level? First of all the field has to attract more than reradiate or we couldn't be here..

Second at a certain energy the field is going to have to start to radiate back out and third..

 "Non Einsteinial word here" No infinities are allowed like for singularities. (This would violate energy conservation. Instead I think the field just starts to spin faster than light of the quanta inside the "singularity" developing enough centrifugal force to power the jets which otherwise have no known power source by relativity).

 Since attraction of the field and holding itself or the quanta together seems to be more fundamental than almost anything, the basic field of gravity only needs continuity and the radiation out of the matter wave dark matter so the particles of gravity would radiate in exerting the force.  

 (Since particles have friction problems as Feynman  and others calculated about this kind of idea, Lasage or particle gravity, my solution was to remove the particles to inside what I call the radius of the action ROA, an area of enough energy at the right radius of each quanta where the waves externally convert to particles at high enough energy to exert the force of gravity or centrifugal force. This could be a way to have theoretical advantages of the particles without the friction problems. Newton Maxwell and Galileo all considered LaSage gravity.)

 Like the chicken and the egg you can't have the waves between the electromagnetic field lines without the quanta also and so the idea that gravity is completely pure is not true because it's also interacting with those electromagnetic field lines.

  Otherwise due to causality  problems I don't believe a source of gravity could be created by a time reversed picture of the waves at the edge of the pond converging to the stone that is dropped and this then causes the gravity.

  But if the inertial more quantum lines radiate out and then the gravity waves follow them by induction back to the source this would be logically consistent for all the fields that radiate out to have a source. Even so, by this gravity being more fundamental is the foundation since it has to attract more would be more continuous.

 The waves that would exist between the lines of electromagnetism for relativity would be there because continuity is needed for all the fields not just gravity but electromagnetism radiates out with quanta and gravity might implode with waves so unlike in relativity gravity is the opposite not the same as relativity.

 For this reason I would say that greater continuity is important for gravity but both continuity and the quanta are important for special relativity. So the low energy fields that Einstein thought were not viable by relativity would seem to be there by this sort of proof.

  Einstein's idea that continuity is important for gravity is only lacking not for gravity but for the continuity of special relativity. 

 You might say if Einstein held there was complete continuity for gravity and there was the discontinuity of the quanta for special relativity then this would fit well as opposites at any rate.

 "Even so the beliefs of the employees and the employer are often not the same."

 At the most basic level all around us the physics are based on a balance between balance and imbalance like by Noether's thereom. Gravity is more imbalanced and not as much about efficiency like the boss because the boss doesn't care about details of the employees. By this metaphor gravity only sees the electromagnetic fields as a blob or like a mass like the Earth, and mostly cares about attraction. The employees are more common than the boss like the electromagnetic fields. These are based on in and out waves unlike gravity which is simpler and are based more on energy conservation.

 So we can say that gravity is mostly more about a wave but relativity is more about both waves and particles with the in and out waves and particles. 

 While the waves are more fundamental like with gravity once the field implodes to the level of the electromagnetic field then the in and out waves are more balanced. But unlike what Einstein boldly proclaimed about relativity where light is only a particle, and both waves and particles become necessary for relativity, in  every other breath as he talks about relativity, Einstein wasn't just talking about the quanta where the light is uninfluenced and constant and speed from emission to the observer. Einstein repeatedly says the Doppler shift of light has great import for relativity. 

 And the Doppler shift is about waves which would seem to be disproof of the whole foundation of what Einstein claimed about relativity being based on quanta only.

 

 In a way I think of this symmetry between waves and particles, or just mostly waves for gravity as the way that the atoms of the periodic table with the atomic number are based on the odd or even number of protons and neutrons that are more radioactive or not, so too relativity is stable and based on energy conservation but gravity is based on the idea that the basic field has to attract more than anything else to hold all the rest of the fields together. 

 Even if the light is a quanta and gravity reacts back to the radiation inward at its optimum energy, if it's more derived from gravity and more about the radiation inward of the field than not, all fields would seem to need not just the quanta by the constant speed of light but also the attraction to unify because all the fields are derived from gravity being the foundation.

 

Here again is the science news article about non-patternacity in prime numbers.

Here's a link to one of my more recent and what I consider to be one of my most complete pages I've posted in my 20 years of research online about gravity and relativity.  Thanks for Reading..

     

 

  Certainly "GPS fits Special Relativity..But Why Not Gravity?"

As I say I believe gravity is a blue shift at a much different level of energy than something like centrifugal force or inertia because e.g. the equations for centrifugal force and gravity are much different and gravity moves masses together and the closer together they move the more gravity they have. Inertia tends to keep things moving forward and disconnected so they move outward like the radiance of a gas, the opposite of gravity.

 You might ask what about the Mossbaur effect or GPS. GPS seems seems to fit both special and general relativity well. While I can say certainly that special relativity is well founded, mass and energy seem to be inequivalent because it's much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa, and thus a way to claim that gravity and inertia are not necessarily the same thing, as in gravity is more like mass and inertia is more like energy, as I say no experiment by Einstein's method will show any distinction inside the inertial elevator or the gravitational elevator by the Earth. 

 Yet if you drop the masses in the inertial elevator or the gravitational elevator and you count the distance between them with time and while at least one frame of reference in the inertial elevator will have the two masses moving in uniform motion, no frame of reference in the gravitational elevator has this ability.

 Just as no inertial frame of reference can transform away the surface of a bucket of rotation of water so it's level, Einstein's idea seems incomplete.

 If we add atomic clocks to the masses as they fall in both the inertial and gravitational elevator we see a related effect, the inertial clocks are unchanging with time at any rate  in this frame of reference but the gravitational clocks are continually changing the speed of the clocks by all inertal frames of reference according to any observer. This is because by the different accelerations of the gravitational field the force acting on each mass by the tide is actually more internal and because gravity brings things together so that they're more inside than outside the field like the field of the Earth.

 This about the transformation away of the inertial force in the inertial elevator by at least one frame of motion can be seen easily with an inertial frame in uniform motion both for the inertial and the gravitational elevator. 

If Einstein's elevator has elevator cars within it and one is released at one time in motion at the top of the elevator and the other is released the second time following it down, from the perspective of the lower elevator car which was released from the elevator was moving slowly, the elevator car above it is moving in uniform motion, this is true in a reciprocal way.

In the gravitational accelerated elevator, the observers falling with the mass in the elevator cars will see motion away from each other no matter what and it's not reciprocal. The faster moving elevator below the other will see the other as blueshifted and the clocks will speed up and the upper elevator will see the lower elevator as red shifted and the clock will slow down and this is not reciprocal. Even so the inertial elevator observers will measure the other elevator having the same red shift of motion no matter which of the two observers are asked.

The observers in the gravitational elevator have different mass and energy essentially so work is being done on the field and the atomic clocks will have the different reading that Einstein believed was equivalent for the accelerated inertial elevator and this corresponds to the change in the speed of light with gravity that relativity doesn't allow.

You might ask since relativity is about all observers why we couldn't use accelerated frames of reference for both elevators and thus transform away the motion of masses moving apart in the accelerated inertial or gravitational elevator?

Suppose we have a setup where we have lights lighting up inside of the inertial elevator to tell the outside observer in accelerated motion where those falling masses are. 

 These two masses are moving apart and you have the accelerated frame (if it's going in a positive direction with the motion of the falling masses to give the equivalent measure of the gravitational elevator.)

 But if we try to do the same thing with the gravitational elevator it takes no propulsion or a different amount of force to go with that motion.

The two elevators inside of the rocket moving upward through the field distant from more cosmic masses are not themselves in an accelerated frame. 

I think of them as having gyroscopic stability internally that makes them both in their rest frame or the frame of uniform motion depending on the observer.  

 So the only body accelerating inside the inertial frame is the rocket itself but not the two elevator boxes here in my own version of Einstein's thought experiment with his hopes of unifying inertia with gravity.

 In the he inertial elevator the masses move in uniform motion relative to each other and so there is no red shift between the masses, unlike in the gravitational accelerated elevator. There is no induction between the two  masses in uniform motion inside the inertial elevator..

  While the elevator that Einstein imagined here is accelerating upward, only it is doing work on the field. 

 Einstein's accelerated elevator in the inertial frame is working against the gyroscopic stability of the quanta that make it up but not the two elevator cars which are in uniform motion.

In Einstein's famous quote about how he wondered if we really believe the moon is not up there when we look up to see it, for this and why the collapse of the wave function doesn't collapse like the whole couch when the light hits it, as I say on my main page of the link below this will be because internally the quanta have stability by spinning faster than light so it makes them more stable like a gyroscope and the phase change. 

 The couch doesn't collapse because this is non relativistic, just as Einstein believed about how the observer doesn't influence what's measured so much in subatomic physics and this itself tells us that Einstein realized that somehow relativity might be incomplete.

 Imagine a train with spheres like beach balls on a track where they can roll and the air flowing past the train is accelerating the beach balls. The beach balls are like the elevator boxes in the accelerated inertial elevator and the air is like the flow of the field. Robert Sungean on his page about why he also disagrees about relativity that the distinction between special and what's called general relativity is about how in special relativity you flow through the field but in general relativity the field flows through you. 

But this can't be equivalent because one field is accelerating by the gravity and the other is more at rest. 

 So the two beach balls like the two elevator cars are released but because the air is moving past and mostly at rest not only do the two masses not have as much force on them by way of the acceleration of the train and are in more constant motion but also there will be a slight tendency for them to go nearer and nearer to rest relative to each other even if they're in uniform motion by way of at least some inertia of the field. 

 Mostly if their internal motion is maintained by the gyroscopic stability of the quanta they won't do this but I believe a small effect may be found in the RWT Relativistic Wind Tunnel (where we send the field past the small mass in the lab and try to create relativistic effects by relative motion of the field) corresponding to the nonzero permeability of the low energy field to light.

 One idea is that if we send the field past our small mass in the lab at near the speed of light why can't we just accelerate that field like gravity and so the inertial elevator is equivalent to the gravitational elevator? 

 This is where it's more obvious inertia and gravity are not the same because moving through a more stationary field in the inertial elevator doesn't create acceleration for masses inside of it by the acceleration of the field faster and faster for the gravitational elevator. 

 Instead the two masses released in the inertial elevator are at rest in their rest frame and no work is being done on them. 

 Bernard Haisch, another physicist from Lockheed, Palo Alto California, has claimed that inertia is simply the interaction with the low energy field and when you're moving in uniform motion the friction disappears all around and it seems the same but when you start to accelerate, the virtual photons of the low energy field are exerting force to cause the greater resistance to the greater mass to motion faster and faster.

 So with the train and the spheres if the spheres are the same size eventually they will be more at rest by interaction with the field but also note that two different masses will have different amounts of interaction with the field even when in uniform motion as in the RWT.

 So the motion of the inertial frame through the field is more like the train through the stationary air while in the gravitational elevator is more like the flow of a stream going faster and faster with time, and these aren't equivalent. 

We may be able to cause the acceleration of masses in the gravitational elevator RWT by changing the field with time but you can't create the same asymmetry between the masses with different red shifts if they're in uniform motion in a field in constant motion as in the inertial elevator simulation of the RWT.

 So for this reason I believe the Relativistic Wind  Tunnel might help us create gravity in the lab, and perhaps measure and cause the Lorentz contraction but not the inertial elevator's equivalence as Einstein hoped.

 

 We might say, what about the field that the elevator itself is working against and how we see the result of the pressure on the elevator in the force felt in the frame of the elevator?

 More particularly below the quantum level the back reaction of the field makes the quanta resist changes so they're below the level of the wavelength of the light, and this is the explanation for uniform motion.

 

 The reaction of the field to cause inertia is an ancient idea.. Aristotle believed for example that inertia is caused by the back reaction of mass moving through the air. 

 We can say that the two elevator cars in the inertial rocket or elevator are moving in uniform motion relative to each other, yet it also seems that the accelerating frame of the larger elevator that Einstein imagined is exerting force by the  field  Maxwell and others invoked to explain different types of phenomena.

 I think the reality of the field wins out here.. and even for uniform motion, I hold there may be low energy mass induction of the two masses moving in the inertial elevator, this corresponds to the non-zero permeability of the low energy field to light Tesla noted. The degree of the induction might also be according to how much mass a body has.

 I think it's possible that even a heavy mass and a mass like a quanta in uniform motion at the same speed might eventually change from the same speed when moving side by side due to the interaction with the field as expressed by the non zero permeability of the field. 

This reminds me of Einstein's idea that while light is a quantum unchanged from a emission to absorption he also predicted that light over great distance might be changed by interaction with the field just as my idea that the permeability of the light to the field also might be something like this. I think Einstein's idea might work for higher energy light because other high energy light hitting it like x-rays hitting x-rays would certainly show a change.

 So as I say here are some of the things that we may note in the Relativistic Wind Tunnel RWT (if we move the field like generated by electromagnetic fields past the same kind of elevator with the masses falling in uniform motion in it in the lab..)

 The two elevator boxes will show no change in redshift because they're in uniform motion but there may be a certain amount of induction even so between the boxes and the accelerating rocket that contains them because the general motion of the frame of the rocket definitely shows signs of compression like the Lorentz contraction and so the field is definitely there (my belief is dark matter and dark energy for centrifugal and centripetal force as I say on the link below) even so it's a much lower energy acting on the two masses moving in uniform motion but nonetheless because the field has resistance to the light, there may also be a corresponding amount of mass induction of even masses in uniform motion like this between the accelerated frame and the elevator boxes. 

My belief is that there will be a certain jump point where the external field starts to act on an accelerating body, but we might also imagine phases of the change so that we can more reliably measure the resilience of the medium that Maxwell and an entire generation of mathematical physicists believed in. 

 This may also be easy to find with optical tweezers that are being developed and the ability to measure much finer changes than just the level of the collapse of the wave function.

 This among other events are what I believe we might also find with the RWT.

General critique cosmologies with  VSL Variable Speed of Light

Here I want to discuss some objections to the idea that gravity changes the speed of light as on the Wikipedia page..

"From a general point of view, G. F. R. Ellis and Jean-Philippe Uzan expressed concerns that a varying c would require a rewrite of much of modern physics to replace the current system which depends on a constant c.[30][31] Ellis claimed that any varying c theory (1) must redefine distance measurements; (2) must provide an alternative expression for the metric tensor in general relativity; (3) might contradict Lorentz invariance; (4) must modify Maxwell's equations; and (5) must be done consistently with respect to all other physical theories."

VSL cosmologies remain out of mainstream physics

Let's look at these one by one..

(1) The VSL of distance measurements would not be changed for media any more than media that already change the speed of light. I.e. a crystal is no different than the field of gravity in that both might slow down gravity, and gravity might seem like a lower energy crystal yet by the same basic assumption that a media slows down light.

2 VSL needs an alternative to the Metric tensor in General Relativity..

Basically as I say over long distances the tensor is evidence against General Relativity because if inertia and gravity are the same, inertia is gravity and there is no extra tensor as in inertial frames.

If the tensor is there, gravity bends the light and it wouldn't if the speed of light were constant on all distances measured.

Elsewhere in the Wikipedia VSL page it says

"Spatial variation of the speed of light in a gravitational potential as measured against a distant observer's time reference is implicitly present in general relativity.[3] "

So the tensor goes well with the VSL and doesn't need disproof if we accept that General Relativity.is itself incomplete.

3 The VSL might contradict the Lorentz contraction..

This would support the Lorentz events due to how even in Special Relativity, the speed of light changes (energy or) speed of spin when any acceleration takes place during the acceleration. The speed of light matches up but it would be equivalent to say the energy and thus the speed changes because the field is so closely connected with the light..

(4) ..Must modify Maxwell's equations...

Actually Maxwell predicted the speed of light so well, we can also realize that he allowed any speed for a wave of a given tension to fit that wave by generalization of his idea, as in my ideas about GWD.

(5).. Must be consistent with all other theories..

Maxwell believed his wave method of light fit well for waves in general, not just for light and this fits for light in other media like gravity that also slow light like a crystal..So it's already consistent with the rest of the events around us and Maxwell would not have believed he was disproving crystal or other media.

 One idea of the relativists about gravity is that as the light goes upward from the surface of the Earth it's not with force on the light, and there is no work done on the light by the gravity. 

 You can see why Einstein's idea will only work at short distance because with more  distance the speed of light changes and a force is present contrary to what Einstein believed about gravity.

Or consider a spinning bucket of water. The accelerated wave in the bucket can be transformed away but only by a highly artificial method of speeding up and slowing down the observer as they pass over the bucket. 

Gravity actually causes the water in the bucket to have an acceleration like the surface of the oceans of the Earth, but the inertial influence of this on the bucket is much huger, and this is because of the inequivalence of gravity and inertia. There's a loose equivalence but it can't be made exact like Einstein believed. The world's ocean has a round acceleration but the water of the bucket is a parabola and the centrifugal force is more huge and they have these distinctions because they aren't the same.

 Where exactly is the blue shift of gravity?

I think that inertia and gravity are not completely separate because inertia would correspond to the classic electromagnetic field lines that are laid down by the radiance out of the particles which are with uniform motion as Einstein believed, because in special relativity Einstein always would say that light is a particle unchanged from emission to absorption so the speed of light is constant. 

 The inertial waves would radiate in and these particles would radiate out, this is because it's been physicists believe it's inconceivable there will ever be centifugal without centripetal force.

  And so these particles would also be associated with gravitational waves and particles also, Here however the gravitational particles are moving in and the waves are moving out. The gravitational waves and the inertial waves are interacting to make it so that nearer the source of gravity they zigzag back and forth between the lines of the common electromagnetic field lines and this causes the gravity. 

(Actually as I say on my post below because the particles would have problems about friction I relegate them to inside what I call the radius of action ROA of the heavy quanta. But the waves are still their externally.)

 

Blueshift occurs as the waves move in nearer to the source of gravity, for gravity at any rate and the lines of the electromagnetic force are redshifted, but the gravity is stronger than these lines and so there's contraction more than the gravity so the blue shift of gravity is holding the earth together by more volume on the inside than the outside. This tendency for the blueshift of gravity is expressed by the non reciprocal measure of two masses falling in the gravitational elevator.

 And without the blue shift of gravity the particles (being quanta and having sides) would radiate out without limit and so there wouldn't be enough force to hold the quanta and larger masses like the Earth together.

 Why does GPS work and seem to fit relatively so well? This would be because Einstein made the correct prediction about the speed of the acceleration of gravity or the GPS or satellites as well as the other predictions of general relativity like the bending of starlight by the Sun and frame dragging,  but his prediction was not based on the validity of relativity..

 As I say all masses don't necessarily fall at the same rate, and this was Einstein's relativistic basis he hoped to make predictions with like about GPS.

 This is where general relativity fails, because Einstein used equivalent motion to describe the downward motion of masses by his "comical" idea that we're accelerating upward at 32 ft per second in equivalent motion so all masses are falling at the same rate (not the Earth around the moon, or merely launching up two different masses with the same force where they go to different heights and fall at different speeds like the Earth and Moon).

 His prediction as with GPS was where the change in the orbit of Mercury and other predictions of general relativity aren't by the opposite event so one or the other would give way, acceleration changing for Mercury or not changing for masses falling near the Earth and relativity seems to be incomplete because it's not that the masses fall at the same rate.

I think it was Dirac who was saying that the opposite of a great truth is another great truth. But I hold  relativity is incomplete because Einstein's idea that it's "impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can both emit and absorb a wave" may mean the waves are more important. 

 "The opposite of a great truth is another somewhat valuable yet still important truth!" But the quantum of light for special relativity may not be quite as good or as valuable to us as the waves. At any rate this may be a way to add on with new physics. This is my idea in GWD General Wave Dynamics that the waves are what determines the speed of light as Maxwell used to predict the speed of light exactly based on the resilience of the low energy field. 

 Not only may the waves be more valuable there may be more of them because of the low energy waves of both gravity and inertia making up 4/5ths of the mass and energy of the cosmos, if they are indeed dark energy and dark matter.

 

 GWD my general idea about the speed of the waves is about dynamics, motion and its causes, as opposed to Einstein's ideas that description of motion alone without causes of the motion. If inertia causes gravity as Mach and Einstein thought, then "uniform motion would cause acceleration".

 GPS may seem to be valuable for both general and special relativity, but for gravity not if the speed of light changes in a gravitational field and the atomic clocks give us a different result in the gravitational or inertial elevators. The special relativistic component of GPS is viable but not to predict the general relativistic events if we predict them based on the relativity of gravity.

 Einstein might have said, what about the equivalent gravitational contraction of the Earth itself as if by the Lorentz contraction of Special Relativity? The red shift is observed and this equivalence of the Lorentz contraction will be the compression of gravity, so mostly we might assume Einstein would have said that as in special relativity the most important thing is the red shift. While GPS may not match relativity, certainly we can say that there's no problem with gravity blueshifting because there's actually a sort of blue shift of the mass with the equivalent Lorentz contraction in Special Relativity, so it may seem they're unified once more and the Earth is not with more room inside than out by the red shift of light. 

But there's still the problem that the clocks will go at different rates than they should and that gravity changes the speed of light.

While Einstein's predictions about gravity are good and he advanced GPS events well, I would hold they're not based on relativity because gravity is mostly not about relativity.

Einstein also said that if the low energy field is found relativity is disproven.

 Relativity however holds quite well for uniform motion and the quantum of light and I hold also that it fails for acceleration and waves. 

 To prove the opposite of relativity is not to prove that relativity is not true if relativity is the opposite also! To prove the waves are the opposite of particles is not to prove both don't have value. But other physics may be involved.

 Even if we say the mass accelerated to near the speed of light in special relativity has the Lorentz contraction, this itself would seem to be like an attraction inside that mass like gravity.

 Yet if relativity by Einstein's belief can't describe what causes the Lorentz contraction with no low energy resilient medium that Maxwell used to predict the speed of light exactly with. It wouldn't cause gravity either. But if there's a faster than light field as I say like air for the sound of the train connecting up the light and the Lorentz contraction in SR, this could be used to unify with gravity because if the connection was only at the speed of light, the light couldn't be slowed down in the gravitational field.

  Like Tesla believed I agree that the non-zero permeability of light to the low energy field may be evidence for superluminal effects around the light, just as the Lorentz contraction like the air around a train causes the train to compress just a bit along the line of motion.

  While it's true no information is communicated between the high speed starship faster than the light by the light itself, any evidence for superluminal motion like this seems to be generally against relativity.

 Just as the motion of the molecules of the air around the train are much faster than the speed of  sound through the air, at short range the air molecules would seem to need to be faster than sound because the sound wouldn't be able to propagate through the air without this.

 For every wave or body in motion in the universe there are two forces, one trying to speed it up and the other trying to slow it down with the result being the speed of the wave. But for any wave this also means that there's a faster component trying to speed it up or it couldn't connect.

 

 Speed of Sound: In air at room temperature (about 20°C or 68°F), the speed of sound is approximately 343 meters per second (m/s).

Speed of Air Molecules: The average speed of air molecules at room temperature is much higher, around 500 meters per second (m/s). This speed is due to the thermal motion of the molecules.

So, it's been said, air molecules do move faster than the speed of sound. "However, this doesn’t mean they can travel faster than sound over a distance. The speed of sound is the rate at which pressure waves (sound waves) propagate through the air, while the speed of air molecules refers to their random motion due to thermal energy."

But there's one thing here that leads me to think that a major component of the low energy electromagnetic field and also of gravity is faster than light and not like the more "random thermal motion". And this is because gravity has to have coherence and this coherence would hold the fields together over distance to unify masses including the Earth and this also keeps the lines of the low energy electromagnetic fields from bunching up or fizzling out and may keep the heavy quanta spinning against the friction of the Higgs" particles which otherwise would rapidly cause them to lose energy.

 Another way of deriving the idea that the collapse of the wave function is faster than light (which much concerned Einstein) is about light as it travels at the speed of light. The following edge of the quantum of light has to connect to the leading edge or it would fizzle out, evidence that something inside of the light holds it together (what powers the collapse of the wave function) at faster than light.

 It might seem that the problem with the atmosphere around the train or the high speed starship is even if we can use it to describe the Lorentz contraction this might seem much like the idea that no information can make it through so even if there are the superluminal effects around the light this will never match up to relativity. 

 Einstein believed that the speed of light was not a barrier but more like a sheet that wasn't necessarily absolute relativity. 

 It would seem improbable that if the waves are making the lines of the electromatic fields coherent  that no information makes it through for faster than light communication. Just as I believe that inertia and gravity are loosely connected Einstein might not have ruled out the looser connection like with spooky action and some of the information might make it through by Einstein's other idea that we might be able to get around the collapse of the wave function with the low energy quanta or some other method as I discuss. 

 I believe if we could find something like this we might be able to change the quantum without collapsing it so much and send information between the entangled quanta without the randomness of the collapse of the wave function being a limit.

Einstein got lots of publicity about both special and general relativity, and his other science contributions are beyond doubt. Anyone who comes up with any kind of criticism for general relativity may be criticized by those who promote a sort of  science dogma.

  But this may be more from the publishing industry and not from science by what's left of big publishing after the internet. This seems to have been because Einstein began relativity at a time when events like publishing and audio technology made it so anyone might make a few records and earn lots of money fast.

 The publishing industry may have been so wild about Einstein they forgot to look for more truth like this about the elevators and atomic clocks in general relativity.

 While Einstein didn't believe that relativity had anything to do with like modern art like Picasso when they ask him about it to me General relativity seems like a sort of modern art type of physics at least as far as how he made his predictions from the opposite truth about different masses falling the same rate get the predictions are at a different rate.

 

I hold that it's possible that what LIGO has found is the speed of inertia because inertia radiates out and gravity radiates in as I say on pages like this..

Click here for what I consider to be my most up-to-date general page about Gravity relativity and the speed of light..

Here I want to add the results of a recent experiment..According to this site and also New Scientist (this link is also below)

..Light has been seen leaving an atom cloud before it enters..

It's believed this is not faster than light because no information gets through from one side of the light to the other. But if we hold that the matter wave on the outside of the light is connecting up the light by its coherence then we would say that this is evidence of faster than light. My definition of information which Einstein neglected to define, is a change in one place corresponding to another change in another place with the exchange of energy between both that connects them up.

 The information between the light going in the cloud and leaving it will send its information through to the light if we assume that quanta are not necessary like the light because this is assuming what we're trying to prove that the speed of light is the top limit because the light is a quanta as Einstein held where it's not being influenced by waves externally between emission and absorption.

While Einstein had some good evidence to base his idea as far as it went (and special relativity is a great event) if we don't assume what we're trying to prove and we realize that some of the information makes it through at faster than light light like with the collapse of the wave function, then we may be able to take the small amount of interaction with the quanta and use it to send information  faster than light.. the EPR is not a strong effect and that's why it took so long to prove it was real.

  The low energy connection is why it's not directly obvious that perhaps we could send some of the information about the waves from the light entering the atom cloud to the light leaving it.

The information is indeed on the outside of the light quanta in the experiment with the atomic cloud. I would hold that in order for to make any change at all in the light at faster than light it must be faster than light and by manipulating the small changes the waves have on the light we may be able to send information from the light to the waves and then back to the light at faster than light for communications or etc. Just assuming that only the quanta exist for relativity doesn't prove that there aren't all kinds of continuous events around us.

 On the following page link they'll say that this is all solved by a reversal of time so that the faster than light problem isn't involved with the light. 

But there's no evidence that time reverses for light much externally.. Why would it reverse here? An airplane can go faster than sound but it's not going backwards through time. 

 As I say elsewhere the idea that faster than light will be about time reversal seems not much probable to me and instead like the railroad towns before they had trains, right what's a railroad town about! They had their own time zone for each town but once the connection was made faster than the speed of trains with the telegraph all the time zones were unified. So I believe just reversing time for the light in the atomic cloud is not as probable as just saying that the matter waves between the light are simply going faster than light.

 The wave between the light is a wave and this is the opposite of relativity with Einstein's idea about the quanta only of light but when we see the collapse of the wave function, time isn't reversed there, so  waves and most other things except for particles spinning a close range as Feynman believed for time reversal only are reversible in time because they're like particles are going to spin up or down like small clocks in reverse.

 Mostly I would hold that both waves and particles are going forward in time as we find  around us. 

Here again is the link to the page about the light leaving the atomic cloud before it enters..if you like Click Here

And the link to my own page as I promised above

CLICK HERE Thanks For Reading!