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
quantumtheoretical 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 (TaTb). Let's assume that it was
‘time 10' at Ta and the beam arrived at position b at time Tb which
was ‘time 15'. TbTa (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 coordinates 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):
Relevant Pages
