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"..

Jets, Superfusion, and Energy Conservation 

 As I say on my other posts, black holes may not have a singularity where all the mass disappears because it would violate energy conservation. Energy conservation seems more fundamental than even Relativity because e.g. while relativity has small influence on our common physics around us, and there are insufficient causes, energy conservation is found on all scales and energy levels. To me Relativity is based on Noether's theorem, action reaction pairs of what changes and what stays the same, and energy conservation IS Noether's theorem.

 If inside the supermassive body, the spins of the superheavy quanta are spinning faster than light, only then do they have enough centrifugal force to power the jets. I call the force of these heavy quanta Superfusion and they may be more powerful than Relativity.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

  We don't find the superfusion quanta around us because to exist they need more pressure inside a mass like a black hole because when you look at constituent systems going from molecules to atoms to nuclei to the heavy quanta, there's a greater and greater binding energy to rest mass ratio so they need more and more binding energy, and beyond the level of the strong force, the superfusion quanta would tend to fizzle out by their own centrifugal force. 

 Due to the spin and the lower binding energy relative to it, the superfusion quanta are only stable inside the pressure of the center of the black hole. So all around us only the light and heavier quanta are common but not the superfusion quanta because there's not enough energy to hold them together outside of the high density by the squeezing of the gravitational field of what had been thought of by Einstein as otherwise to be infinite.


 

People have wondered why the jets radiate out as they do and this is pretty simple to explain by superfusion because the heavy superfusion quanta are so unstable. They're being continually created by the gravity of the black hole at the area where there would have been the singularity and because the binding energy tends to be lower and the center field gradient isn't perfectly spherical because of the spin..the force is released more on one side where the poles are than around the rest of the "singularity". 

 So in this scenario the low binding energy combined with the superfusion force causes the center of the jet to move up from the center of mass and this also makes the inner superfusion quanta follow the rest moving outward as they have already made the jet more asymmetrical and also because of the low binding energy of the superfusion. 

 They may become more unstable and fizzle out more but with super strong centrifugal force caused by the faster than light motion of the superfusion quanta to power the jets.

  This seems impossible by relativity because if nothing can move faster than light then no force can be transmitted out from what would have been the singularity to the jets outside. There is otherwise no known force including fusion strong enough to power the jets, and gravity doesn't radiate out like the jets.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

In the Wikipedia article about the jets, two models of how the jets are powered are about how the black hole might transmit force by the accretion disc causing magnetic lines to spin outward and up to power the jets "from the outside"..another theory is about how frame dragging from General Relativity might power the jets by rotation, extracting spin out;

Jets may also be observed from spinning neutron stars. An example is pulsar IGR J11014-6103, which has the largest jet so far observed in the Milky Way, and whose velocity is estimated at 80% the speed of light (0.8c). X-ray observations have been obtained, but there is no detected radio signature or accretion disk.^[19][20] Initially, this pulsar was presumed to be rapidly spinning, but later measurements indicate the spin rate is only 15.9 Hz.^[21][22] Such a slow spin rate and lack of accretion material suggest the jet is neither rotation nor accretion powered, though it appears aligned with the pulsar rotation axis and perpendicular to the pulsar's true motion.

 If the jet is powered "from.the inside" this could be explained. In engineering momentum transfer from a solid mass or used to make small mechanucal levers for storing data can send far more force per unit time. So if the jets are powered more by momentum transfer from the inside in addition to explaining pulsar IGR J11014-6103 and be the cause of most other jets this could allow this type of much huger more powerful events.

The observation of some bodies with high energy jets without a disc would also be explained by the source of the jets' mass being either from the disc but also from the massive gravitational field, lower energy outside yet high enough inside to convert to superfusion and as they evolve the massive bodies would increase and decrease in mass according to energy conservation by measure of the energy in and out with different ratios because of spin which changes the jet dynamics as well as the in falling mass and gravitational energy.

  A spherical black hole with no disc and a given amount of spin with given mass will behave differently with changes in the jet, which may be predictable as a function of these events or for other jets of other massive bodies as more mass falls in.. By Einstein there is no mass of the field, by relativity it's empty. (Einstein said that if the low energy field is found, relativity is disproven.)

  So this idea would explain how the jets work and why we don't see superfusion quanta all around us and why these events are not disproof of energy conservation, one of the most well-founded ideas in science.

Susskind and others have promoted the idea that a singularity at the center of a black hole is a "robust result of general relativity". But I would say that matter and energy disappearing forever with no cause of the jets or the anomalous spectra of the events outside these systems is hardly a "robust result" of energy conservation or general relativity!

Others have said "Calling ideas like Susskind's or Hawking's related idea that Energy is destroyed at the singularity "science" is not doing science a favor."

Susskind's idea violates energy conservation and Hawking and Susskind totally ignored the jets, evidence the mass from "the singularity" doesn't disappear at all.

While my idea is an hypothesis so far, it does explain why the jets exist, and also makes some definite predictions about the jets and the dynamics.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

We would expect if the spins of the superfusion quanta are faster as by shearing the electromagnetic fields of the more common quanta that we see around us, they're going to show unusual spectra and other events like these as they transition outward and interact with the lower energy decay products not seen in the standard model and with other events like this. And this has been found by observations.

By the Search "Evidence In Cosmic Jets Against the Standard Model of Physics in the Quant Browser;

"Evidence in Cosmic Jets Against the Standard Model of Physics

Recent observations of cosmic jets, particularly from the body SS 433, have provided intriguing evidence that challenges certain aspects of the Standard Model of physics. Here are some key points:

High-Energy Gamma Rays: The H.E.S.S. observatory detected very high-energy gamma rays from the jets of SS 433, indicating highly efficient particle acceleration. This challenges the Standard Model's predictions about particle acceleration mechanisms in astrophysical jets.

Energy-Dependent Morphology: The H.E.S.S. collaboration observed a shift in the position of gamma-ray emission within the jets when viewed at different energies. This energy-dependent morphology is a first-ever observation and suggests that the Standard Model may not fully account for the complex dynamics within cosmic jets.

Particle Acceleration: The detection of gamma rays implies that particles are being accelerated to extreme energies within the jets. The Standard Model does not provide a complete explanation for how or where this particle acceleration occurs in astrophysical jets.

Shock Acceleration: The scientists simulated the observed energy dependence of the gamma-ray emission and concluded that a strong shock—a sharp transition in the properties of the medium—is likely accelerating the particles. This shock acceleration mechanism is not fully explained by the Standard Model.

Inverse Compton Effect: The high-energy gamma rays are produced when fast particles collide with light particles (photons), transferring part of their energy. This process, known as the inverse Compton effect, is well-known but the specific conditions and mechanisms in cosmic jets that lead to such efficient particle acceleration are not fully understood within the framework of the Standard Model.

These observations from SS 433 and other cosmic jets suggest that there may be physics beyond the Standard Model that needs to be explored to fully understand the dynamics and particle acceleration mechanisms in these extreme astrophysical environments.

Also CLICK HERE for more

.

Note that in this link, the jet is collumnated beyond the level of the Standard Model or speed of light connection. But if a major component of gravity is Faster Than Light (not the speed of inertia as in LIGO which is much higher energy like centrifugal force, relativity etc. at the speed of light) this is not impossible. This acceleration outward induced more by superfusion than gravity which would follow it might also be the cause of cosmic acceleration by higher energy versions of superfusion at the center if the cosmos as we know it now and we might learn about each from both.

  Inside the jet by the field gradient of superfusion moving outward, the gravitational component might first be resonating and in a higher rate of acceleration as a considerable number of the superfusion quanta also move outside the source of the jet with more and more acceleration as the binding energy is released.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

Looking at how the accretion disc falls into the event horizon, we might say that there's more mass there than there is at the poles, so it's also got more centrifugal force by superfusion. So why wouldn't those heavy quantum radiate out at the event horizon instead of the poles?

  I find it highly improbable to assume that magnetic fields created by the accretion disc or by frame dragging will be enough to cause the accretion disc to send that matter and energy around the event horizon up to the poles and then it radiates out without falling into the event horizon.  With the Earth even while there's more matter around the equator, the poles actually have stronger gravity and so we would say if that matter somehow went around the accretion disc and around outside the event horizon up to the pole and then starts to radiate out, improbable as this may seem, there's no reason with stronger gravity at the poles it wouldn't fall in there. 

 We say that there's a geometry of the disc as it goes around and the matter falls in and as with the sun, perhaps at one wavelength mass and energy  gravitates in and another wavelength that would radiate out the heat, and so too I think of the accretion disc and falling into the singularity as a measure of a one-way valve for gravity to flow in, but the poles are a one-way valve for superfusion to flow out. This is because the disc is a circle and it rotates best around it just as in the solar system all the planets are by the ecliptic because there's both more centrifugal and centripetal force. But even for planets like the Earth, the magnetic and geologic poles are at much the same point.

 So while the gravity is super strong to bring in the matter from the accretion disc at the poles, the superfusion is even stronger than that. Much like saying that the matter falling into the sun is great, but the heating outward is greater yet. Mostly mass has the accretion disc around it because it's a circle, orbiting around the pole and less stable so soon it gravitates around the event horizon at any rate.

If the singularity is a more complex physical event than by general relativity and a signal like from the jets can reach the outside, I think it's possible that there may be even eclipses of black holes with changes in orbit not predicted by relativity, like with binary systems perhaps with a pulsar and a black hole and another massive body in orbit.

On this Wikipedia page about the cosmic Jets and superluminal motion, earlier researchers had found that almost all of them are many times the speed of light. However, other physicists made the claim that because you're looking at the Jets linearly towards you, this is just more like sort of an optical illusion like looking at a shadow moving across a curved surface that seems to be faster than light. 

 While the linear radiation idea seemed to explain the apparent motion at first there was the embarrassment found that the jets were also with too large an angle for this apparent motion to be the explanation. I believe that if superfusion powers the jets we would indeed expect to find superluminal velocities for the jets.

While special relativity tells us that we can't add our own motion to the speed of light, this is itself based on the assumption that there is no motion possible faster than light. The embarrassment about the speed being more than had been believed by relativity may be the solution.

 In addition to jets from high energy sources without a disc seen, astronomers have also observed super massive bodies with no jets, and this may also be caused by stable mass inside the black hole..As I say on my next link, the center of density may be state of matter with superfusion quanta at the center and outside perhaps even protons and other heavy quanta with enough shielding to stop the jets activity. If so this is a complex event, and so it's possible Einstein's idea that gravity and the singularity are simple and are also not about energy conservation aren't as general as he believed.

 CLICK HERE for my page "Mass and Energy" if you like for more about this..Thanks..

 

A Mechanism for Inertia or Gravity by Way of Low Energy Light..

 Inertia may be related to the idea of low energy photons.

Theorists such as Bernard Haisch who's an astrophysicist at Lockheed Martin in Palo Alto CA and others have proposed that inertia and gravity are both caused by interactions of the common heavy quanta around us with low energy photons.

The idea is simple..

The heavy and a light mass accelerated with the same force move at different speeds because the heavy mass has more surface to interact with low energy photons.

This would also be the cause of the Lorentz contraction by way of pressure from the photons.

   

  Haisch believes that in uniform motion the low energy photons are the same in all directions around you.. however with acceleration they then start to exert the force of inertia..

 If this is true I would ask why the photons exert force only on the mass in acceleration and not in uniform motion as we might expect..

If the particles are bouncing off of the heavier mass, it might seem reasonable to say that they would radiate back out and cause things like mass induction or friction.

  Another question I'll discuss here is about why the planets would seem to plow through this low energy field and yet show little change of the force exerted by the low energy photons.

  In my earlier work I considered that it was possible that light could have the huge snapback by way of the resilient medium Maxwell used with the experiments proving the exact speed of light by way of the degree of the snapback. More particularly I invoked the idea of waves at long distance but at close radius the light has the snapback.. otherwise friction is a major problem with this idea, even while Maxwell, Newton, Feynman, La Sage and others considered particles as a potential method of explaining inertia and gravity by this simple mechanical method.

About LIGO and the gravity waves

In relativity Einstein said that light is a quanta unchanged from emission to absorption and so the speed of light is constant. This isn't consistent with other evidence about the wave particle duality another idea Einstein devised, or the world "devised it without inventors like Einstein.. " And he improved it a lot..

 Let's say the constant speed of light is about the completeness of relativity. Uniform motion is not an acceleration and so we might expect that what LIGO has found are not gravity waves but they would have to be quanta like the photons of light and relativity.. but gravity is an acceleration and not uniform motion.

 Also remembering that light is a quanta that's emitted like from masses and indeed electromagnetic masses are accelerating all the time, this would seem to be impossible if whatever can be emitted and absorbed are always quanta..

 This would completely set aside the existence of waves in any form. And waves like gravity hold everything together. The quanta like electric charges would explode of their own charge if there wasn't something else holding them together and the radiantly outward motion of the quanta have sides so they don't attract. So the waves are highly important, while by special relativity and the constant speed of light being the top speed, I would say the idea that there are these waves flowing between the classical electromagnetic field lines would mean that they would have to be flowing faster than light if they're lighter than light by Maxwell's method to make the lines from bunching up or breaking, you lighten up to travel faster.

 In other words relativity needs the quanta like for gravity so they don't change speed as they move or other accelerative forces but these forces don't fit relativity.

The matter waves, the basis of one of the most established physics events we know of with quantum electrodynamics.. are able to allow things like the collapse of the wave function or that the electron has three spin angles at one time overlapping this would be because of the hugely faster change of phase.

 It's been held that you have two entangled photons and while you collapse one wave function it might seem that there's a faster than light connection except that you have to go slower than the speed of light to the other event to see what the results of the measurement were.. I hold this may be be assuming what we're trying to prove because if you have a boat on the ocean and you send a light signal to a distant shore if there are no waves of light there and and if we assume we can never go faster than the waves of the ocean to reach the shore then we would say that the only way we could achieve this is by going to the distant shore and then measuring the signal from the light. But if we assume a simple phase change for the light itself and we connect things up to be more simultaneous than they would if the quanta were radiating out by being disconnected and not influenced as they travel this would hopefully be more general than relativity. So I believe that LIGO has found the speed of inertia and not gravity. Inertia and uniform motion fit relativity well but gravity is an acceleration. 

 Einstein talked about motion in a uniform gravitational field.. this is like taking a flat map and assuming we can completely ignore that the world is round. The Earth is flat at short distance and this can seem to fit the physics of uniform motion.

In older sci-fi when they would say when the travelers were going to the moon and turned off the motors of the ship the gravity would take over and all the small masses in the ship fall at different rates. Instead once the motors are cut off all the masses fall at the same rate and this is given as one of the proofs of relativity because there's no force acting on them. But it should be remembered that different of force is applied to each mass for it to move at constant rate. If there were no interaction between the masses and the field this would not be so and while we can ignore the acceleration on the field in uniform motion we can't also ignore the masses interaction with the field where work is done.

In relativity you have an airplane moving above the surface of the Earth and the weight is dropped inside the airplane and according to the observer on the ground the curve takes a really different path than the one in the airplane which goes regularly with the gravity of the Earth and Einstein claimed that either point of view is equally valid and it was all relative to the observer. But if the inertial frame was more valid of the airplane then it would be moving in a straight line and there would be no acceleration of the airplane around the Earth.

 Because a ball dropped in the airplane is also moving towards the center of the Earth where the field is narrower like radial slices of a pie, The observer on the ground is more privileged because the lines are more converging toward that observer.

 Others had asked why there's no 200 mph wind of the field flowing around the people in the airplane to slow them down.

 This could be because the low energy field is present to conserve energy but it's underneath the level of energy to make it over the quantum level. As the traveler in the rocket at high speed has no force in uniform motion, once the rocket engines are started the force of the resilience the medium is felt as it presses against the field to move the rocket forward. 

 Information about the field is stored not absent and it's important to keep in mind that it's the same as dark energy and dark matter which have been really difficult to find any kind of mechanical chemical or other influence than gravity on it.

 Einstein believed that at near the speed of light The observer would think there was nothing unusual about what was going on..

 But we would say there was something unusual about dark matter and dark energy and how it's been so difficult but not impossible to find perhaps.

 General Relativity says that gravity and inertia are essentially the same thing so that if inertia certainly has no source we can also say that gravity would have the same events.

 So gravity would seem to have the same isotropic field, yet if you take a pendulum and its oscillation will stop towards the center of the Earth, not in any direction..

 Another way of looking at this problem is about how if somehow the Earth was removed we might expect that the moon would go on orbiting around where the Earth was unchanged. A source involves a center unlike inertia about uniform motion in the direction of motion when a body moves without a source. Inertia is isotropic but gravity isn't.

 

On the link as I'll show you also at the end of my post, in a gravitational elevator the two observers falling at different velocities are not equivalent because one is redshifted and one is blueshifted while in the inertial elevator both are red shifted and this is reciprocal.

This is contrary to Einstein's belief that no experiment in either elevator can find any distinction between between gravity and inertia.

 You might wonder why this distinction doesn't show up with the Michaelson Morley experiment or other events with light.. my belief this is because as on the link the speed of light doesn't change much in the Earth's gravitational field even while the masses in the elevators have more influence. 

 This is another way to say that mass and energy are not completely equivalent because for example it's much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass and while mass energy are conserved they're not converted..

 We would expect them to be converted also if relativity was complete and what converts mass to energy is friction when relativity doesn't have as much value.

 One truth here is about the light which relativity describes well and this is about what we see by optics. Certainly looks can control a lot as fashion may have influence! Even so contact forces and friction are common in physics.

 If light carries itself and never fizzles out like sound because there's no medium there we could also say that since light doesn't fizzle out, essentially there are no contact forces or friction and nothing will ever wear out or run down by relativity.

 But events all around us are wearing out often and centrifugal force is not the same as gravity because centrifugal force only has one mass term in the equation while gravity has two. This would seem to be because gravity is one mass compared to another while inertia or centrifugal force is actually comparing itself mostly to the local field in its immediate vicinity and not another massive body as with gravity by the idea of the comparison of the spin of acceleration of the field to the constant field for inertia.

NEWTON'S EXPERIMENT

Newton used two spinning wheels..each has an inertial sensor we might call a weight, a small weight that measures the centrifugal motion of each wheel..

When the inner disc is attached to the outside spinning wheel, it shows the same force, and both of them show the outward motion of the weights..

But if you disconnect the wheels while the inside wheel is spinning and the outside wheel is at rest, only the inside wheel is showing the influence of the centrifugal force. And this would seem to be at short range like my idea about the snapback of light. The inner wheel when it's spinning might only be interacting with the constant field in its immediate vicinity.

 There is no mass induction here.. my solution to this problem is about how acceleration is not the same as linear motion.

  The constant field which might make up the resilient medium that Maxwell considered about predicting the speed of light, would be the Higgs' field.

  Another way of expressing the idea that acceleration is not the same exactly as uniform motion is about the recent discovery that pi shows non-patternacity about repetition of its decimals. For the repetition of a number like 1 the probability of repeating again with an extra round is 60% less..

  My belief is that this shows the  essence of the idea that acceleration is not the same as uniform motion..

  The anti-patternacity of pi might be because the constant field is like a lattice and as it interacts with a spinning mass it's not the same on the sides as the corners.. the corners are somewhat jagged and so when a number in pi tries to land here there is instability and this gives the result as seen. 

  This is not in any one base but in all the bases they find so mathematicians consider this to be evidence something about this is more fundamental than just the base.

  If the quanta bounce off a mass in accelerated motion it's been unsolved in this formulation of inertia about why they also don't just bounce off a mass in uniform motion, and slowing motion of the spin of the quanta by the Higgs particles. This would be because only during acceleration are both the round "wheel" and the constant field interacting.

  This, if relativity seems incomplete may be the solution to how inertia actually operates. The distinction between linear and angular motion which relativity really doesn't explain or make distinct would be how and why phenomena like the acceleration of a gyroscope has resistance and not while moving in uniform motion.

A gyroscope shows changes in the force only with changes in acceleration and not uniform motion and this is true if measurement of the angular motion's interaction with the constant field is the most significant event here.  

 This is one of the reasons I consider relativity to be incomplete because it's only about uniform motion, and my idea is about dynamics and not just about measure of motion without asking why things move, as I'll show you on the link at the end of the page..

 If gravity bends light then we say something must be bending it or if light is a wave something must be waving we would presume.

Waves seem to appear by Einstein's realization that there are waves and particles both but if the math is consistent the waves won't suddenly disappear for relativity.

 One of the supposed disproof of information traveling faster than light is that it was supposed to be going backwards in time, and with negative mass. Thousands of searches through particle events found no negative mass and this was presumed to have positive energy. But Mass itself is already negative compared to energy, and if angular motion that curves mass is not the same as the linear constant field and the field that holds the mass together is actually more a wave so the gravity of the sun moves inward in a real sense we can say that gravity is going backwards in time by attracting inward to squeeze out the heat of the radiation we receive with each new morning, in order for the gravity to out distance the radiance outward of the quanta of the light we receive. Only if it were faster than light as a wave could it overpower the particles radiating out at the speed of light to cause the gravity.

 Of course overall this is not going to violate energy conservation and the result with the quanta that it holds together is that they don't move faster than light, but the received knowledge of relativity seems too simple because the cause of the phase change between the low energy field lines to hold the masses together is also by way of not assuming what we're trying to prove that the particles are all that exist and there is no wave particle duality.

  As you move around the room and change your direction it's easy to feel the change of the field and yet we would ask why if you shake around a lot the room doesn't shake with you as much, at any rate not out West!

  Like the Feynman diagrams, in my belief, the low energy particles would only be a sort of potential energy. They don't show any influence until they reach the radius of action ROA which is a narrow radius of the quanta inside of which the waves are converted to particles where they have the large snapback as for the light.

  That the Feynman particles are fundamentally unlike the heavy quanta is expressed by the evidence that you can't bring the particles to zero radius or they would have infinite mass. It would seem the field will be doing this constantly but the infinite mass is not in evidence.

 A related event is about comparison of the round and the constant field. When you plug the equations for Gravity into quantum mechanics you get infinitys

In my belief this is why Einstein and Mach believed that all that counts is the relative motion between masses and not the field between. In order to cause the force like the snapback of light between the plus and minus charges Maxwell considered, the quanta may "anchor down" the waves between without more force of attraction until they reach the radius of action. The low energy waves don't have enough of their own cohesion so when you bring them to zero size they don't show the infinities as we might expect because the low energy field is a superfluid unlike the heavy quanta.

So perhaps the snapback is only inside of the ROA..

The force is exerted by these virtual photons.. You might ask why they don't just bounce off and show the effects like the motion of the planets through the field, used to supposedly disprove Maxwell's idea about the speed of light.

 These types of events are all related problems about friction and I think they all may have the same underlying solution.

My belief is that inertia is communicated in it's most fundamental essence at the ROA of events like light or of the heavier quanta.

  In essence the quanta or the light might pick up energy from the Higgs field, and borrow it for a while to cause the snapback and then radiate back out but only as a flat Higgs field also..(The internal mass of quanta like an electron has the snapback because of the evidence about deep in elastic scattering experiments and the enormous success of Renormalization one of the most numerically well proven ideas in physics.)

 In order to cause the force of the huge snapback nonetheless, my idea is that even while the dark matter is low density it's also at super high speed by my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's method I use. This is because you lighten up to travel faster. The in waves and the out waves as in this way as in renormalization cancel out almost completely.

  Dark matter and dark energy make up the main part of the energy of the cosmos so this is a possible way this large energy is all around us and yet we can't see or feel it. I agree with Tesla that the Earth may be absorbing large amounts of energy.. Tesla couldn't explain why we don't see it or feel it.

 The in and out waves even if they're huge are subtracted out by the math and the result even with the huge mass internally for the electron is that the external mass is actually quite small by subtracting out the two types of waves. 

It's been known that the Higgs' particles don't cause mass but rather the Higgs' field. But if the quanta are heavy then we ask, as with Maxwell's method where's the huge mass of density of the field?

We might ask where is the huge friction of moving through the Higgs field if it's so important, so here again using the Snapback inside the radius of action, that can then be used to cause the external connections like about the light with the plus and minus charge as Maxwell thought, might be a way to solve this if combined with the balancing of the in and out waves.

 This would solve the problems about friction of the Higgs field, Maxwell's prediction of the exact speed of light based on the snapback, dark matter and dark energy, and also problems about particles to cause gravity which have some advantages as I'll say on my most recent main physics post below. 

My Belief about the Speed of Gravity 

 Like Newton or Van Flandern I had believed that gravity had huge or or extremely high speed due to its low density by Maxwell's method, and because of events like the zero displacement of gravity which Van Flandern also notes.

 His calculation was that the speed of gravity was comparable to what I had believed. My predicted speed was 10 times 10 to the 37 times the speed of light because it's that much "lighter" in energy.

However I now consider that the low energy waves may go between the classic electromagnetic field lines. This is to stabilize both the lines and the gravity and so the true gravity waves would be an acceleration and so they have overlapping changes in both speed and wavelength to cause the acceleration of gravity. 

 This may allow the waves to not have nearly so much friction or flexing by the quanta on the sides of these field lines to speed them up due to the change of phase and so they may move at much higher speed, perhaps nearer to what Newton believed. (The acceleration is reversed in sign from the uniform motion of Relativity as I say so with lower density the speed increases not decreases as with Maxwell's method about the light.)

 The EPR is a low energy connection even so the idea that none of the information would make it through for something like the EPR or tunneling is not probable or we couldn't measure the connections. 

(While the classical electromagnetic field lines are obviously there to cause the lines of magnetic induction (seen with the evidence about events like with iron filings and ignored by proponents of relativity)..these lines themselves don't have friction problems because while they're higher energy than the Higgs' field, they would still be virtual and not high enough energy to cause friction..)

 If LIGO has found gravity instead of the radiant outward flow of inertia by the classical field lines I would ask why gravity itself doesn't radiate out. Otherwise we should be able to find heating and other events of this type in general or eventually by way of LIGO. 

 If gravity waves are at the speed of light by Einstein's idea they would actually be particles because they can't be influenced from emission to absorption in order to have constant speed. And certainly if they're particles they'll radiate out. This will have radiant heating or radiation pressure and this is not known for gravity.

 If gravity is an acceleration as I believe and it's got an overlapping change of both wavelength and frequency being the opposite of relativity's constant speed of light which only changes wavelength not speed, it will need something to keep it coherent over distance for the acceleration to take place.

  I believe that while the speed of gravity may be much higher than the inverse method of simply saying that it's that much lighter it would move that much faster, it's still going to be finite even if really high speed, and the degree to which it will be finite will also measure things like the displacement of gravity for which no change has been found yet.. 

 Also a slight tendency for mass induction might fit well with the idea of dark matter and dark energy of this type, by just these changes of friction which may not be a problem but an opportunity for improved physics which may be of value to our understanding of dark matter and dark energy.

  I think the cause of dark energy may be by separation of the low energy electromagnetic field lines over great distance even if the field is mostly inert. In this idea due to its reduced interaction with the low energy electromagnetic field lines, it actually adds more energy of its own as is thought about Dark Energy with cosmic acceleration.

This may be why astronomers have seen galaxies with thousands of times more mass than the stars that light them up.

 And once in awhile the dark energy waves may be converted to higher energy particles, because it's been believed that dark energy can create more energy out of itself and these would then exert the force of the cosmic acceleration.

    Two separate lines of theory and experiment seem to both show that dark matter and dark energy make up 4/5 of the mass of the universe.   

 If the Higgs' field if the same as dark matter or dark energy and also is involved with centrifugal and centripetal force might solve the problem about why it's been so difficult to find more evidence for these events. Neither inertia or gravity have shielding as with centrifugal force with metal plates.

 In essence by this explanation, the Higgs' field doesn't so much radiate in to cause the snapback of light or the quanta, this may be a field of high potential energy that the quanta then tap into to cause events like the speed of light exactly..

  The low energy Higgs' field is constant and so when you weigh it, it's dark matter so it's completely inert by most measures of influence.

  Feynman showed that if there were particles for gravity, the Earth would need to gain two Earth masses per second. Others considered how there would be friction problems and mass would have to have enormous permeability if the low energy particles cause gravity by way of the low energy photons.

You might say if you shake a mass there would seem to be scintillation of the quanta of the mass and this should be easy to find and so far this type of event hasn't been found. Even so as you move around the room there's direct evidence for the influence of the constant field.

  Or if you're going up the highway and the driver in the opposite lane moves past if they're both going around a hill and accelerating this kind of influence of the mass would seem to imply there might be a wave of that inertia and it would splash you from the other side.

 But if both masses are just picking up mass from the constant field with the snapback only at short radius and then reradiating it out as a constant field also, this might allow the snapback without the major friction problems, which many had noted for gravity.

  So this idea of the near zero entropy of the Higgs' field and how the field is nonetheless there but also that it has the large snapback inside the Radius Of Action, and how it radiates back out only as a constant field also might be an explanation for both how inertia and gravity have strong influence like centrifugal force yet without the problems of friction that particles might cause this would have otherwise.

  For example in General Wave Dynamics my formulation, the speed of light is constant because the light is comparing itself as it radiates out with the constant field and this comparison of the spin of the light with the field gives us our law of radiant energy.

 In a way this interaction of the flat field with the acceleration like of the light would be a measure of the quanta of inertia in a "roundabout" way.. it may also be about the geometry of the cosmos. 

 I would hold that all the fields need to compare themselves to other parts of the field in order for energy to be conserved.. Scientists have always believed since the 1600's it's inconceivable that there could be centrifugal without centripetal force.  

  Einsteins relativity says there's nothing there to be compared with and therefore a quanta for inertia, like what I call the Low Energy Higgs LEH you'll see on my link below, may be useful for energy conservation.. 

 I identify the Low Energy Higgs' with Einstein's hope to use a low energy particle to solve the uncertainty problem. For example recent so-called low energy quantum experiments seem to show that Einstein was partially correct about  Schrödinger's Cat.. 

 The LEH would be important to the mass snapback for the electromagnetic component of inertia because they would resonate in combination with the field like inside of the light quantum. Neither the LEH or the quanta would snap back by themselves because either the light or the LEH wouldn't have the snapback without being combined by resonance. Outside the heavy quanta the LEH are just potential Feynman particles, but actually waves. 

 So this might solve the problem of why in uniform motion the low energy photons don't slow down a massive body or the spin of quanta. There are no external particles much only the waves that add up to the Feynman probabilities. The snapback that causes inertia with acceleration is only internal to the ROA of the quanta. The waves both store and transfer information about the energy and the information about external field would only be stored not absent. 

 The huge density problem about how the snapback of light would cause the field to have enormously greater density than steel and yet bodies like planets move through them with no resistance seen might be solved by the flatness of the Higgs' field so the and the out waves cancel.

 Certainly I would say my idea would offer a good alternative than most other ideas about dark matter and dark energy at least till it was disproven because it would extend relativity and explain both gravity and centrifugal force. We might say "the huge density of the field" and yet dark matter and dark energy make up 4/5 of the mass of the cosmos.. they may be much nearer to us than people have believed.. 

As you see on my post link, if you like to read more, I think the LEH may also be integral to the EPR.

 Research with the possible influences of dark matter have put a limit on how much its input can jostle the quanta like electrons and yet find no results like Einstein asked if we knew what we were looking for what would we name it?

  In my writing here about this the Higgs waves are constant even if of high energy and they are able to change with the motion of the matter really fast and adapt to changes like the motions of the quanta so they seem real smooth like the complete continuity that Einstein claimed for space and time while the low energy field may be with other physics and not continuous at higher speed and over short time duration.

 Another question would be why with the large centrifugal force of the atoms, there's not a major amount of radiation outward of the heavy quanta like of the Earth when gravity only seems have influence that's lower energy compared to this. 

  Gravity wouldn't be like a complete loop because it's based on lower energy and is only attractive. 

 But for the quanta there are the orbital limits and I believe these are caused by the loops of electromagnetism which are closed loops unlike the gravity or the radiation of the light which are of more unlimited range.

 And by this the quantum orbitals limit most of the radiation from making it in or outside of the quantum realm. It's it's well known that the electron orbital in the atom has no centrifugal force. Inside the quanta the field that makes it up is comparing itself more to itself and this is how faster than light motion could take place inside the quanta to give the field tension externally (Newton believed that mass has tension) by way of not comparing itself as much with the outside field. I consider the absence of centrifugal force for the electron in the atom itself is evidence of the cause of inertia about interaction or reduced interaction with the external field. Gravity goes around the quanta on the outside of the atom and connects with other atoms while inertia here would otherwise connect from the inside to the outside.

  As I say on my main post on the link below a change of phase will be necessary and at least partial disconnection by way of what I call Line Removal (so gravity doesn't go inside the quanta with huge gravity or shielding or quantum numbers for gravity). Any superluminal motion mostly may be by this change of phase even with a loose connection through the hierarchy of conservation laws. 

 Gravity energizes and connects up to electromagnetism and then electromagnetism to the Strong Force and then to the Weak Force, so they're all connected by energy conservation. Each higher up force is only loosely connected to the one of lower energy below it like gravity, and this allows the extra conservation laws for each force that the other force doesn't have, so each level of the hierarchy laws is considerably disconnected from the higher energy force it also connected enough to convey the tension of the separation and allowing with it a method of conserving energy.

  This loose connection would allow violation of relativity like for the fractional charges of qcd by decoupling from the electromagnetic quanta and lightening up here also to travel faster.

  One of the main advantages of both this loose connection and the faster than light spin of the hadrons inside could be that they generate extra tension that relativity with the quanta always spinning at the speed of light would not allow and this causes the tension on the field that Newton believed mass has, and this tension then is transmitted to the light for the large snapback and this might be the mechanism for the tension to be maintained on the field, essentially sort of against energy conservation or against relativity at any rate.

 It doesn't violate energy conservation as a given because whatever the cause of rest mass it is indeed conserved but relativity gives us no cause of rest mass like the faster than light spin which might allow the heavy particles more mass than the quantized speed of spin of light or electrons. 

 In my belief mass is spinning energy and only if the heavy quanta are spinning faster than light can we explain their mass, something relativity can't do.

  Nigel Calder in his book, Einstein's Universe holds that gravity works by laying down tracks like for the moon around the Earth. This brings to mind the idea that there is a track all the way around the Earth for the moon but unlike the quantum loop, there's no evidence causing it to continue all the way around or there would be major changes in the orbits of bodys.

 One idea about special relativity is that the Lorentz contraction only takes place in the line of motion.. this might be because of the displacement of the constant field whether it's of displacement of the Higgs' or other fields into a sort of tube that doesn't interact as much with the sides because it's polarized like Newton discovered about light. The faster the body moves in orbit the more linear it's path by this displacement against the gravity.

 This is essentially my description of why the x and y coordinates of the ballistic arc are completely independent.. the low energy field shows displacement which means the light is coming in with a more linear path towards that body in motion and this is important to inertia.

 This will be why in special relativity the Lorentz contraction is only along the x-axis of motion, and relativity would probably seem to hold that if no field is present the Lorentz contraction would seem to be like the compression down of gravity and inertia on a planet and so as you press down on the poles there would seem to be expansion out as of any body with pressure added to to it at right angles and this is not found.. but if the tube of force of this type has sides caused by the displacement of the field is present this would not be much probable if there was no field present as is claimed by Einstein about relativity.

 Inertia and gravity would not be equivalent and so the gravity passes right through the tube at another energy with no resistance much. Here again though, the field is measuring the linear motion relative to the angular momentum in a definite way. 

 The external waves of the Higgs' dark matter field would radiate out as much energy as the gravity or inertia would involve but because of the loop of the quanta they don't radiate out more radiation as they would if they were nonquantum like the moon or the Earth..

 This might be because here again gravity is not the same as the quantum of light Einstein promoted so much for relativity. The quanta would have these orbitals that keep it from radiating out a lot of energy but gravity and inertia would still be radiating in and out and so the waves of the constant field about the Higgs are on the outside, because they're long range forces.

 

CLICK HERE for a site about how scientists are trying to find dark matter and how there's a limit by how much it would jostle different types of mass. 

 Even so as I say above they're assuming that dark matter is a particle which Maxwell thought of as only a wave because you can weigh a gas but there are no particles if it has no weight. 

 So perhaps the assumption of so many searches for dark matter are based on incomplete consideration of the evidence..

 And perhaps older science like Maxwell's idea which still has the major general evidence for it about the snapback of the light being exactly according to the speed.. contrary to what relativity tells us about light being a quanta and some who assume that all the science is by way of relativity. Maxwell predicted the speed of light exactly based on the resilience of the force between the waves of plus and minus charges. 

 To me this is about how we might improve relativity. And above all else Einstein assumed that the speed of light is the top speed the events all fit inside.

 The essence of Relativity is the Lorentz contraction it's the foundation of "all" a LOT of modern physics, and the closely associated constant speed of light..

 Yet relativity gives us no explanation for rest mass, the Lorentz  contraction, the speed of light or problems like the heating by gravitational radiation of the quanta.

 But if we allow perhaps a phase change of the light with the possibility of dark matter being a superluminal superfluid that only takes place on the outside of the quanta so you don't have problems like gravity becoming super strong inside the quanta or shielding or having quantum numbers, there's no need to assume that dark matter is a quanta. This is because the wave method of light is already well established and may be more about dark matter and dark energy.

 It's been said we can fit the waves into the quanta so that they drag them along presumably as in the Bohmian method and so relativity is saved from all the 40 or so wave experiments of classical physics that otherwise seem to be an embarrassment to relativity.

The waves have risen and fallen more than once in the history of science, and they may have use for other physics than relativity, but then so do acoustics and hydraulics.

  By Relativity, light being a quanta is uninfluenced from emission to absorption so the speed of light is constant. Light "carries itself"..yet one of Einstein's famous quotes is that it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can emit and absorb a wave.. so eventually the waves may be in for a revival.

  Below is one of my favorite links for you to what I consider to be one of my best pages about science.. my ideas have been an ongoing event of about 40 years of improvement and like Einstein says he often went through lots of false leads before he found what he hoped were his best solutions.. I've thought about physics a lot so I consider these to be hopeful improvements.

  I thought LIGO initially would measure the higher speed of gravity like Van Flandern believed and I certainly believe that gravity may be much much faster than light..Just one experiment like this is not necessarily a guarantee of the most sound science.. Most futurists are inefficient but eventually they often find solutions!

 The evidence is that LIGO has found events about something associated with gravity that travels at the speed of light. By definition this seems not to be gravity, because it would have problems like gravitational radiation pressure and heating or friction if gravity is quantum in nature like this and a quanta at constant speed, because gravity is an acceleration not uniform motion as in relativity..

 Click Here For More!

Here's a link to my other post about how the inertial and gravitational elevators are not equivalent as Einstein believed..

 

.

  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!