Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 10/05/04 

Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:26:12 GMT

  Be very careful what you mean by "QED and SR are among the most accurately
tested scientific theories." Remember that Einstein himself said in his book
'Relativity' that Special and General Relativity are only valid
circumstantially. Special Relativity, for example, is valid in the
dimensional case of here and now and there and then but cannot be valid in
the dimensional case of here and now and there and now. Why? Because there
and now can never, ever, be observed or detected from here and now. Thus
"there and now" cannot even exist per Special Relativity. It is a different
dimension of time that--co-existing parallel sequential with "here and
now"--suddenly realizes an absolute space-time (0) versus relative time
("here and then" (-t), "there and then" (-t)) and gives a very different
meaning, and very different relationships, to (+t).

  SR illustrations always show a universe expanding with every change in the
universe forcing the observer ever further outward on the surface of a
balloon blowing up. The Source, or BB, will always be immediately
observable, or least the expansion will be:

Srce-t1-Obsvr (t1)
Srce-t1, t2-Obsvr (t2)
Srce-t1, t2, t3-Obsvr (t3)
Srce-t1, t2, t3, t4-Obsvr (t4) (enough to illustrate in chart form the
ballooning)

  This is how things really work concerning time frames, the speed of light
and change and time advance, and the universe:

Srce(a)-t1
t1-Srce(b)
Srce(a)-t2, t1 t1,
t2-Srce(b)
Srce(a)-t3, t2, t1 t1, t2,
t3-Srce(b)
Srce(a)-t4, t3, t2, t1 t1, t2, t3, t4-Srce(b)
Srce(a)-t5, t4, t3, t2, t1 t1, t2, t3, t4, t5-Srce(b)
Srce(a)-t6, t5, t4, t3, t2, t1 t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6-Srce(b)
Srce(a)-t7, t6, t5, t4, t3, t2, t1-t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7-Srce(b)
Srce(a)-t8, t7, t6, t5, t4, t3, t1-t2, t2-t1, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8-Srce(b)
(this is not expansion, I simple can not crowd in light-time pass-throughs
into the space I originally set between source propagators).

  Using source and observer rather two sources in order to obtain less
dimensionality for my illustration:

Srce-t1 Obsvr(t1)
Srce-t2, t1 Obsvr(t2)
Srce-t3, t2, t1 Obsvr(t3)
Srce-t4, t3, t2, t1 Obsvr(t4)
Srce-t5, t4, t3, t2, t1-Obsvr(t5)

  Anyway, you should see the vast difference between how some see the light
and time and space to work and how others see these things to work (how they
do work!)

  Say the source of a time frame carried at the speed of light to an
observer twenty kilometers away watching through a good telescope is of a
dog one meter away from being killed by a car doing 100 kilometers per hour.
There are far too many physicists in the world who think that if the
observer traveled fast enough across that distance, he could save that dog
because he observes that it hasn't been hit as yet. The dog is already hit
by the car when the scene [registers] through the observer's telescope that
the dog is due to be hit about a split second in the future. No! It happened
a split second before observation both at the scene of the accident and in
the realtime of the observer. The scene of the accident, and the observer,
have gone beyond that time, [during] the time taken for the time frame to
reach the observer at the speed of light. If the observer reacted and
traveled at some infinite velocity to reach the scene, every time frame he
passes through on the way to the scene is a time frame of a time later in
time than the one he just passed through, as [my] illustrations show.

  Light, space, and time, works this way for anything pico-seconds or less
apart in space and time, and works the same way for anything 13.7 billion
times 10 trillion (rounded up), or even 76 billion times 10 trillion
(rounded up), kilometers apart in space. In the latter case, the observer
"here and now" will be 13.7 billion years, or 76 billion years, [behind] the
times "there and now" at those distances in space regarding attempted
observations of anything at those distances. He will be attempting to
resolve "there and then" [advancing] time frames--advancing at the speed of
light--via his telescope. No change occurs slower or faster than the speed
of light, the speed of time, constant (absolute). All changes, all events,
occur "here and now" and "there and now" and nowhere or no when else. But,
it takes light-time frames time to travel any varying distance in the
Universe, any varying distance whether through nuclear space, Earth's space,
or outer space, whatsoever. Here, in this, is where and when time begins to
get relative rather than absolute.

  The Earth is in motion at velocity at all times in its own space, spinning
upon its axis. The Earth is moving in a different direction of motion at
velocity at all times in orbiting the sun. The Earth and Sun, and solar
system, moves in a different direction of motion at velocity at all times in
tracking through the galaxy. The Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the Milky
Way, moves in a different direction of motion at velocity at all times in
tracking through the Universe. I was not here, where I am here and now, a
pico-second and less ago. I, my atomic structure, my computer, my desk, my
home, the Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the Milky Way, none were right
here, right now, in either space or time, then. What is more, I neither feel
nor sense in any way, inertia from all this constant of change occurring
simultaneously throughout an infinite Universe whose own universal horizon
every which way, in every single motion, in every single direction, in every
single velocity, in every single position, totaled up and reduced, is the
speed of light, the speed of time.

  If I say something is traveling at point zero five percent of the speed of
light, I have to mean it is traveling at point zero five percent of the
speed of light relative to the surface of the Earth I am on. Is that
something I observe to be traveling at that velocity intrinsically [what]
and [where] wherever in the Universe I observe it to be? No! It is not the
intrinsic for either case, neither what it intrinsically is nor where it
intrinsically is. I don't even know if it exists anymore "there and now" in
the zero time of the Universe, the Universal Mean Time (UMT=0) of the
Universe. All I know is that it existed there, wherever "there" is, then
(-t). I could know in a pico-second from now if it still existed a
pico-second ago, at that time. Or, I could know in 13.7 billion years from
now if something still existed 13.7 billion years ago at a distance, "there
and now," of 13.7 billion times 10 trillion kilometers from "here and now."
But then, I will not be "here and now"--in my present location and form at
least, and neither will this galaxy be "here and now" in its present
location and form at least, in the Universe 13.7 billion years from "now."

  Anything whatsoever traveling at point zero five percent of the speed of
light relative to me and the surface of the Earth I am on will be somewhere
very distant ahead in space and time of where--in either space or time--I
observe it to be located presently in movement no matter where I observe it
to be located, whether five meters from me or five billion times 10 trillion
kilometers from me. There will simply be a much, much greater gap between
where--and when--it is now (if it still exists at all) and where--and
when--whatever it was there and then at the greater distance than at the
nearer distance. My observation will be much, much farther behind the times,
and the object, at the farther distance in space, and in time, than the
nearer.

  If anyone can think and hold in mind more than one dimension of space, and
more than one dimension of time, at a time, that person should see me
divorcing space from expansion, but not time (just as I did in my
illustrative charting above of how space and time and light-time framing
work both in the real world and real Universe that the real world is
indivisibly one with).

  In our particle accelerators we observe seemingly unnaturally heavy masses
develop the closer we drive particles toward the speed of light. Through the
Hubble telescope and others we detect seemingly unnaturally heavy masses
having existed the farther away in [time], the vaster away in distance in
[time], we look. I think there is correlation between the two seemingly
unrelated observations. The distance of, say, 13.7 billion light years, is
13.7 billion times 10 trillion (rounded up) kilometers of space to, per,
13.7 billion years of time (the time it takes light, and frames of time, to
travel that distance across space; while at the same time said to be the
amount of expansion to the space of the Universe and, at once, the time of
expansion from the so-called Big Bang to "now"). That space to, per, time
reduces to a base unit of 300,000 kilometers (rounded up) of space to, per,
one second of time. Both "to" and "per" are at bottom definitively one and
the same. Both the "to" and the "per," with regard to cosmology and physics,
are constants or absolutes at once each relative to whatever observer is
doing the observing of the Universe at large--in the case of "to," or
whatever instrumentation is doing detection in QED--in the case of "per."

  Sometime ago I read a then popular book, "Space," by some cosmological
physicist by the name of Fuller (I don't remember his given name). In it he
said that all objects observed farther away in space (time), per the
expansion and acceleration observed in the universe relative to the surface
of the Earth, have intrinsic velocities closer to the speed of light, and
intrinsic masses closer to infinity, than all nearer objects observed. And,
the nearer they are to the Big Bang on the other end of space (time) from
the Earth in space (time) the closer they are (were) to the speed of light.
In other words, anything observed virtually on or near that horizon--there
and then--of the so-called Big Bang would have to be doing at least ninety
percent, to ninety-nine percent or more, the speed of light relative to the
surface of the Earth here and now. Thus those objects and events would be
almost timelessly fixed, more and more fixed, the closer toward that horizon
in the distance: More and more fixed until they become unchanging forever
(for ever frozen frame in space and time), to us, or to anything, who, or
what, are in faster and ever faster change at this end of that picture of an
overall space-time continuum picture of the Universe. Fuller, like virtually
every other cosmological physicist alive today, merged together, smashed
together, crushed together, into one naked singularity of one
dimensionality, [time] "there and then," [space-time] "there and now," and
[time] "here and then," at the far end of his picture (as in the first chart
illustration of ballooning I drew up, above), leaving only the region nearer
right "here and now" at this end ("Srce-t1, t2, t3, t4-Obsvr (t4)") as the
sole existence of current Universe ("t4-Obsvr (t4)") there is in
existence--period--per the space-time "arrow" of space-time continuum. He
had to do it that way or the concept of Big Bang, and into the bargain the
nearly century in the making present model of the Universe, would be shot to
doll rags (as the old time Westerners would have put it). This was the
reason there was so much surprise at the more recent finding by astronomers
of fully formed galaxies existing only 300 million years after supposed time
of the so-called Big Bang beginning (within a radius of 300 million light
years of that "point").

  That "point" of so-called Big Bang is now supposed to a global dome
existing everywhere at every point there is in the Universe 13.7 billion
light years--if not 76 billion light years now--from the Earth (right here,
right now). Thousands of billions, millions of billions, billions of
billions and more, of fully formed galaxies have to be plastered in the
Universe nearby to that dome, overall at that distance, if the numbers of
them being discovered by the Hubble telescope in just one [much, much less
than] microscopic bit of area of that dome are to be believed to be
representative of the rest of the area of that all Universe enclosing dome
at that distance. All of them then existing in an area that wasn't supposed
to be more than 600 million light years across 13.7 billion years ago, which
is probably one of the reasons why some cosmologists have suddenly decided
to try to put back the so-called Big Bang to 76 billion years ago rather
than 13.7 billion. Doing so with time, according to SR, would expand space
also, exactly, correspondingly (300,000 kilometers of space more (radial
expansive) exactly for, to, per, each and every additional second more of
time to be acquired), so to give enough more space and time for the vastly
increased number of galaxies and other objects existing in the Universe--and
maybe had existed in the Universe--astronomers and cosmologists have to
realize they are on the verge of coming up with. It still comes out exactly
the speed of light constant, absolute (76 billion times 10 trillion
kilometers of space (rounded up) per 76 billion years of time--or 300,000
kilometers (rounded up) of space per one second of time (and never mind "to"
going with, or being put in the place of, "per." No real need anymore of
being so continuously and completely redundant)). That expansion to 152
billion light years in diameter, 76 billion light years in radius, now puts
any possible observation of any possible observer "here and now" upon the
Earth 76 billion years [behind] the times of a space 76 billion times 10
trillion kilometers distant ("there and now") from "here and now" in space.
The more they expand the Universe, either in view or perception, the further
behind the times of that farthest distant "there and now" they will put any
possible observation from any observer on Earth. As I've said before, at any
distance whatsoever, near or far, observers can only observe a "there and
then" frame of time, never any "there and now" frame of time. But it is the
same for anyone or anything existing at the other end of distance in space.

  SR has been proven? Yes it has, but it has been proven valid specifically
concerning certain [specific] circumstances. It is not valid anywhere else.
The Universe is not physically in expansion, no more so than my room expands
just because I have the light on across the room from me and this computer,
so it is also not accelerating in that expansion it is not in. The Universe
is infinite in extent and infinity is not expandable. Just as infinitesimal
is relatively indistinguishable from zero, so infinite at the other end of
the scale in the realm of infinity is relatively indistinguishable from one.
Universal constancy, constants, absolutism, absolutes, belong also to the
realm of infinity. Nothing whatsoever, no entity of any shape, form, kind,
force or whatever, can keep them, hold them to, what they are except
infinity. Thus with infinite (a singularity), infinitesimal (a singularity),
infinities (the plural), universal constancy is (universal constants are)
integral to the realm of infinity as the infinite Universe's constant
horizon--and horizons. Three of four of these self-similars will always be
hidden from all observation or detectability, for obvious reasons. The
fourth on the other hand is as visible, as obvious and utterly blatant, just
as much as the other three of the realm are not and never will be.

Brad

"Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74768d2d.0410040502.7093034@posting.google.com...
> "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:<2s8932F1i3080U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> Paul Draper wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Most successful" is no argument for exclusivity, nor is science a
>> > situation where the choice is required (unlike, say, democracy vs
>> > aristocracy as a governmental system). There's an excellent argument,
>> > Bob, for a broad program of empiricism and taxonomy in physics. It
>> > might get our focus off the cult-inducing arenas of the field.
>>
>> You mean the "cults" the have produced the most effective and accurate
>> scientific theories ever?
>>
>>
>
> The "cults" I was referring to are evidenced by the fact there are,
> for example, SPR and SPP newsgroups, but none on the less
> "mind-blowing" topics in physics. Perhaps reductionism taken to the
> perimeter of applicability goes hand-in-hand with "mind-blowing"
> concepts and the resultant incredulity and alternate proposals.
>
> But in fact, I think your statement is a self-fulfilling prophecy. QED
> and SR are among the most accurately tested scientific theories
> precisely because an inordinate amount of attention is paid to them,
> and an inordinate willingness to test them to the nth degree. There
> are many, many areas of physics that are just as interesting that have
> a potentially huge payoff, but which are underserved.
> Sci.physics.tribology anyone?
>
> PD

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... 'Relativity' that Special and General Relativity are only valid ... SR illustrations always show a universe expanding with every change in the ... Using source and observer rather two sources in order to obtain less ... observer traveled fast enough across that distance, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Jeckyl wrote
    ... The change is from the viewpoint of the non-local observer. ... closure by the exterior observer would be a distance of 80 yards ... motion, ... Relativity does not demand length contraction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nonlocality, QM weirdness.
    ... >> Where is this observer? ... >> observer trying to observe the whole universe at once? ... > comfortable wave to observe, and judge the universe against that wave. ... In relativity, one *spatial* dimension can get flattened, but your own ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nonlocality, QM weirdness.
    ... I am thinking that the observer would be the approximate ... >> comfortable wave to observe, and judge the universe against that wave. ... An illusion of relativity which does actually exist, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: symmetric twins paradox
    ... |> It clearly represents the Principle of Relativity. ... Right, the facts are an object moving toward exhibits a BLUE shift, and ... |> | the distance calculation derived from luminosity and the velocity ... Steady state universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)