Hello
alan. let me just start by asking that the photon field expansion that u
speak of causing black holes in spaces (nothing), have u ever taken or
considered relativistic phenomena that concerns with photons (those
having a velocity that no object can physically reach)
Hi,
First
let me say that I appreciate your interest in my work. I am not fully
satisfied with it and I believe I have a few typographical errors. It
could be much better
and I believe that if someone takes the time to fill in the missing
parts that
a good solid theory will develop: possibly a theory to change the face
of
science. I spent many years working on this theory that I know appears
very simplistic.
I have read a huge volume of books, theories and other sources.
I have of
course considered relativity, string theories (so many of them) as well as
multiple dimensions, alternate worlds and just about everything else. I have
struggled thru some of the most complex theories to some of the most bizarre. I
believe that the simplest explanation is usually the best.
To begin
with please understand that one of my main points I am trying to make is that
words and how scientists use them are the main problems with linking relativity
with other theories such as quantum mechanics. Newton's second law of motion says
Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. It is represented by F = M x A. So
if we say that if a mass of 1 kilo is lifted at 2 feet per second then it takes
x amount of force. For the purposes of engineering this is a perfect formula
that has good use.
Scientists
then say that because it takes x amount of force to lift this 1 kilo 2 feet per
second that we therefore have a “force” acting upon the mass. Scientists then
applied this concept of force to everything. For the most part it serves well.
There is a major problem with using the term force. If we are studying physics,
especially gravity then we have to look at things without including human
interaction. Put simply, the kilo of mass is not going to move unless it enters
into a state of disequilibrium. Notice I
didn’t use the word force as Newton would have.
We can
easily link every scientific theory together in terms of equilibrium,
disequilibrium and transitory states between the two. We can link gravity with
the strong, weak and electromagnetic “forces” by simply stating that they are all
merely different forms of equilibrium or disequilibrium. Working upon this we
look at gravity as merely a form of dis/equilibrium. A rock lying on the Earth
is in a state of equilibrium. A mass falling towards Earth is in a state of
disequilibrium until it lands into a state of equilibrium.
If we theorize
the concept of a black hole in terms of “gravitational force” we end up unable
to really explain the possibility of such a phenomenon unless we start
theorizing other more complex states or theories. If however we look at a
hypothetical black hole as merely a form of equilibrium or disequilibrium then
the concept can be understood so much better.
If we read a
theory that postulates an “infinite” mass (with infinite gravity) then we end
up with nothing but paradoxes. A mass with infinite gravity would be a mass
that would have to be infinite in size. It is a common hypothesis that I just
dismiss as being un-workable. It just doesn’t make sense. If we accept that
while there are photons all around us and there are parts of the universe that have no
photons then the idea of photons “falling” into this hole in space as some
would say makes much more sense.
The
Morley-Mitchelson experiment is the biggest reason for most current day views
including relativity. What MM do not account for in their experiment is the
fact that the photons that surround us are actually the “aether” that they were
trying to detect. The photons around us have to be the Aether or medium that
transmits “information” such as light and radio vibrations.
I could go
into more detail but I am not sure what you want me to answer. Please try this
for a while. Look up any theory that contains the term “force” and substitute
force for equilibrium or disequilibrium depending on the case. Try to ignore
theories that involve consciousness. Stick to looking at scientific theories
that look at pure chemical and physical reactions or phenomena. Pretend life
does not exist. Do not concern yourself with what an observer would see but
rather what actually does happen. Einstein said he thought of relativity when
he wondered what things would look like if he travelled at the speed of light.
It is a very good question. The answer of course is that it is a hypothetical
question to an impossible situation.
Einstein
could never connect relativity with the other theories. To me it was simply
because he was using the word force incorrectly and like MM he assumed that
there was no Aether and failed to recognize that the photons around us are the
Aether.
I like your concept of equilibrium and disequilibrium,
especially the way you have explained things with it. However my question was
whether the disequilibrium in space (nothing) that you have pointed out, which
you say might be the reason for the formation of this universe, do think the
photon distribution that you speak of having gone on expand and has resulted in
blackholes, requires a relativistic explanation as it concerns photon field and
not the classical viewpoint of the field's expansion only? And I also have a
thing to say about GUT after this
As far as any theory of how the universe formed I am going
on the general agreement that the universe is expanding and supposedly came
from an explosion of some sort. A big bang as they say. It is impossible to
actually prove what exactly occurred because we always have the “what happened before that” question. It is
very possible that the universe expands, collapses and then smashes and expands
again. We have the paradox of how can space end and yet how can it go on
forever, hence the spear thrower analogy I have mentioned in the book.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking but I will make a
guess. Einstein’s theories are based on things such as mass distorting space.
Einstein assumes Morley Mitchelson was correct and that no Aether exists. If we
take his theories and say that his concept of space is actually the photon
field then we can appreciate his formulas more and they in fact make more
sense. Instead of trying to visualize an empty space being distorted all we
need to do is visualize that all of the photons that surround us are what gets
distorted by mass.
If you look at the commonly known photo of a planet such as
Earth or the Sun sitting on a rubber mat that has a grid on it you see that the
grid is distorted supposedly because the mass distorts the “space” around it in
the same manner. It is an excellent representation. If we assume that the
distortion is of space and not of any aether or in my view the photon field
then we have a huge number of paradoxes and inconsistencies that we are forced
to answer. Einstein answered these of course with relativity and at the time
the greatest minds objected but they couldn’t explain for MM experiment.
Einstein was a very good mathematician but not the greatest one. In his theory
of space being warped he forgot that you cannot divide by zero or nothing. You
can only add to it. You cannot distort nothing.
Relativity says that nothing can travel faster than light. What
this means is that disequilibrium cannot travel faster than the value c as we
understand it to be. I say as we understand it to be because it is entirely
possible that at the point of a big bang everything could have originally
expanded at a rate faster than c. Expansion of the Universe would have been a
simple matter of disequilibrium. It is no different from any other discussion
on thermodynamics. Heat moves from a higher value to a lower one until a mean
is achieved. In the same way a mass that is surrounded by “nothing” it is in a
state of equilibrium within itself but in an extreme state of disequilibrium
with its surroundings. At some point the mass expands to fill in the nothing.
It expands according to the laws of thermodynamics. Are there relativistic
phenomena during the expansion to a human viwer? Of course.
As the universe is expanding the laws of inertia would
dictate. In other words the direction of travel outward would be maintained
until some other factor came into play. Some say it expands and collapses while
others say the expansion will go on until there is true heat death. For the
purposes of your question I say that as the universe expands more and more mass
turns into pure energy in the form of photons.
Understand I am leaving out stars “dissolving” into atoms etc but I am
sure you can imagine the process. As the universe expands the density of the
photon field remains pretty much constant as long as you have stars producing
more photons that fill in the gaps as we say.
The distribution of stars will of course not be uniform throughout
the universe. Because of this as the universe expands there will be areas where
the photon field density is thinner than in other areas. We can therefore go on
to assume that in some areas there will become spaces of such a low density of
photons that any photons traveling into the area become stuck there simply because they fill
in a purely empty space to meet the laws of thermodynamics and equilibrium.
Light waves would not penetrate this area but because of the pull of this empty
space on its surroundings the effects that it has is equivalent in concept but
much stronger than a huge mass. Light waves from distant objects would be
distorted around it in the same manner as if it were a huge planet or mass.
There would be an accretion disc around the black holes
because once matter or photons reached the edge of the “nothing” there would be
at some point a balance between the expanding universe and the “nothing”. Keep
in mind that in this area of space there is a condition in which stars are not
present to fill in the gaps made by the expanding universe.
Do you understand the concept of oscillational essence that
I have made in the book to replace time as a fourth dimension? I think that the
debate between classical and relativistic is a debate that came into existence
because of the results of the Morley-Mitchelson experiment that failed to
understand that the photons that surround us are in fact the Aether or medium
that transmits disequilibrium in the form of radio and light waves. Einstien’s
concepts of space just need to be replaced with the concept of a photon field
“aether” and then it is so much easier to understand what is really going on
and how relativity applies to classical explanations.
