# Unified Field, Special Relativity

*From*: bkh99 <btb1@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT)

The following discussion can be viewed with the graphics files intact

at the following index page

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/index.html

A Discussion of Special Relativity

Renormalizing

For decades the field of Quantum Physics has been choking on

Einstein. The problems have increased in the last decade as certain

experiments have produced results that violate fundamental postulates

of Special Relativity ("nothing can travel faster than the speed of

light", this speed of light being some kind of magic number).

Even so, scientists will be found turning back to Einstein again

and again, and some might conclude that our scientists resemble

dogmatic priests worshiping at the temple of Einstein. The problem is

a little more complex than such a simple explanation would suggest. As

I have discovered, it is not easy to quarrel with Albert Einstein.

Anyone, such as myself, who has this ambition of quarreling with

Einstein and winning the argument discovers that arguing with Einstein

requires one to violate the dictates of ‘simple common sense'.

Einstein is so very persuasive because the arguments of Albert

Einstein, even the weirdest sounding ideas, rely upon an appeal to

simple common sense.

So then, to quarrel with Einstein is to show a lack of simple

common sense. There are exceptions to this rule, for there are

occasions when Einstein displays a lack of simple common sense (it

would appear this happens because of ‘theoretical bias') and so in

these cases to quarrel with Einstein is to appeal to simple common

sense. A third factor we need to keep in mind is that Einstein's

version of Relativity Theory represents a synthesis of 19th century

science, and therefore is based upon an interpretation of the evidence

available at that time. This is the 21st century, and evidence is

available today that was not available to Einstein.

Simple Common Sense

Is ‘common sense' sensible?

Let's consider the example of a glow in the dark toy. It emits

‘greenish' photons. Now what happens is that a electromagnetic

radiation with a certain energy strikes rods and cones inside your

eyeball which then sends a signal to neurons in your brain, and the

result is that you see ‘green'. ‘Green' is an interpretation of

certain energy state, and the photons themselves do not possess any

property of being ‘green'. Therefore we know that a glow in the dark

toy is not ‘green' even though ‘simple common sense' might tell us

that it is quite obvious that this was a green toy. All you had to do

was take one look at it and you could tell right there that it was

green and anyone who tried to suggest that the glow in the dark toy

was not really green was therefore guilty of displaying a lack of

simple common sense.

Locality

"All of science is nothing more than the refinement of

everyday thinking." Einstein, "Physics and Reality" (1936)

‘Quantum entanglement' was a phenomenon Einstein attempted to

ridicule by referring to it as ‘spooky action at a distance'.

That which we conceive as existing ('actual') should somehow

be localized in time and space. That is, the real in one part of

space, A, should (in theory) somehow ‘exist' independently of that

which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical

system stretches over the parts of space A and B, then what is present

in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present

in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend upon the

type of measurement carried out in the part of space, A; it should

also be independent of whether or not, after all, a measurement is

made in A.

If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the

quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the

physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then

one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden

change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at

that suggestion. However, if one renounces the assumption that what is

present in different parts of space has an independent, real

existence, then I do not at all see what physics is supposed to

describe.

Commentary sent by Einstein to Born in 1948

Newton's universe was Einstein's universe which was the universe

of the 19th century. Einstein's quarrel can be interpreted as a

vigorous defense of Newton's universe, which is a universe composed of

‘homogenous space', which is to say that there is no ‘relativity of

momentum' in Einstein's universe and neither is their any ‘relativity

of distance'. All this is just simple common sense. For this reason

one of the fundamental premises of Einstein's relativity is that we do

not need to assign a velocity vector to electromagnetism, which is to

say that the speed of light is constant, and direction is irrelevant,

which is to say that space is ‘homogenous', another fundamental

premise of Einstein's relativity theory. Therefore ‘conserved

momentum' is a fixed constant. This universe remains Newton's

universe, with the exception that in Einstein's universe there is

‘spacetime' and ‘time' is relative, for it is only required that we

make this ‘time' relative if we are to introduce relativity theory

while at the same time remaining in Newton's universe, as simple

common sense requires.BR>

Remember, we are just refining ordinary simple common sense, which

is Einstein's definition of the scientific process.

Special Relativity

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/graphics/simultaneous.gif

Let us now define two events as being ‘simultaneous', in that they

both are said to occur ‘at the same time'. This will require us to

synchronize two clocks. Assume that a beam of light is sent to clock

‘b' from the position of clock ‘a' and then back again. The time is

takes for the beam of light to travel from clock ‘a' to clock ‘b' (Tb-

Ta) must be equivalent to the time it takes for the beam of light to

travel back again from Tb to Ta (Ta-Tb). Let's assume that it was

‘time 10' at Ta and the beam arrived at position b at time Tb which

was ‘time 15'. Tb-Ta (15 - 10) would give the result that the elapsed

time was 5. It therefore follows that if we reflect the beam of light

back to position a it would arrive at ‘time 20' giving the result Ta-

Tb (20 - 15) with the result again being a time of ‘5'. In this way we

have assured ourselves that our two clocks are synchronized and we can

now make precise determinations as to whether or not two events which

occur at position a or position b are ‘simultaneous', for if both

observers agree that an event happened at exactly ‘time 124' then that

means that both events must have happened ‘at the same time'. We know

this because we checked the clocks to make sure.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/graphics/dtspdl.gif

Next we will consider the distance between our two clocks. For the

sake of simplicity, we will assume that the distance is ‘one half

light year'. At time ‘tA' (January 1st, 2005) we send a light beam

towards the location of our second synchronized clock at position B,

and then the light beam is bounced back, arriving back at position A

at time t'A (January 1st, 2006). Now our distance (AB) is one half

light year so the total path (2AB) is one lightyear, and the time of

travel (t'A - tA) was one year, and so therefore we can calculate the

value of the speed of light (c), and we confirm that the speed of

light is one lightyear per year. We have checked the adjustment of our

clock, and confirmed that our clocks are synchronized (using the

method of employing a beam of light) and we have also checked our

distance and confirmed the distance by employing the same method.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/graphics/2rods1.gif

Now that we have confirmed that we can successfully conduct an

experiment to measure the distance between two points using

synchronized clocks and beams of light, we can move on to consider the

question of measuring moving bodies. We could confirm that our moving

measuring rod is the expected size by including a reference measuring

rod (blue). As an alternative we could place two synchronized clocks

(double checked in the stationary reference frame using the method

described above) on opposite ends of the measuring rod, and then we

could send out a beam of light to catch up with that measuring rod so

as to measure the rod between points A and B using the same method we

employed in the stationary system described above (here the beam of

light substitutes for the blue reference measuring rod).

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/graphics/2rods2.gif

Now let's define a speed or a velocity. If you traveled 60 miles

in the time interval of one hour, your speed would be ‘sixty miles per

hour' (a scalar...if you include a direction such as ‘north', then

your velocity would be sixty miles per hour north, a vector).

We set our measuring rod into motion, and then send out our beam

of light to measure the rod from point A to point B. Now if we wish to

calculate the time interval we must take into consideration the fact

that the rod is now moving away from the approaching beam of light

with a certain ‘speed' or ‘velocity' (v) such that c - v. Similarly,

when we are bouncing the beam of light back towards A, point A will be

in motion moving towards the approaching beam of light, such that the

effect becomes the opposite as previous, and is now c + v.

It then becomes quite obvious that the two observers with the two

previously synchronized clocks who are given the task of measuring a

previously verified measuring rod, will, once the rod is in motion,

arrive at two different lengths when measuring the moving rod, a

result that does not occur when measuring within the stationary

system.

For those who might be wondering where the idea of ‘relativity of

time' ever came from in the first place, the answer is that it emerges

from such a simple ordinary observation as the one just described,

which then becomes the foundation stone for the theory of Special

Relativity, which then is further elaborated in the theory of General

Relativity (so as to include multiple moving frames, thus generalizing

the basic principles).

If you are wondering why such a result is significant, you must

remember that physics is a branch of the sciences, and if it turns out

that you can never be certain that two events are ‘simultaneous' or

you can never even be certain about ‘what time' some event allegedly

occurred then you have a serious problem in the field of physics. You

see, if you were to ask two observers to report back to you on ‘what

time it was' when the event happened, and then you asked them to

compare that time to the expected time (as defined in the stationary

system) they would be shocked to find that their clock was out of

alignment. They would also report an incorrect expected time at the

second location, such that the event would no longer be synchronized

with their clock and therefore an event expected to be simultaneous

would occur at a different time than the one expected.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/graphics/comprod.gif

Now you might be thinking that this is ‘making a mountain out of

some molehill'. After all, we can compensate. We are human beings. We

know this is going to happen so we will adapt. However, there is

problem with ‘adapting'. The speed of light is changing. To make it

clear we will imagine that the rod is one light year in length. We

will also assign the rod a speed of 10,000 km per second. We will

round the speed of light off at 300,000 kilometers per second. When

the measuring beam of light is moving with the rod, we obtain an

apparent measurement of the rod of an extra 315 billion kilometers and

the measurement time takes an additional 12 days (377 days) for an

apparent speed of light of 290,000 kilometers per second. When we

measure the rod in the opposite direction to travel (such that the

beam of light will arrive at point A earlier than expected due to the

motion of the rod) we arrive at a calculation of the length of the rod

that is shorter by 315 billion kilometers, and the measuring operation

takes about 12 days less time (353 days) and the result is apparent

speed of light of 310,000 kilometers per second. Which means that we

have just ‘communicated information' from point B back to point A

‘faster than the speed of light' (12 days faster in this simple

example).

And as we all know it is impossible for information to travel

faster than the speed of light. You might argue that the effect is

only ‘apparent' and that no information actually traveled faster than

the speed of light because the rod was moving, but as it turns out,

something was happening faster than the speed of light for the

information did arrive 12 days earlier than expected. This is a

problem.

Now let us discuss what will actually happen here, because it is

not what you would expect. What will happen here is that the beam of

light will arrive at any destination in the universe, no matter what

the reference frame is doing (whether it is stationary or in motion)

at exactly the speed of light. It will never arrive faster than the

speed of light or slower than the speed of light, but always arrives

precisely exactly at what you would expect from the speed of light.

Therefore the example given above is fictional. You might think that

would happen, but that is not what happens. Everything always turns

out perfect when it comes time to measure the speed of light. How

could such a bizarre and unexpected result be produced in this

universe?

You will immediately notice here, as Einstein noticed, that

something here is ‘relative' and therefore something here is not

behaving like a ‘fixed constant', and it is this concept of

‘relativity' (combined with the ‘light principle') that then forms the

foundation for Einstein's proposed resolution of this problem in the

field of physics. It also goes along way towards explaining why it is

so very, very difficult to quarrel with Einstein, for this a problem

that requires a solution, and Einstein provides a solution.

It would appear that ‘distance' is relative, but that idea is

nonsensical and a violation of simple common sense. Why would

‘distance' be relative to the direction of travel? It would appear

that ‘the speed of light is relative' as regards the direction in

which it travels, but every experiment conducted has always shown that

‘space is homogenous' and that the speed of light is always a fixed

invariant constant, and this proves to be true even in a moving frame

of reference. The only thing that remains that could become relative

would be the clock, and even though that is also a weird idea that

seems to defy common sense, since it would appear that we are going to

be violating common sense in some way or another, and since out of the

alternatives choosing relative time was the least offensive and the

most in accord with the accumulated scientific evidence of the 19th

century, time therefore would end up being the element declared to be

relative to velocity, while everything else remained a fixed constant.

The Speed of a Photon

If we are to keep Einstein's theoretical solution to this problem

intact, we must assign a zero rest mass to a photon. We must not allow

E=MC2 to be applied to that photon, for a photon cannot be allowed to

have mass. If you try this sometime by writing a computer program, you

will find that if a photon has mass your computer will crash, because

computers cannot divide by zero. We must also assign a fictional

momentum vector to a photon, lest a photon be found to have a velocity

vector. We must maintain these two postulates or more than just some

computer program is going to crash.

It was Albert Einstein who first proposed the so called ‘particle

wave duality' which then became one of the established scientific

‘facts' in the field of Quantum Physics in the twentieth century. As

everyone knows, due to the effects of ‘Quantum Weirdness' a beam of

light is both a particle and a wave at the same time, as weird as that

idea sounds. Now I am going to propose that Einstein displayed a lack

of simple common sense when he invented this idea, and that Einstein

was forced to propose ‘particle wave duality' for no other reason than

that of theoretical bias. You see if light was not both a particle and

a wave at the same time then relativity theory would collapse in

ruins, and everyone would have to start over right from the beginning

again, as they struggled in their attempt to figure out what was going

on in the universe.

We all know that if there is one result that both 19th century and

20th century physics have confirmed over and over and over again it is

that the speed of light is a fixed constant, and that it does not

vary, not even in a moving frame of reference. Imagine that you were

on a moving train, and that you fired a beam of light towards a

target. You might think that perhaps the beam of light might arrive a

little sooner or a little later depending on the direction of movement

of the train relative to the direction of movement of that beam of

light. It does not happen. If you precisely time that beam of light it

always shows up at the time which is exactly consistent with the speed

of light. In this way we can confirm yet again that it must be ‘time'

that is relative, because it certainly could never be ‘the speed of

light'. This is an established scientific fact that is irrefutable.

Such a well established ‘scientific fact' can be refuted if we

refuse to accept so called ‘particle wave duality' and if we also

reject that nonsense about how a photon has ‘zero rest mass' (whatever

that is supposed to mean). A photon has ‘energy'. Energy and mass are

equivalent (E=MC2). Therefore we can, if we wish, decide arbitrarily

to speak of the ‘mass equivalent' of the ‘energy of a photon', and

about the only reason to avoid doing so, that I can think of, is to

avoid creating problems for mathematicians. We could speak of the

‘momentum' of a photon, and then suggest that this is not meaningless,

but we must avoid doing that as well, for that will create big

problems for mathematicians and will create nothing but trouble in

every field of physics, which is something which must be avoided.

The Doppler Effect

Let us assign a meaningful momentum value to a photon, which means

that we will assign a velocity vector to a photon as well. We will

assume that the speed of light actually does not refer to a photon at

all, but rather the speed of light refers to the convoluted wave like

propagation pattern followed by a photon as it is transferred through

the surrounding field. The wave function is a field effect. For some

reason ‘bosons' like that ‘photon' never follow a straight line path

through the field, but always oscillate up and down, with the

frequency of this strange oscillations increasing as the momentum of a

photon increases.

Now we return to the moving train. We set up a detector on the

tracks and then send the train off moving away from the detector at a

certain speed. We then fire a light beam at the detector. The light

beam arrives ‘at the speed of light' for the speed of the train is

irrelevant. However the light beam is ‘red shifted'. Now a red shifted

path through the field is a shorter path (a blue shifted path has more

convolutions - a higher frequency - and therefore is a longer path

through the field). A red shifted path through the field is consistent

with a red shifted photon which has lost momentum. The path through

the field has been shortened by a certain amount by this red shifted

path through the field caused by the loss of momentum caused by the

motion of the train, therefore the light beam arrives at the expected

value of the speed of light. Similarly if the train is moving towards

the target the photon gains momentum, and it becomes blue shifted, and

follows a longer path towards the target, and therefore once again

arrives at the target at the speed of light.

We therefore conclude that the so called ‘particle wave duality'

is a meaningless enigma created only so that photons would be

restricted to traveling at the speed of light and thus would not be

found violating the fundamental ‘light principle' by routinely

traveling faster than the speed of light as just part of the normal

everyday behavior of photons. Therefore we dispose of that enigmatic

fiction concerning ‘the zero rest mass' of a photon, and we assign

momentum and a velocity vector to the photon, which then allows us to

explain the Doppler effect, and also resolves many other enigmatic

riddles as well.

The Relativity of Time

We dispose of Einstein's light principle. However we do not

dispose of Einstein's relativity principle, which is the second of the

fundamental principle of Einstein's theory. Einstein was correct to

assume that something was ‘relative'. He was wrong to assume that this

was ‘time', for the fundamental element that is relative in the

universe is momentum.

Time is relative. Time is relative because momentum is relative.

Consider a black hole, or any other gravitational field. Clocks slow

down in a gravitational field. Consider a relative black hole ( a high

velocity object). Time slows down when field density increases, and

therefore a relative black hole replicates many of the characteristics

of a ‘matter based' black hole. We consider time a creation of motion.

Motion is impeded in dense fields. Therefore we conclude that Einstein

was right for all the wrong reason. This is one of the interesting

enigmas when considering Einstein and his theory of relativity (how

someone could have made such a fundamental error - ‘the light

principle' - and yet still have produced so many accurate results.

Time, the Fourth Dimension of the Universe

Einstein's theory is referred to as ‘the theory of relativity' but

perhaps it should be referred to as ‘the partial theory of relativity'

or ‘the theory of the relativity of time' because time is just about

the only thing that is held to be relative in this theory, everything

else being held as fixed constants as simple common sense seems to

require. You see, if you were to conduct an in depth study of Special

Relativity, you find that right at the beginning you are confronted

with difficult questions concerning ‘distance' and how far away things

are, which might be relative, which is nonsensical. Therefore we are

led to draw the conclusion that it must be this ‘time' component that

is relative, for while it is a strange notion to introduce, out of all

the alternatives, if something is going to be relative it might as

well be time, for the result is theory that does not offend the simple

common sense inherent in classical physics. That it also produces

results consistent with experimentation and observation (in the 19th

century) is also convincing evidence that the approach is correct. We

all know that momentum is always found to be a conserved constant

(space is homogenous) and that the speed of light is always the speed

of light, and that this is true quite apart from the velocity of the

observer (the light principle). However even the most simple

observations of the universe reveal that something is relative.

Therefore it must be time that is relative.

Does ‘time' exist? When I ask this question I am not suggesting

that your bus will not arrive at 3:00 PM and that it will not take you

‘fifteen minutes' to arrive at your next connection. You want to ‘be

on time' or you will miss the second bus and be late for work. I am

aware of that. When I ask ‘does time exist' I am not suggesting that

you don't need to catch the bus at exactly 3 O'clock.

Is time required to explain motion? If there was ‘no time' would

there be no motion. Would all motion cease and would the entire

universe freeze frame, if there was suddenly no ‘clock'. Here I am

making appeal to ‘Einstein's razor', which is a variation upon

‘Occam's razor'. Make theory as simple as it needs to be, but no

simpler. If you don't need an element throw it out, but don't throw

out something you really do require.

Does motion itself generate the illusion of ‘the passage of time'.

Is time an ‘inherent property of the universe' (perhaps the fourth

dimension) or is time an ‘emergent property' which is generated as a

secondary byproduct, a side effect as it were, of the fact that the

universe is found to be in motion, constantly seeking an unattainable

state of perfect ‘entropy' (field homogeneity).

The universe is in motion because the field has become

‘quantized'. If there was one field, and if that one field was located

in a closed environment, then that one field moves into a state of

homogenous entropy (one example of this sort of thing is ‘heat

entropy', wherein the system moves constantly towards a state of

temperature equality...we can also see that absent a voltage potential

(a potential difference in energy density) all current flow (motion)

ceases within the closed system of a circuit).

There are now many fields (the field has become ‘quantized') and

so now the universe is found to be in perpetual motion. Each field

must be equivalent in all respects or potential difference will exist,

and the result will be a transfer of energy. Therefore the universe is

locked into a cycle of permanent perpetual motion for it is the very

nature of these quantized fields to be different (a hydrogen atom

differs from a helium atom, and so on and so on). Further these fields

must exist within a larger overall field which permeates the universe

(and which our brains interpret as being ‘three dimensional space' in

much the same way that our brains interpret a certain photon to be

‘green'). Therefore energy must be transferred from field to field by

moving through a field. As we can see, motion is perpetual, for no

state of entropy can ever be achieved in a universe such as this one.

Now this motion is going to occur whether or not ‘time' really

exists as some sort of independent property of the universe (its so

called ‘fourth dimension'). Wherever potential difference exists there

will be a transfer of energy. Someone might insist that this transfer

will ‘take time' and therefore time must exist, for how can a transfer

in the form of motion across a field take place if there was no time

allowed for it to happen. I would reply that this motion itself

creates the so called ‘time' that is required for this motion to take

place.

Time is a secondary byproduct, and not a fundamental property. The

perception of the ‘passage of time' is a very convincing ‘perceptual

illusion' manufactured by the human brain. It is such a convincing

illusion that simple common sense tells us that time must be real.

After all, all you have to do is miss your bus even once to know

something that obvious.

Anyone who harbors the ambition of winning some quarrel with

Einstein must start here, for it is this ‘time' that is relative in

Einstein's theory of relativity and if there is no such ‘time' then it

just logically follows that we must violate simple common sense by

making everything else relative. This will require us to make a

definitive break with Newton's common sense universe. We will continue

to remain in Newton's universe because simple common sense requires us

to remain in Newton's universe. This will then cause no end of

problems, for we will find ourselves dealing with a growing stack of

scientific enigmas, insoluble riddles that defy conventional solution.

We will also find our Quantum Physicists choking on Einstein for

decades, and there will be no resolution of that conundrum in sight,

no matter how intractable the difficulties become, for we are required

to show simple common sense. It is almost impossible to quarrel with

Einstein. Einstein makes a powerful appeal to your common sense which

is just about impossible to refute.

The Relativity of Momentum

Once we have disposed of Einstein's time, we will then find that

what we require is ‘relative momentum', for if time is not relative,

then everything becomes relative, and this relativity of everything

else is a direct consequence of relative momentum.

A few years ago I came across a toss off quote made by Einstein,

and now I can no longer find it. What he said, to paraphrase, that we

must always be prepared in the future, to consider the possibility

that momentum is relative. I believe he made the comment in reference

to the possibility that the speed of light might prove to be relative.

Apparently Einstein did consider the possibility of relative

momentum, and this is not surprising, for there are elements of

relative momentum to be found in General Relativity. The acceleration

of an object coasting through the ‘warped spacetime' of some

gravitational well is a relative acceleration in that no transfer of

energy is required to explain such acceleration. According to General

Relativity, this relative acceleration is a consequence of the close

binding between ‘space' and ‘time' (the ‘spacetime continuum') and so

therefore this relative acceleration is a consequence of the

relativity of time. This explanation then leaves us wondering just

what this ‘time' might be and how it could be that this ‘time' is

‘relative'.

The Relativity of Time

If we understand time to be a perceptual byproduct produced by

motion then we can understand that the relativity of this time is one

of the consequences of the relativity of momentum. If such motion

propagates ‘slowly' (motion is impeded) in a dense field then ‘the

clock slows down', and vice versa. This then implies that the speed of

light is relative, for it is through exchange of these quantized bits

of energy that information is transferred between quantum systems.

The homogeneity of space

When Einstein states that one of the fundamental assumptions of

Special Relativity is that space is 'homogenous' and that we do not

need to assign 'a velocity vector' to the propagation of

electromagnetic radiation ('the light principle') what he is saying is

that in a system of co-ordinates X, Y, Z you could choose any axis as

representing the axis of motion and it would not make any difference.

It is just a convention that Einstein choose to work along the 'x'

axis when elaborating upon his Theory of Special Relativity. Any axis

would do.

We can refute this idea by incorporating the data from the Pioneer

Effect into Special Relativity along the vertical ‘Z' axis. In this

way we will demonstrate that space is not homogenous, and that

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity only holds true in one single

frame of reference. You can think of this single frame of reference as

being like a flat horizontal plane with no vertical component (or, to

be more precise, you could think of it as being like the two

dimensional surface of a geodesic sphere). We will also demonstrate

that it is required that we assign a velocity vector to

electromagnetic radiation whenever there is vertical component (an

angle of propagation that includes a vertical component along the Z

axis).

The two Pioneer spacecraft are decelerating at a constant rate

(the product of the speed of light and Hubble's constant). We consider

this to be a relative loss of momentum. What this implies is that the

two spacecraft will require ‘more momentum' (their momentum field must

be ‘blue shifted') if the two spacecraft are to maintain a constant

velocity. It must therefore be true that at the same time the total

potential velocity of the two spacecraft is increasing. Therefore we

assume that at the same rate as the two spacecraft are decelerating

the speed of light must be increasing, for a red shifted path through

the field is a much less convoluted path and is therefore equivalent

to acceleration. We can see here that the behavior of a ‘fermion' (a

mass of matter) as it moves through the field and the behavior of a

boson (such as a photon) are inversely related to one another. A boson

accelerates as it moves through less dense portions of the field while

a fermion decelerates. A fermion moving deeper into the field

accelerates, and the relativity of time requires us to make the

assumption that once again this inverse relationship holds true in

that a boson must decelerate as field density increases (time being

nothing more than a product of this motion through the field and

entirely dependant upon the motion of bosons).

We consider this effect to be quite separate from gravitational

acceleration or the Doppler effect, but rather what this Pioneer

effect represents is the relativity of processes (which is a third

source of red or blue shift in the universe, and which is required if

we are to explain the anomalous red shifting visible in the rotation

curve of galaxies or the presence of highly red shifted quasars in the

middle of low red shift galaxies, all of which have in common that

they are not related to either the Doppler effect or gravitational

effects).

The Pioneer spacecraft fall behind by about 400,000 kilometers per

year due to this deceleration. Now if we were to imagine ourselves

conducting Einstein's experiment along the Z axis we would find that

the results differ from those conducted upon the x or y axis defining

a horizontal plane with no vertical component. The result would be

that the ‘longer' measurement would be made shorter and that the

shorter measurement would be made longer, results which are no in

agreement with a result along the x or y axis. Therefore we conclude

that space is not homogenous and that we must assign a velocity vector

to light whenever there is a vertical component in the field to be

considered (whenever there is an axis at an angle to the flat

horizontal plane which would then involve multiple relative reference

frames).

The Relativity of Distance

The following article discusses the detection of a high red shift

quasar at the center of a nearby low red shift galaxy. Discovery Poses

Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?.

"How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar

object several billion light years away?"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111115201.htm

Let us consider a galaxy to be a ‘fermion field' (a mass of

matter). Now let us consider what would happen if we were to drop

fermions into a fermion field. First we will drop fermions into the

field of the moon. The fermions will drift slowly to the surface of

the moon. Next we will drop fermions into the field of a giant planet,

and we will see that the fermions will be rapidly accelerated towards

the surface of that giant. We can increase the size of that

gravitational body, and we will increase the rate at which fermions

will speed towards the surface of that body, for the path of a fermion

through the field is a velocity vector with an acceleration curve.

Therefore the fermion description of a galaxy describes a field in

which the path length decreases as one moves towards the center of the

field, with the very shortest path always to be found in the most

powerful gravitational well. That the path is shorter is demonstrated

by the fact that the fermions accelerate and cover ‘more distance' in

‘shorter time' as a result. This acceleration is relative acceleration

and does not require any transfer of energy in the form of increased

momentum, which is a way of saying that fermions ‘conserve momentum'

and at the same time are following a shorter path through the field

when they undergo this relative acceleration.

This fermion path varies inversely with the path described by a

boson. If you were to consult a boson you would get an entirely

different story. The boson will describe a path where the shortest

path is always found in the outer limits of a fermion field where the

fermion field is weakest. If you were to consult a boson and inquire

as to the length of the path at the center of a fermion field the

boson will report back with very red shifted results (equivalent to

the Doppler effect) which is just a boson way of saying that the path

is very long. Perhaps that path is two billion light years long,

according to a boson. As for the outer limits of that galaxy, well

that is the shortest path according to the boson point of view, and

therefore that path is only 300 million light years away. In this way,

we can see that if one consults bosons and asks for a description

assessing the distance in any fermion field, we will get a boson

description of a fermion field. This description varies inversely with

the fermion description of the same field. For the most part, no one

consults fermions, and they only consult bosons, because fermions do

not travel across space delivering reports. Only bosons typically do

such things.

What we can learn from this is that it is erroneous to describe a

fermion path by employing a boson description of that fermion field,

because a boson describes a boson path, not a fermion path. If you

were to listen to some boson, that boson would tell you that no

fermion can ever travel faster than a boson. That would be impossible.

A boson would also tell you that it would take a fermion two billion

years to fall to the bottom of some black hole, because that is how

long it would take for a boson to make the trip.

Now the relativity of momentum and the resulting relativity of

time strongly suggest that by the time a boson reached the rock bottom

of some black hole that boson would be traveling at the speed of a

snail. As a consequence of this, the time like phenomenon would

approach zero. We know how fermions behave in fermion fields. They

accelerate in powerful fermion fields, following the shortest path, as

described by a fermion. Therefore it is hard to imagine some fermion

taking two billion years to dive into some black hole, only to arrive

at the surface of such a body crawling at a snail's pace. Rather given

the characteristic behavior of fermions would suggest that a fermion

would plunge through the field of that black hole at ever increasing

velocities, the acceleration rate of that fermion being dependant only

upon the velocity vector described by that particular fermion field.

Given that at the same time bosons would be slowing to a crawl the net

effect is that a fermion would smack into the surface of a black hole

at what could be described as nearly infinite velocity (in relative

terms) since it would be impacting that the surface of that black hole

at a velocity many, many times the speed of light.

This would not take billions of years to occur. However if you

were to ask a boson to report back on that event, the boson would

bring back the news of that infinite velocity fermion impact with the

surface of that hole about two billion years after the event actually

occurred. Therefore it is always wise to take the testimony of some

boson with a big grain of salt, in particular when that boson is

testifying about the supposed behavior of fermions, and then that

boson tries to convince people that it took some fermion two billion

years to impact the bottom of some black hole simply because that

would be how long the trip would take if it was made by some boson.

So then how far away is some object in the universe. What is the

distance between two points. It depends upon who you ask. For a boson

the distance is fixed (for bosons always wind up traveling between two

points at a fixed velocity due to their oscillating path through a

fermion generated field). For a fermion the distance between two

points is relative and has no exact meaning, for distance, as far as

it concerns fermions, is best described by a velocity vector.

Now a black hole has a velocity vector that corresponds to that of

a fermion with a high velocity. That is to say, that the velocity

vector of a black hole corresponds to that of a relative black hole. A

black hole represents the shortest path in the galaxy as far as it

concerns a fermion (the inverse of the path described by a boson,

where the path in some black hole becomes the very, very longest path

of all, even two billion light years long). Given the equivalence that

exists between gravitation and acceleration, what this suggests is

that, as far as it concerns fermions, acceleration is equivalent to a

decrease in path distance. I still do not know exactly what this

means, and I need to spend some more time thinking about it.

If someone was to ask ‘how far is it to some galaxy' they would

receive the boson response, ‘one million light years'. If someone was

to ask me what the distance to that same galaxy is I would give the

fermion response, which, as it stands right now is quite uncertain. I

am not yet certain what the distance to that galaxy really is, because

I do not yet understand the fermion path. All that I do know is that

the distance to that galaxy is purely relative, and therefore is not

one million lightyears, for it is an error to describe a fermion path

based upon the path of some boson, or to measure a fermion path in

boson terms (lightyears).

This idea that distance is relative does violate simple common

sense, but I am already convinced that it is correct. I believe that

it will also prove to be important when it comes time to make sense

out of such enigmas as ‘quantum entanglement' or what Einstein

rejected as being ‘spooky action at a distance', for distance between

any two points in the universe is relative to the velocity of a

fermion.

.

- Prev by Date:
**Short observation report with accompanying pc planetarium image** - Next by Date:
**Re: Former astronaut: Man not alone in the universe** - Previous by thread:
**Short observation report with accompanying pc planetarium image** - Next by thread:
**Eyes vs Digicam in SCT Imaging** - Index(es):