Sound Off: World Views and The Empowerment Factor

Co-Creating our Future


Leave a comment

Gravity – As Viewed Through the Radius (VC)

 

 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 It is perfectly possible to produce a negative gravitational field between the earth and a given object on or near its surface by the proper application of moving electric charges.  Such a field would be effective only with respect to the given object. All other matter in the vicinity would remain  within the positive portion of the curve.
Quantum Gravity Unification of Strong Nuclear Force

Nassim Haramein’s and  E.A. Rauscher’s work present an alternative and more precise mathematical view of our micro to macro reality than does the Standard Model of Physics. You will note the strong implications of this more mathematicaly precise view of the universe ties in directly with  the ancient symbols passed down through history.

Source http://www.fractalfield.com/hydrogen/

 

Dual Torus 4 Blackhole / Yin & Yang merger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uphuX_A3gR4

 

As with ALL natural laws  (i.e., space-time-mass-mater-energy-gravity) let us now add the CURVE to the law of gravity. It will be noted the same conclusions presented by StarSteps have been derived independently by Haramein/Rauscher. The foundation for both can be seen arising from Walter Russell’s theories.  

Haramein/ Rauscher models add clarification details of the vacuum,  opening the doors to unlimited energy access at any point.   

StarSteps adds the application measurement vehicle, the “Radius”, to the non-linearity of physical law and demonstrates precisely, the ‘relativity’ of total interdependence, interrelationships, between the natural laws – the changing of any one or more laws directly affects and causes changes to the others. 

And as Haramein/ Rauscherderived through separate calculations the equivalence of LIGHT (VC) to MASS, StarSteps shows Light (VC)’s equivalence to mass as ‘the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of
matter’, demonstrating precisely why Light (VC) also turns out to be the Radius of Curvature of All Natural Law . (The Quantity C to be detailed in the next post)

 

Gravity – As Viewed Through the Radius (VC) 

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to man’s achievement of his dream of space travel has been a factor which has been given the name of Gravity. Its ‘discovery’ is usually credited, in elementary school text books, to a seventeenth century mathematician and physicist, Sir Isaac Newton. Actually, of course, every man ‘discovers’ gravity soon after birth; and the stone age man who first rolled a boulder down upon the head of the cave bear who was attempting to scramble up the cliff after him, was making a practical application of this force. It was, however, Sir Isaac Newton who first made a complete mathematical analysis of the subject. His conclusions were compatible with subsequent observation and test, and were virtually unchallenged until the dawn of the era of relativity.

 In brief, his conclusions were that gravity is a quality which is inherent in all matter, and that it manifests itself as a mutual attraction between all bodies of matter. The value of this attraction between any two given bodies was said to be directly proportionate to the product of their mass, and inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between them.

 The attraction between the earth and an object near its surface is an example of this force, although it is usually described as being the ‘weight’ of the object.

  The difficulty with the statement that the force varies inversely as the square of the distance lies in the implication that if the distance becomes zero, the force should, become infinite. Thus it would at first seem that a man  standing or lying upon the surface of the earth would be one of two bodies between whom the distance was zero, therefore, the weight of the man should be infinitely great. The reply to this assumption is that the force acts as though it originated at the center of the mass, called the ‘center of gravity’, and that the man on the surface of the earth is still some four thousand miles from its center of gravity. This explanation, however, creates a new problem in that, if we accept it literally, we must assume that if there were a well or shaft extending to the center of the earth, and if a man descended this shaft, his weight would increase as he approached the center of gravity, becoming infinite as he reached it. Actually, of course, his weight would decrease, becoming zero when his center of gravity coincided with that of the earth. So we are forced to the further explanation that gravity is inherent, not in ‘bodies’, but in particles of matter, and since a man at the center of the earth would have an equal number of particles attracting him from every direction, the resultant of the forces would be zero.

 If we assume the gravity to reside independently within each atom, our problem is solved as far as the man and the earth are concerned, but if we look within the atom itself in the attempt to find the point where the distance becomes zero, and the force infinite, we find that the same problem again confronts us. We have not solved it, we have only changed our scale of observation. There is conclusive evidence that the attraction, called the binding energy, which exists between the Newtonian particles, (the protons and the neutrons) is intense almost beyond our ability to describe. This force, however, does not increase uniformly with increasing
mass, but at certain points not only reaches zero but actually becomes negative. 

 We can demonstrate this fact by adding a single unit of Newtonian mass, a neutron, to the nucleus of an atom of Uranium 235. When this is done, we find that the gravitational force within the nucleus, instead of increasing actually becomes negative, that is, the attraction between its parts becomes a repulsion, and the parts begin to separate with considerable brisance. During the expansion, however, several new centers of gravity are formed, which, because of the smaller amount of mass involved in each, are strongly positive. The result is that two or more simpler atoms are formed, plus a few neutrons which have acquired too great a velocity
to be captured by this regrouping process.

 In most text books, this phenomenon is described as the ‘splitting’ of the atom. There is an implication that it is the ‘impact’, or the kinetic energy of the neutron which causes the atom to split. If this were true, then obviously, a high speed neutron would split the atom more easily and surely than one with much lower speed.  Actually, the opposite situation is true. The high speed neutron will not split the uranium atom at all. It must be slowed to thermal velocity so that it can settle into the nucleus before fission occurs.

 Occasionally a neutron will be captured by a uranium atom, without falling directly into the nucleus. The neutron may orbit the nucleus for a very long time (as time is counted in nuclear physics), perhaps several seconds or even minutes. Eventually the neutron drops into the nucleus, and ‘delayed fission’ occurs, again demonstrating the fact that it is not the impact of the neutron, but its presence in the nucleus, which results
in its expansion.

 The expansion and subsequent condensation into several simpler atoms is a completely random process.  Many simpler types of atom can, and do result from the condensation, in each case however, the smaller atoms cannot contain as many neutrons in proportion to the number of protons as the larger atom, so there are always several neutrons left over.

 This phenomenon, if carefully examined and considered, will furnish several strong clues to the nature of gravity itself, but let us for the moment, content ourselves with the observation that it demonstrates that a gravitational field can, under certain conditions, become negative.

 Because of the manner in which our gravitational laws have been expressed, it has commonly been assumed that a gravitational force can manifest itself only as an attraction between two bodies of matter.  This is not, however, a necessity of thought, since there is no logical reason why it should necessarily be true: In fact if it were true, it would set gravitational fields apart as the only force fields with which we are familiar which could not produce a repulsion, as well as an attraction between bodies of matter. The reason for the assumption of a universal attraction is simply that all of our early and limited observations seemed to indicate that this was true. However, as we have already mentioned, any number of observations, if made on a sufficiently limited scale, will tend to indicate that the earth is flat, rather than spherical.

 For many years a school of thought existed which recognized that gravitational fields, like all other fields, must possess a duel polarity.  They called these poles, gravity and levity. They assumed that some objects and materials normally possessed the quality of gravity, while others normally possessed the quality of levity. An object possessing levity would be repelled by all objects possessing gravity. The theory eventually became discredited, and was almost universally discarded, not because it was ever disproved, but because so many attempts had been made to assign this quality of levity to objects and  materials which did not actually possess it.

For instance it was, for a time, assumed that gases such as hydrogen and helium possessed levity because when they were contained in a light bag or envelope, they were observed to rise against the gravitational field. It was soon demonstrated, however that their rise was caused, not by any quality of levity, but simply because of the fact that their specific gravity was less than that of the air they displaced. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to assign the quality of levity to specific   materials or objects, the theory fell into disrepute to the extent that the very word levity has become synonymous with humorous nonsense. Nevertheless, the philosophers who developed the theory were perfectly correct in their primary postulate. They erred only in failing to realize that gravity and levity are not properties of specific materials but are conditions under which all matter may come.

 We have now observed negative gravitation in the microcosm (the interior of the atom), we also observe it in the macrocosm, (between the galaxies).

 Many technical articles have been written in recent years concerning “Our Expanding Universe,” yet where, in any of them, can we find any logical explanation or reason why it should expand at all? Under the theory of universal attraction, all of the matter in the universe should be rapidly coalescing into one gigantic lump. Instead, we find that every one of the large groups of stars which we call galaxies is rapidly retreating from every other group, at velocities which increase with their distance from the observer. Velocities of recession exceeding 25,000 miles per second have been calculated.

 A number of interesting but hardly convincing theories have been advanced in the attempt to reconcile the observed state of the universe with the existing concept of universal attraction. Some of our cosmic theorists have proposed that at one time all of the matter in the universe was contained in a single tremendous star, or ‘atom’. For some reason, which is not given, this atom exploded, hurling outward the matter which has become the star clusters, and imparting to them the motion which we now observe, several billions of years later. This theory, first propounded by Abbe Lemaitre, has become known in colloquial parlance, as “The big bang theory“. It becomes apparent that such a theory will not stand up if examined under the existing concept of linear natural laws. In the first place, such an inconceivably huge mass of matter, even at the very great temperature which was assumed for it, would, under Newtonian laws, produce a gravitational field so intense that no velocity less than that of light itself would be an ‘escape’ velocity. In fact it has been calculated that even the light emitted by this huge sun would not escape completely, but would circle in a comparatively small orbit about it. Through the concept of the curvature of physical law, however, we see that the addition of mass to an existing body does not, necessarily, increase the force of attraction between its parts, but may, under certain conditions, cause the field to become negative, and the attraction to become a repulsion. We can
explain the observed actions of the present universe by postulating that an attraction exists between the individual bodies within a galaxy, because their total mass and distance is such that they are within the positive portion of the gravitation curve with respect to each other. In the vast spaces between the galaxies however, the curve dips below the zero line with the result that a repulsion exists between the galaxies themselves.  This also explains why matter, although rather evenly distributed throughout the known universe, is not distributed uniformly, but found in quite similar concentrations at comparatively regular distances.

 At this point we hear someone say, “These explanations may be very interesting to the astronomer or to the theoretical physicist, but how can they help us in locating and utilizing gravitation’s opposite field effect?” The answer is, of course, that we must have some understanding of the physical laws before we can make the proper use of them in attaining our own personal ambitions.

In his dream of space travel, man has generally considered only three possibilities of escaping from the earth. First, gravity must be destroyed. That is, the operation of the gravitational field must cease between the space craft and the earth, so that it will not hinder the departure of the craft. While a number of highly imaginative stories have been written along this line of thought, no theory has ever been evolved, or test conducted which could give us any hope that such a condition can be achieved.

 Despairing of the first possibility, we pass on to the second. Gravity must be shielded. Some type of screening material must be interposed between the craft and the earth to cut off or absorb the gravitational field so that while it still exists, it will no longer act upon the craft. Here again we have found imagination raising our hopes, and reality disappointing, for no material has been discovered which shows any promise of fulfilling such a function. With our hopes considerably subdued, we pass on to the third possibility. Gravity must be overcome.  We must apply a greater force, so that we can rise against the pull of gravity, even though we must pay an exorbitant tribute of energy for each foot of progress. In this last plan, we have achieved a certain degree of success. Rocket motors have fought and struggled their way upward against the implacable, if impersonal, pull of the earth’s gravitational field, crawled their way into orbit, some snailed to the moon (i.e. ‘snail’s pace’), and a few have inched their way to the outer reaches of the solar system with a time count of years.  It does not appear however, that the proper solution has yet been achieved.

 When man attempts to attain his ends by pitting one natural law against another, he usually finds that it is a wasteful and laborious process. While it is true that it is perfectly possible to propel a rowboat by throwing rocks from the stern, it is not a method which an intelligent man would choose if he were aware of other possibilities. In the first place, the thrown rock must accelerate, not only the boat, but all the rocks which remain to be thrown. If a long journey were planned, the greatest problem would be to find enough room in the boat to store the required number of rocks. Since the thrust produced is equal to the mass of the rock multiplied by the velocity of the ejection, it is obvious that there are three limiting factors. First, there is the total mass of the available rocks, which is limited by the size of the boat which contains them. Second, there is the total amount of energy available. (This is a factor only because we have so little understanding of the true nature of energy.) The third, and at the present time the most serious factor, is the limited mechanical strength of the throwing arm.

 In a rocket motor, the ‘rocks’ are represented by a gas produced by combining or ‘burning’ the fuels within the combustion chamber.  The gas, at a high temperature and pressure, is expelled through an opening or ‘venturi’ in the stern. Since the amount of fuel is limited by the size of the rocket, the only means of increasing the total thrust is to increase the velocity of ejection, but this can only be accomplished by increasing the temperature and pressure of the gas within the combustion chamber. Regardless of the amount of energy which is available, the amount of thrust which can be produced is limited by the ability of the chamber to withstand the temperatures and pressures involved. Since these limits are reached and often exceeded, by ordinary chemical energies, it is clear that the vastly greater energies available in nuclear reactions are, at the present time at least, of academic interest only to the rocket engineer. In the case of craft which remained in our atmosphere, of course, more ‘rocks’ could be taken aboard while in flight, by scooping up the atmosphere through which the ship was traveling, and allowing the surplus energy to act upon it. In space flight, however, this is not possible, and it is hardly likely that the efficiency of the rocket motor can be increased sufficiently in the near future to permit of practical or economical space travel.

Attempts are being made to overcome this problem through the concept of the ‘Ionic’ or the ‘Photonic’ drive, in which ions or photons are used as the ‘rocks’ to be thrown overboard. Ions and photons have a basic advantage over atoms or molecules in that they achieve much higher velocities without the necessity of higher temperatures or pressures. This was in the 1960’s. Apparently, great obstacles to the embodiment of these concepts in practical devices still exist.

 Actually, the rocket has been obsolete for centuries. There has not been a single basic advance in the rocket concept since the year 1214 A.D., when the invading hordes of Genghis Khan were met by the military ordnance rockets of the Chinese defenders in their walled cities, more than seven hundred years ago. True, we have produced stronger combustion chambers, we have improved slightly the shape of the venturi, and we have developed fuels with considerably higher specific impulse, but we have done nothing to advance the basic concept. We are still propelling our boat by throwing rocks over the stern.

 Men now living will stand upon the surface of Mars and Venus, but they will not go there in a rocket. There are better and simpler ways.

 It is time to reexamine our position to see if there is not something we have overlooked. Have we forgotten the old saying, “If you can’t lick ’em join ’em?”  

We have tried for centuries to `lick’ the force of gravity. We have tried to destroy it, and failed. We have searched for some method of shielding ourselves from its effect. We have not discovered it. We have attempted to overcome it by opposing it with superior force, and found it a wasteful and cumbersome process. Isn’t it about time we gave up the idea of fighting the force of gravity, and began to consider the possibilities of making use of it?

 We have learned that gravity, like all natural factors, has a negative, as well as a positive value. If after building our space craft, we could arrange conditions so that the ship was in the negative portion of the gravitational curve, it would fall away from the earth as easily  and as naturally as a stone dropped from a tower falls toward the earth.

Of course, we hear at once the objection that, while negative gravitational fields have been shown to exist, they have been found only within the atom and at inter-galactic distances. How can we place a space ship within the negative portion of the curve, with respect to the earth? The answer to this question lies in the fact that, as we have already learned, the natural laws are not absolute, but relative. That is, the size and shape of the curve of one law is dependent upon the value and position of the others. We have seen that the nucleus of the atom of uranium 235 dips below the zero line with the addition of only one mass unit, making a total of 236, yet the nucleus of the atom of uranium 238, although close to the zero line is still on the positive side of the curve because of the fact that the shape of the gravitational curve is modified not only by the mass present but also by the number and position of the electrical charges.

 Lest someone charge us with ignorance by pointing out that there are the same number of electrons (92) in each of these atoms, we will make haste to state that we refer not only to the charges in the outer shell of the atom but to those within as well, and especially to the fact, not always realized, that the neutron possesses both a positive and a negative charge, although when united within the neutron they are not discernible as
charges, but exist as energy which produces the gravitational field .

 When we acquire a better understanding of the laws, we will be able to produce any shape of curve we desire, with the earth as one reference point and the spacecraft as the other.

 Suppose you were to hand a bar magnet and a similar bar of soft iron to a man who was intelligent, but uneducated, with the request that he examine and test the two objects in order to determine their properties. One of the properties which the researcher would be certain to list would be the ‘inherent’ property of mutual attraction between the two objects. He would observe that when either end of one bar was approached either end of the other bar, a condition of attraction was observed.  He would probably conclude that the attraction was an inherent quality of these objects, and that it would continue to persist regardless of anything which could be done.

 We know, of course, that if a length of insulated wire were wound around the soft iron bar, and flow of electrons were induced in the winding, the two bars could be made to exhibit a repulsion as readily as an attraction. Note that in this case we have not destroyed the field of the permanent magnet, we have not shielded the field, nor have we overcome it. We have simply produced a field which is in opposition to it, or to state the case more concisely, we have polarized the field, by placing one end of the soft iron bar within the negative portion of the magnetic curve with respect to each end of the permanent magnet which is already so polarized.

 The same possibility exists with respect to gravitational fields except that the results are not obtained in quite the same way. It is not too difficult, however, to work out means of polarizing a gravitational field, once we discard the old assumption that it is impossible.

 SUMMARY

 To sum up as concisely as possible, the conclusions reached in our discussion of the factor of nature which we call gravity, we will propose the following corrections and additions to the gravitational theory as it is now commonly taught.

 1. The law of gravity is not a linear law but follows a curve common to all factors of nature.

 2. The gravitational field does not diminish precisely as the square of the distance as Newton believed, but because of the curvature of natural law, it diminishes normally at a slightly greater rate so that it reaches zero value, not at infinity as is usually supposed, but at a finite distance or degree of separation. Beyond this distance or degree of separation the force becomes negative.

 3. We can define a gravitational field as negative when the application of the factor called time tends to increase the degree of separation between any two reference points in the factor called matter.

 4. The value of the gravitational field at any given point is controlled by the values of the other factors of nature at that point.

 5. The electric charges within the atom are a factor which modulates the shape of the gravitational curve of the nucleus.

 6. Gravity is not the enemy of space travel. It is a friend, but there must be true understanding before the friendship can bear fruit.

 7. It is perfectly possible to produce a negative gravitational field between the earth and a given object on or near its surface by the proper application of moving electric charges.  Such a field would be effective only with respect to the given object. All other matter in the vicinity would remain  within the positive portion of the curve.


Leave a comment

Space as Observed through the Curve of Radius Light

.

.

.

.

 

Space as Observed through the Curve of Radius Light

 
Leo Smolin writes in Time Reborn, “nothing is more commonplace than space, yet when examined closely, nothing is more mysterious”. He believes that time is real and is essential for a fundamental description of nature, but that space will likely turn out to be an illusion based on current studies in casual dynamical triangulations, quantum graphics, loop quantum gravity….
Haramein’s work penetrates directly into the common sense fundamentals of space, demonstrating that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space; space being the sole criterion, linking everything in the universe, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity.

While both Smolin and Haramein question the fundamentals of our incorrect interpretation of space, with Haramein’s results profoundly more accurate, let us take a look at Space through the curvature of natural law, symbolized by the ancient Yin Yang icon representing the +/-  (positive/negative) curve characteristic whose radius is the quantity C (light); in effect demonstrating why light is the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter. As this correctly interpreted application of E=MC2  continues to unfold, “beam me up Scotty” will seem like child’s play.

 

SPACE

Chapter 4, StareSteps 3  (My apologies, Fuel2000 StarSteps site and links are down for the moment – please use below links)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SPACE

If we exchange our postulate of linear laws and a “curved space” for a concept which incorporates the curvature of natural law, we find that we have not thereby destroyed or invalidated any of our present mathematics, but we have achieved a position from which the operation of the natural laws can be pictured by the mind and can be charted upon paper. Thus we have taken a great stride in the direction of understanding.

Among all of the great basic factors of the Universe, perhaps the most difficult to explain is that which we call space. While many of our greatest philosophers and scientists have attempted definitions, few have succeeded in offering anything which the average mind could readily grasp. The German mathematician Leibnitz said, “Space is simply the order or relation of things among themselves.”  Several centuries afterwards, the late Dr. Einstein used almost identical terms. “Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the objects we perceive in it.”

The average man’s definition of space is: “That in which matter can be placed” or “that which matter occupies.” This last definition is subject to dispute by those who maintain that matter does not occupy space, but is itself, only a warp or distortion in space. Another school of thought insists with equal vigor, that while matter does occupy space, it creates a warp or distortion in the space surrounding it. Since both of these concepts are subject to the same set of mathematical laws, the same laws can be offered in support of either. There is little, however, in either of these postulates which seems to furnish a good foundation for understanding and it is understanding rather than algebraic formulae that we are seeking in this discussion.

For our purpose a simple definition will suffice. Space is that which separates bodies of matter, whether these bodies be atoms, galaxies or any component part of either. We can extend his definition by stating that the degree of separation which exists between any two bodies is determined by the degree of curvature of the natural laws which exist between them. In making observations, of course, we must remember that, since the natural laws are relative, the mass of the body itself influences the degree of curvature. In the theories of relativity given to the world by Dr. Einstein, the natural laws, in general, retain their linearity, but the space in which they operate is considered to be curved. This concept offers the simplest mathematical presentation, since all of the observed deviations from linearity can thus be explained by a single postulate. Unfortunately, like most of our mathematical presentations, the concept offers but little for the mind to grasp. A curved space can not be pictured mentally, nor can it be drawn upon paper. There is always something remaining outside the curve.  Furthermore, attempts to rationalize this concept lead to many paradoxical statements which become more and more evident, the greater the effort to explain.

One of the best efforts to bring to the average mind an understanding of the principles of relativity, was made by Lincoln Barnett in his well known book, “The Universe and Dr. Einstein.” Because of its careful preparation and its explicit presentation of present theory however, it brings out very clearly the paradox which must exist between successive assumptions. For instance: reference was made, as has already been noted, to the theory of Abbe Lemaitre, which supposed that at one time all the matter in the universe was contained in one huge lump or star. Since the curvature of space is considered to be determined by the amount or density
of the matter present in it, at that time the universe was very small. That is; it had a very high degree of curvature. Light and other forms of energy do not move outward from this curve, but follow the circumference, so that the light emitted by this body, after a comparatively short journey, returned to its starting point. No attempt was made to speculate upon the length of time in which this body had existed, or the origin of the matter and energy of which it was composed. The theory merely supposed that, after perhaps an infinity of quiescence, this body suddenly exploded. Portions of the mass moved outward in all directions and thereby enlarged the radius of space. If the radius of space was increased, it is obvious that the matter did not follow the curvature of space, but actually moved perpendicularly to it, (or perhaps at a tangent). At any rate, we see that while the radiated energy followed the “curvature” of space whose radius was determined by the mass and density of the matter, when the matter itself expanded, instead of following the curve, its motion increased the radius.

It is interesting to note that the statement is repeatedly made that this sudden expansion began about two billion years ago, yet in the preceding paragraphs it has been stated that the calculated radius of the universe is now 35 billion light years. Simple calculation would indicate then that the universe, or at least that portion which we call space, must have moved outward at an average velocity equal to about seventeen times the velocity of light. Either this velocity of expansion is still maintained or at some period in the past it must have been greater*

·
It has since been announced by Walter Baade of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories that, as a result of the recalibration of the cephid variable stars, the previously calculated size of the universe must be increased by a factor of 2.8  * However the correction factor also applies to the time of expansion, so that the rate of expansion remains the same. * Note that these statements about the size of the universe were made in 1965 and subsequent discoveries and recalculations would merit the same consideration regarding the rate of expansion. ______

 These statements raise some perplexing questions. In our theories of relativity it is assumed that light follows the “curve” of apace. Yet it is difficult to picture a photon following a curve whose radius is expanding at a rate equal to seventeen times the velocity of the particle.

In the book “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” it is also stated that: while space is expanding rapidly, the matter of the universe, which is likened to “inelastic patches on the surface of an expanding balloon” is not expanding with the space, since if it were,  we could not detect the expansion. 
If it is space that is expanding, it is difficult to understand why we have never detected the increasing distance between the earth and the moon or the sun. No attempt was made to explain why the space which exists between the individual atoms, and between the component parts of those atoms, should not expand also. 
None of these difficulties, of course, invalidate any of the mathematical laws from which the concepts have been derived, but they do emphasize the great need for explanations which are more compatible with reason and understanding. For instance, in the above case would it not be simpler to assume that the degree of separation which exists between the galaxies, when considered as individual bodies, is apparently increasing because they occupy opposite portions of the sine curve of natural law?
If we exchange our postulate of linear laws and a “curved space” for a concept which incorporates the curvature of natural law, we find that we have not thereby destroyed or invalidated any of our present mathematics, but we have achieved a position from which the operation of the natural laws can be pictured by the mind and can be charted upon paper. Thus we have taken a great stride in the direction of understanding.
 

 SUMMARY

 In summing up our discussion of space we should recall__

 1. Our definition: Space is that which separates bodies of matter. This separation is a vector function of the time,
energy and mass differentials.

 2. The degree of separation which exists between any two bodies, or reference points, determine the degree of curvature of the natural laws between them.

 3. The natural laws are relative. That is, the value of one can be altered between any two reference points by altering the value or relationship of the other. This last fact should always be borne in mind when we hear some dogmatist solemnly declare that we are forever barred from reaching the stars by the hopelessly great degree of separation which exists between us.


Leave a comment

Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass

THE CONNECTED UNIVERSE    Trailer for the upcoming documentary by Malcom Carter on Nassim Haramein’s new peer-reviewed paper:

QUANTUM GRAVITY AND THE HOLOGRAPHIC MASS  

Quantum gravity Download the Paper.

NEW “CONNECTED UNIVERSE” THEORY OFFERS ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF GRAVITY AND THE SOURCE OF MASS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn35qoCjLYA


Kilauea, Hawaii (May 7, 2013) – A groundbreaking paper published last week sheds new light on the theory of gravity and the potential to significantly impact global issues facing the human race, including alternative energy sources.

Nassim Haramein, Director of Research at the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics (HIUP), has authored a paper titled “Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass,” which has been validated and published in the peer review journal, Physical Review and Research International. This paper discusses Haramein’s “Connected Universe” theory, which offers a new and alternative understanding of gravity through basic algebraic and geometric equations.

Haramein’s work indicates everything in the universe is connected, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity. He demonstrates that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space.

“Remember that matter is made up of 99.9 percent space,” Haramein said. “Quantum field theory states that the structure of spacetime itself, at the extremely small level, vibrates with tremendous intensity. If we were to extract even a small percentage of all the energy held within the vibrations present in the space inside your little finger, it would represent enough energy to supply the world’s needs for hundreds of years. This new discovery has the potential to open up access and harness that energy like never before, which would revolutionize life as we know it today.” (read more http://resonance.is/explore/quantum-gravity-and-the-holographic-mass-trailer-and-press-release/)

 

Kodie at Blue Ridge fs Peter Jocis shared The Resonance Project‘s photo.

4 hours ago

( peer reviewed published paper) Nassim Haramein “The irony of it all is that this solution has been right under our noses this whole time thanks to many ancient cultures encoding this geometric relationship right into their monuments and documents: the Flower of Life ! …………”

Completing this relationship will be the ancient Yin Yang symbol representing the +/-  (positive/negative) curve whose radius is the quantity C (light), in effect demonstrating why light is the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter. As this correctly interpreted application of E=MC2  unfolds, “beam me up Scotty” will seem like child’s play.

We have reviewed in the recent previous posts some perceptually corrected definitions, looked at The Nonlinearity of Physical Law, and beyond A Uni-dimensional Perception of Time through the ‘curve’ of natural law view which merges with common sense, measurement and observation; we have noted the radius of this curve becomes apparent in all the factors of nature through scale invariance, as we move toward the very small (micro) and very large (macro) realms.

With both Nassim Haramein’s alternative understanding of gravity through basic algebraic and geometric equations, and Leo Smolin’s “trading the relativity of time for the relativity of size, the history of the universe can be described in the language of general relativity or the language shape dynamics”, the ‘curve’ of natural law with the radius of the quantity C is beginning to shed its light.

Prior to concluding with Space, Gravity and the Quantity C, let us do a retake of the distinction between ‘mass’ and ‘matter’  and their roleplay in the scale invariance curve of radius C across macro, micro scales.

 Matter and Mass

Much of the confusion which exists in our scientific concepts today is brought about by our failure to distinguish carefully between matter and mass. Until a comparatively few years ago, it was assumed that mass was a property which was exhibited only by matter. Upon closer examination, however, it appeared that energy also possesses mass, since when energy was added to a body of matter, the mass of the body was increased.

We should, perhaps, pause at this point to define the terms which we are using lest we add to the confusion instead of resolving it. Mass is defined as resistance to change in the existing state of motion. It is measured by the amount of the energy which is required to produce a given change in velocity. All matter has the property of mass, but not all mass has the properties of matter. For the purposes of this discussion, we will postulate that there are two types of mass, inertial mass, which is simply the property of resistance to change in a state of motion, and the mass inherent in matter, which we will call Newtonian mass, because it includes all mass which obeys the original laws laid down by Sir Isaac Newton. Since the reader may be under the impression that all mass obeys the Newtonian laws, let us pause here long enough to examine the facts and to point out the differences in the properties of inertial and Newtonian mass.

All physicists of today are agreed that the electron has mass. Yet if it were possible for us to hold an electron between two of our fingers and then suddenly release it, we would find that there was not the slightest tendency for the electron to fall to the earth (unless the surface happened to be positively charged at the moment). The electron is not in the least affected by the gravitational field of the earth, so long as it is at rest with respect to that field (if the electron is moving through the field, however, the direction of the motion will be affected).

The electron has mass only because it has an electric charge. As we know, when an electric charge is accelerated in space, a magnetic field is produced, and energy is required to produce this field. The energy ‘spent’ in producing this field, is said to be the ‘mass’ of the electron, since it is the entire cause of its resistance to acceleration. The greater the degree of acceleration, of course, the more intense the field, and the greater the amount of energy required to produce it. So we say that the electron gains ‘mass’ with every increase in its velocity.

If an electron could be accelerated to the velocity C, (commonly called the velocity of light), it would have acquired the maximum velocity with which energy can be propagated. It is obvious, therefore, that no amount of energy could further accelerate this electron. (with respect to its original reference point), so it would be considered to have acquired ‘infinite mass.’

Let us take time to examine this statement carefully, since it is a point upon which there is much confusion. The electron would have acquired infinite mass only in reference to its original energy level. If observed from a reference point which had itself received the same degree of acceleration, the mass of the electron would not have changed a particle. This increase of inertial mass with increasing velocity is simply the measure of the kinetic energy differential between the observer and the point which he is observing.

We will attempt a simple analogy, in the hope of making this more readily understood. An observer is stationed in ‘free space’ far from any gravitational or other fields which might affect the results of the experiment which he proposes to make. He has in one hand, a sphere of cork or other light material which has a mass of 10 grams. In the other hand he hand he has a pistol which fires bullets also having a mass of 10 grams and a velocity of 1000 feet per second. The man holds the ball out at arms length, and fires a bullet from the gun into it. We will postulate that – the bullet is not absorbed by the cork, but shares its kinetic energy with it, so that after the impact, the bullet and the cork ball each have a velocity of 500 feet per second.

The observer now fires a second bullet at the cork. This bullet also has a velocity of 1000 feet per second with respect to the observer, but now the target has a velocity of 500 feet per second in the same direction, so that there is a differential of only 500 feet per second which the bullet can share with its target. After this impact, the bullet and the ball each have a velocity of 750 feet per second. When the observer fires the third bullet, he finds that now there is a differential of only 250 feet per second between it and the target, so that the velocity of the target is raised by only 125 feet per second, and so on.  The observer notes that each succeeding bullet, although it has the same energy with respect to him, produces a smaller and smaller acceleration in the target. He would observe that the ‘mass of the target’ (its resistance to acceleration) appears to increase with its velocity. If he made mathematical calculations based upon his observations, they would show that the greatest velocity which he could ever induce in the target would be 1000 feet per second (the velocity of the bullets), and that to produce this velocity it would be necessary to fire an infinite number of bullets. His experiment demonstrates conclusively that as the velocity of the target approaches 1000 feet per second, his ability to further accelerate it approaches zero.

Persons with lesser intelligence or insight than our observer might be convinced that this figure of 1000 feet per second was an absolute and inescapable limit. The observer, however, as we said, has greater understanding.  After he has accelerated his target to the ‘limiting’ velocity of 1000 feet per second (by firing an infinite number of bullets), he steps aboard a small apace ship (with which he has thoughtfully provided himself), and takes off in the direction of the target. He accelerates his ship to a velocity of 1000 feet per second, with respect to his starting point, and now finds that he is back upon exactly the same energy level as his target. If there were no other bodies of matter in the universe, there would be no way in which he could determine that either he or the target were in motion, since there would be no relative motion between them, and no other reference points from which motion might be determined.

In fact, he finds that the situation is exactly the same as it was before he fired the first shot, and he can now begin his shooting all over again. He does so and observes that his first bullet accelerates the target to a velocity of 500 feet per second with respect to his new reference point, and he notes that the ‘infinite mass’ of the target returns to its original 10 grams, as soon as he reaches the same energy level. He realizes then that the ‘increasing mass’ of the target is only the measure of the kinetic energy differential which exists between them. The mass approaches infinity only as the energy level approaches that of the accelerating force. (In this case it is 1000 feet per second.)

In the case of the quantity C, usually called the velocity of light, the differential is equal to 3 x 10(10) centimeters per second, or if we convert this velocity to its equivalent energy we would have 9 x 10(20) ergs per gram. It is therefore, a maximum or limiting velocity, but only with respect to a given reference point.

In our discussion of non-linearity of physical law, it was pointed out that the energy inherent in a gram, or any other quantity of matter is precisely the quantity of energy necessary to accelerate its mass to a velocity equal to the quantity C by energy conversion. This statement may be hotly disputed by some students who have not yet learned to distinguish between matter and mass. Their argument is to the effect that no mass can ever be accelerated to the velocity of light since the mass would then be ‘infinite’ and consequently the energy required to produce the velocity would also be ‘infinite’. The incorrectness of this assumption can be demonstrated simply by pressing the button of a pocket flashlight. A beam of light will be produced which any physicist will agree has mass and which, by its very definition, is moving at the velocity of light.  Yet all the energy required is released by a small amount of chemical change taking place within the cells of a battery

For those that wish to read ahead:

1.  General Definitions – critical     2.  The Nonlinearity of Physical Law     3.  Gravity     4. Matter and Mass     5.  Space    6.  The Quantity C      7.  Time

cea22-starstepsbutton  StarSteps1    StarSteps2    StarSteps3

 


Leave a comment

Extended Applications of a Simple Unified Field Theory

  1.  

    Set Science FreeThe Energy Solution Revolution

    Extended Applications of a Simple Unified Field Theory 

    whose foundations are being re-confirmed with the integration of the  Resonance Project, Walter Russell’s work, and StarSteps to Einstein’s 1928 incomplete, but testable, unified field theory – with refinements provided by the penetrating investigations of such notables as: Tom Bearden, Eugene Malove, Nikola Tesla,  Biefeld-Brown, Moray B King, Burkhard Heim, Paul LaViolette….to name a few
    Peter Jocis shared a link via Modern Qigong.
    Extending the Radius of Curvature, Yin Yang structure of Energy Flow application in more subtle arenas – recalling the power off just ONE atom in E=MC2
    • Extending the Radius of Curvature, Yin Yang structure of Energy Flow application in more subtle arenas – recalling the power off just ONE atom in E=MC2


      Uploaded by ROBABEKIATV

      Step by step , learn Tai chi in a perfect simple way from the beginning 🙂
    • Extending the Radius of Curvature, Yin Yang structure of Energy Flow application in more subtle arenas – recalling the power off just ONE atom in E=MC2


      Uploaded by BigSpeak Speakers Bureau

      Thomas Crum is an author and presenter in the fields of conflict resolution, peak performance, and stress management. He is known throughout the world for “The Thomas Crum Approach,” designed to help people become more centered under conflict, more resourceful when facing challenges, and more effective under stress. For over 30 years, Tom Cr…


Leave a comment

Simple Explanation of Unified Field Theory

We are approaching the 1940s capacity to retest the “incomplete” but “testable” unified field theory (1928 Einstein), whose foundations are being re-confirmed with the integration of the  Resonance Project, Walter Russell’s work, and StarSteps – with refinements provided by the penetrating investigations of such notables as: Tom Bearden, Eugene Malove, Nikola Tesla,  Biefeld-Brown, Moray B King, Burkhard Heim, Paul LaViolette….to name a few. 
(repost from Freedom Times)

 Exploring Energy Evolution Engineering

Simple Explanation of Unified Field Theory

Excellent preliminary in layman’s terms, coincides with Walter Russell’s theory – both still missing the concrete tie-in –  the LIGHT/MATTER connection -“WHY” THE QUANTITY C, HAS TO BE THE KINETIC ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF THE MASS ENERGY OF MATTER, representing the radius of curvature of all natural law……..

Simple Explanation of Unified Field Theory – Jamie Janover
Here Jamie Janover does an interview that gives an overview of some of the vast body of information centered around the unified field theory of scientist Nas…


Leave a comment

Beyond A Uni-dimensional Perception of TIME

time3d

Accessing Fusion Power through the fusing of nuclei under extreme pressure and temperature is outdated.

  All previously failed attempts to Fusion Power have in common the characteristic issues Leo Smolin describes in  “the time problem” – albeit these ‘relative, universal, absolute, preferred concepts”, including the notions of duality, shape dynamics and relativity, with their variances (very large, macro) to quantum (very small, micro) cross over to the other factors of nature (space, time, mass, matter, energy, gravity)……………… The scale invariance and dualities are resolved through the Radius of Curvature of all Natural Law, the quantity C, the definition of light – WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WHY, THE QUANTITY C HAS TO BE THE KINETIC ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF THE MASS ENERGY OF MATTER.

The natural laws are relative  That is, the value of one can be altered between any two reference points by altering the value or relationship of the other. We defined space as that which separates bodies of matter, so we define time as that which separates events. (If there is no discernible separation in this respect, the events are said to be simultaneous.) Examining this concept carefully, we find that time follows the same curve of natural law which is apparent in the operation of all the basic factors of nature, and again the radius of that curvature is measured by the quantity C.

Beyond A Uni-dimensional Perception of TIME

In his examination of the natural laws or facts of the Universe, man is greatly handicapped by the fact, insofar as time is concerned, he has never progressed beyond a uni-dimensional perception.

Those who are familiar with the analogies used to explain some portions of the theory of relativity, will recall that in attempting to achieve a concept of a four dimensional continuum, the reader is asked first to imagine a man who is conscious of only one dimension in space. His entire universe consists of a single line. If a dot were placed on the line in front of him, and behind, he would be completely imprisoned, since he would not be able to conceive of going over or around them. As his intelligence and consciousness developed, he would eventually become aware of a second dimension, and to imprison him then, it would be necessary to enclose him in a circle. With further development, he would become aware of a third dimension in which a sphere would be a prison, and so on.

We are now conscious of three dimensions of space, and have done considerable mathematical reasoning in regard to a fourth. Unfortunately, insofar as time is concerned, our consciousness has never progressed beyond the first dimension. We are confined to a single line in time. We have no concept of lateral motion, nor can we even turn around upon that line. We can only go forward. Many of the difficulties which we encounter in our attempt to understand the operation of the natural laws arise because of our severely restricted concept of the nature of time.

Time has often been referred to as the “fourth dimension” by those who attempt to explain our present concept of relativity. It is usually pointed out that, since all known bodies of matter in the Universe are constantly in motion with respect to each other, if we wish to describe the position of any body, it is necessary to give a point in time as well as a spatial relationship to any other body or bodies. There is, however, a more convincing method of demonstrating that time is a dimension, although we believe it would be more precise to consider it as the first dimension rather than the fourth since it is the one dimension in which all motion must take place.

We are at the present, conscious of three dimensions of space, and we know that motion can take place in any one of the three, but whichever dimension of space is involved, the motion must also take place in time. Our term for the rate of motion is the word velocity, which is defined as being the degree of change in location per unit of time. If an object has a velocity of 1000 feet per second, with respect to our point of observation, we will see that in one thousandth of a second the object will have moved one foot. In one millionth of a second it will have moved only one thousandth of a foot, and so on. We can easily see that if the time becomes zero, the motion must also become zero.

The science of photography has reached a state of development which permits us to take photographs with very short exposure times. By the stroboscopic method of photography, which has been superseded by even faster methods, we were able to take several hundred thousand consecutive pictures in one second. In these pictures even the fastest projectile seems frozen into immobility. We have taken pictures of a rifle bullet penetrating an ordinary electric light bulb, in which several complete and consecutive pictures have been made between the time the bullet first touched the bulb and the time that the first crack appeared in the glass. In these pictures, the bullet appears to be completely motionless. Of course the taking of the pictures actually did involve a very small elapse of time, and so a very small amount of motion did occur during the taking, but it again illustrates the fact that no motion which we can perceive, can take place except within that dimension of time of which we are conscious.

Having pointed out the limitations of our consciousness concerning this factor which we call time, let us now go back and examine it as best we can, with that degree of consciousness and understanding which we have. We will again attempt to choose the simplest possible definition. We defined space as that which separates bodies of matter, so we will define time as that which separates events. (If there is no discernible separation in this respect, the events are said to be simultaneous.)

 Of course we immediately hear the objection that events may be separated by space as well as by time, or that they may be separated by space without being separated by time. This statement, while usually considered to be true, yet forms a stumbling block which has precipitated many a philosopher into the quagmire of misunderstanding and paradox. The difficulty arises in our attempt to define the term simultaneous. If two events are separated by space, how shall we determine whether or not they are separated by time?

The observer cannot be present at the site of both events, and so must observe one or both of them through the separation of space, and therefore through the curvature of natural law which the separation represents. In referring to this problem in the introduction to his first book on relativity, Dr. Einstein pointed out that since our only contact with the world about us is through our senses, and since all of the knowledge which we have concerning the universe has come to us through them, if we are to formulate mathematical rules based upon our observations, we must begin with the postulate that the things which our senses tell us are true. If we should observe through a large telescope, the creation of a nova in a remote galaxy, and at the same time observe the eruption of a volcano upon our own earth, we must assume, for the purpose of our mathematics, that the two events are simultaneous.

This a postulate which is difficult to accept because the faculty which we call reason immediately interposes the objection that a separation in space involves an elapse of time between the event and our perception of it. However, Dr. Einstein points out that if we allow our reason to modify our observations, we will be evolving a concept whose value is based only upon the validity of our reason rather than upon the accuracy of our observations. We must postulate that events which are observed simultaneously, occur simultaneously insofar as that observer is concerned, and that, therefore, the simultaneity of events is a condition which depends entirely upon the position of the observer with respect to those events.

Almost any student of physics today, be he a beginner or a graduate scientist will argue that no man can ever travel from the earth to the star Alpha Centauri in a period of less than four years, because the laws of relativity state that matter can never move with a velocity greater than that of light.

This is one of the prime fallacies which has been created by misinterpretation of the mathematics. The mathematics do not say that man cannot travel between the earth and Alpha Centauri in less than four years. They say only that no observer on earth can ever see him do it. Let us see if we can create an example by which this statement may be more readily understood.

First we will assume that there is a planet in orbit about Alpha Centauri. (Because of Alpha’s proximity to its twin star Proxima Centauri, the orbit would be a rather eccentric one, but perhaps it will do as a reference point.) Next we will build a small space ship, in which we propose to pay a visit to this planet. Since a small space ship is not a very comfortable place to spend long periods of time, the idea of being confined to the craft for the four years, which relativity seems to say is the shortest possible time, is a distasteful one, so we cast about for means to shorten the journey.

If we do our engineering according to the rules which are known as classical mechanics or ordinary engineering practice, it will become apparent at once that we cannot use any source of energy which originates within the ship. These rules of mechanics tell us that, to accelerate a body of matter to a velocity of 3×10(10) centimeters per second (the velocity of light) will require energy equal to 9×10(20) ergs per gram of mass. Yet the rules of relativity (E=MC2) tell us that 9×10(20) ergs is the total energy contained in a gram of mass. This means that if we wish to accelerate the space ship to the velocity of light by energy created within the ship, we would have to convert all of the matter within the ship, including our own bodies to energy. We would then achieve the velocity of light, but we would arrive at our destination, not as matter but as electromagnetic radiation.

Since we would much prefer to arrive as matter, we must seek an accelerating force which will act from some unlimited source of energy outside the ship. It is at once apparent that a force field originating on earth would not be successful because the rate of propagation of a field is the same as that of light, and no field can accelerate us to a velocity greater than its own rate of propagation.

For the purpose of this example we will simply postulate that we have available, a supply of energy form an outside source, which we can use in any desired quantity, and which can be used to create an instantaneous velocity so high that we will reach our destination, four light years distant, in a single hour.

We will take off from a launching pad which is situated near an observatory operated by a friend of ours, who is an astronomer, and who has a telescope of unlimited power, through which he will observe our progress. Since he can only observe us through the light which we emit during the trip, we must also  cause the ship to emit a very large quantity of light.

At a prearranged instant we will takeoff and at once achieve a velocity that will take us to our destination in an hour. After fifteen minutes we will have covered one quarter of the distance, but the light which we emit at that point will require one year to return to earth, and will reach the eyes of the astronomer one year and fifteen minutes after takeoff. He will note in his logbook that we required a year and fifteen minutes to reach the quarter point. After we have traveled for thirty minutes we will have covered half the distance, but the light which we emit at that point will require two years t return to earth, and so will reach the astronomers eyes two years and thirty minutes after takeoff. After an hour has passed we will have reached our destination, but the light emitted by the craft will not reach the astronomer until four years and one hour after our departure from earth. All of the light which we emit at intermediate points will, of course, arrive at intermediate times so that the astronomer could observe our progress constantly from the instant of takeoff to the moment of our arrival upon the distant planet, four years and one hour later.

According to the primary postulate of relativity that we must accept the evidence of our senses as being valid, the astronomer must maintain that from his reference point we did not quite achieve the velocity of light.

The fact that we may have returned long before this, that we may be seated at his side, and may perhaps, be assisting him in his work, does not in any way affect the validity of his observations or the mathematics of relativity which he applies thereto. Let us remember, however, the statement that, when our mathematics are complete, then we may allow reason to deal with that which we have created. If we do this, we will not fall into the common error of confusing relativity with a concept of absolute determinism.

Let us reiterate Dr. Einstein=s preface again: AIf we allow our reason to modify our observations before our mathematics are complete, we will be evolving a concept whose value is based entirely upon the validity of our reason rather than upon the accuracy of our observations. After our mathematics are complete, then we can allow reason to deal with the formula, but until the formula is complete, we must postulate that events which are observed simultaneously occur simultaneously insofar as that observer is concerned, and that therefore the simultaneity of events is a condition which depends entirely upon the position of the observer with respect to those events.

 If we examine this concept carefully, we find that time follows the same curve of natural law which is apparent in the operation of all the basic factors of nature, and again the radius of that curvature is measured by the quantity C.

We will now create another simple analogy, in far greater detail, which may serve to make this statement more readily understood. It will put us in a unique position from which we can, from a single point in time, observe ourselves occupying three rather widely separated positions in space.

 Once again, we will start today to build a space ship. We will postulate that the ship will require one year of our time to build, and that when completed, it will be capable of infinite acceleration. We will assume that a continuous supply of energy is available from an outside source, and that the craft will continue to accelerate so long as this energy acts upon it.

During the year which we spend in building the craft, light is being reflected from us into space, so that an observer with a telescope stationed at some other point in space could follow the course of its construction. When we have completed the construction of our craft we will enter it and take off for a destination which we will assume to be a planet orbiting about Alpha or Proxima Centauri, our next nearest suns, about four light years distant. We have a telescope of unlimited power in the rear of the craft pointed toward the earth which we are leaving, and another telescope at the front, focused upon the planet which is our destination. We will set the field strength for a constant acceleration, and seat ourselves at our telescopes to observe the result.

After we have risen a few miles from the surface, we will, for the purpose of furnishing an additional reference point, eject from the craft and its field, a cannon  ball or other sphere of metal which has been specially painted so that it can readily be observed from any distance with the aid of our unlimited telescopes. Since we had not yet reached escape velocity when the ball was ejected, we will observe that it soon begins to fall back to earth.

As we continue to accelerate, we will observe that the kinetic energy differential which we are producing between ourselves and our points of observation is producing exactly the effect upon time which is predicted by our postulate of the curvature of natural law. Since the distance or degree of separation between ourselves and the earth is increasing with time, the energy differential is negative, which means that the natural laws at the observed point will displaced towards the base or zero line of the sine curve, insofar as our observations are concerned.

If we reach a velocity equal to one half that of light, and then observe a clock on earth through our telescope, we will see that in ten hours of our time, only five hours have been recorded by the earth clock. If we observe the test sphere which we ejected during our take off, (assuming that it has not yet reached the ground) we will see that it is not falling at the rate predicted by our laws of gravitation, but at a rate only half as great. We will also observe that the sphere is not accelerating at the rate predicted by our laws, nor even at half that rate. Since we ourselves are still accelerating, the observed acceleration of the sphere is diminished by a factor which is proportionate to ours.

We must remember that we can only observe events through the light which is emitted or reflected by the objects concerned with those events, and if we ourselves have a motion equal one half that velocity in the direction in which the light is moving, then a column or sequence of light impulses which were emitted from the earth during a five hour period, would require ten hours to pass our point of observation.

When the velocity of our craft reaches that of light with respect to the earth, there will be a negative energy differential, equal to the quantity C, existing between us and our point of observation. We will observe that all natural laws upon the earth have reached zero value with respect to us.

All motion and all changes have ceased.

If we observe our test sphere we will see that gravity is no longer acting upon it, since it has ceased to fall. All laws of motion are in abeyance and the factor which we call time has ceased to have any significance.

To make these observations, of course, we would require one of the new telescopes which operate on the retention of vision principle, where the last image to arrive remains upon the viewing screen until a new light image arrives to change it. When we reach the velocity C, no new light will arrive, hence the picture will not change until we change our velocity. Since we postulated at the beginning of this analogy that our craft was capable of unlimited acceleration, and since the postulated force continues to act, our velocity will continue to increase and we will have between ourselves and the earth, a rate of increase in the degree of separation which is greater than that specified by the quantity C. We can do this from our point of reference although, as will be explained later, we cannot do it from the point of view of an observer upon the earth.

When we have passed through the velocity C, a startling change occurs in our observations. We no longer observe the earth from the telescope at the rear of the craft. The earth now appears in the telescope at the front, and we are no longer leaving the earth, we are now approaching it. We will see a craft which is identical to ours, and which is indeed our own craft, detach itself from us and move back toward the earth ahead of us at a rate which is proportionate to our excess over the velocity C.

If we observe the earth, we discover that all natural laws are operating in reverse.

If we observe the test sphere we will see that it is now falling away from the earth rather than towards it. Gravity between the earth and the sphere has become negative with respect to our point of reference as have all the natural laws. We observe this through the forward telescope rather than that at the rear, because we are now overtaking the light which had passed us before we had reached the velocity C, and since we are now overtaking it, we encounter first the light which had passed us last.

All events occur in reverse, just as would the scenes in a motion picture film which is being run backwards.

If we complete our journey to the planet which is our destination, at an average velocity equal to 4 times C, we will arrive with an elapsed time of one year as measured by the clocks on our own craft. During the journey, however, we will observe the elapse of five years of time upon the planet which we are approaching, and the elapse of three years of negative time upon the earth which we are leaving.

In other words we will arrive at our destination three years before we left the earth.

If immediately upon our arrival we seat ourselves at a telescope of sufficient power to observe the earth at close range, we will see ourselves going about the daily tasks which we performed two years before we began to build the space craft in which we made the journey. If we then focus the telescope upon the proper point in space we will see ourselves in our space craft, flying backwards toward the earth.

We are now in a position from which we can observe the sine curve nature of all natural law, and to measure precisely the radius of the curvature. If we observe the earth, we see that time there is positive. That is: it is moving in the direction which we consider normal. Since there is no significant energy differential, the time rate is essentially the same, but because of the degree of spatial separation there will be a displacement along the time curve, between the observer and the point which he is observing.

According to our theory of the curvature of natural law, this displacement should be equal to D divided by C, where D is the distance and C is our basic factor. In the case of our present observation the distance is equal to 4.C.years, which if divided by C will equal 4 years, which is precisely the degree of displacement which we observe.

If we now turn our attention to the space craft, we find that we are observing it through an energy differential which exceeds the quantity C and therefore the craft is within the negative portion of the curve, and all natural laws will be operating in reverse at that point. We are now in a unique position, in that we now can, from a single point in time or at least from a single point in the only dimension of time of which we are conscious, observe ourselves occupying three rather widely separated positions in space.

First: our position at the telescope as the observer. At this point time is positive.

Second: our position on the surface of the earth. Here time is also positive but has a negative displacement upon the time curve which is equal to four years.

Third: our position in the space craft: here time is negative, as demonstrated by the fact that we observe it flying backwards toward the earth, and all actions taking place within it occur in reverse order. This is, of course, due to the fact that the craft had a velocity greater then that of C and so was constantly leaving behind the light which was emitted or reflected from it. As we observe the craft from our new reference point, the last light which it emitted arrives first.

If we continue to observe for several years, we will eventually see ourselves build the craft and take off into space. At the same time we can see ourselves in the same craft hurtling backward through space toward the inevitable meeting point where the past and the future join to become the present.

Since we are observing ourselves simultaneously occupying three different positions in space, we can readily see that we are forced to a concept of time which includes more than one dimension. If we continue to observe the two craft, we will see that the one which is moving away from us is constantly slowing down, while the one coming toward us from the earth is accelerating. At the instant in which the velocity of the receding craft reaches zero, the approaching craft will reach it, coincide with it, and both craft will disappear completely from view. Our lateral excursion into time has completed its curve and we have returned to the starting point of our unidimensional concept.

There is only one thing left to do. We immediately leap into our space craft and begin our return journey to earth. As before, we achieve an average or mean velocity equal to 4 C. We land our craft near the observatory of an astronomer who is a friend of ours, and rush in to tell him of our return. We find him seated at his telescope observing our landing upon the planet which we had set out to visit. When we inform him that we achieved an average velocity of 4 C, his reply is that this is impossible since the laws of relativity clearly state that no object can achieve a velocity in excess of C (with respect to a given reference point.).

He will also point out that he has been observing us constantly since our take off from the earth and that only now, today, five years later, were we observed to have reached our destination. Since the journey required five years of earth time, our average velocity was only four fifths that of light.

Again, we must restate with emphasis: according to the primary postulate of relativity, that for mathematical purposes we must accept the results of our observations as valid, the astronomer is perfectly correct in his statement that we did not, and could not have exceeded the velocity C. The mere fact that we have returned, be seated at his side, and may perhaps be assisting him in his work, does not in any way affect the validity of his observations nor the mathematics of relativity which he applies thereto. He can only state that our arrival upon the distant planet, and the moment of our return to earth were in fact simultaneous.

 We can see that, even if our energy level had been so close to infinite that the outward trip had required only one second, if during the one second trip we had emitted enough light to make observation possible, the astronomer upon the earth would note that the trip required four years and one second, and so would have undeniable proof of the mathematics which postulate that only with infinite energy may the velocity C be achieved.

While the astronomer’s statement is perfectly correct with respect to his reference point upon the earth, if we leave the surface of the earth, our reference point will go along with us, and the limitations of relativity will always precede us at a distance equal to the quantity C. We need not fear that we will ever overtake or be hampered in any way by those limitations. We can now clearly see a number of those aspects of the principles of relativity which have created what we have described as thought blocks in the minds of many students, scientists and engineers. We have shown that these thought blocks are not actually inherent in the mathematics of relativity, but are obstacles created by the arbitrary interpretations which we have placed upon those mathematics. The obstacles are illusionary only. We must realize that the rules of limitation found in our mathematical approach to nature, are limitations only of our own perception and consciousness; and have no absolute significance insofar as nature itself is concerned.

For those that wish to read ahead:

1.      General Definitions – critical

2.      The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

3.      Gravity

4.      Matter and Mass

5.      Space

6.      The Quantity C

7.      Time

 StarSteps1

StarSteps1 

StarSteps2
 StarSteps3

StarSteps3 

 


Leave a comment

The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

Frequency vibration

The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

 Investigating the “Why” for the Big Screw Up in the Standard Model of Physics

“physicists have two ways of describing reality, quantum mechanics for the small world of particles and general relativity for the larger world of planets and black holes. But the two theories do not get along: attempts to combine their equations into a unified theory produce seemingly nonsensical answers” “…..Cats are both dead and alive, an infinitude of simultaneous existing universes, reality depends on what’s measured, or who’s observing, particles that signal each other across vast distances at speeds exceeding light”

Historically, as our boundaries expanded, the flat world was seen to be round.

What is not being “seen” and recognized, as Physics’ boundaries expanded – when size, mass, distance begin approaching the micro and macro domains where the CURVATURE, with the constant C radius, HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR?

The natural laws are relative?  That is, the value of one can be altered between any two reference points by altering the value or relationship of the other. We defined space as that which separates bodies of matter, so we define time as that which separates events. (If there is no discernible separation in this respect, the events are said to be simultaneous.) Examining this concept carefully, we find that time follows the same curve of natural law which is apparent in the operation of all the basic factors of nature, and again the radius of that curvature is measured by the quantity C.

Mathematical/timing/observational error, or eyesight limitation? (The theory of relativity does not say that man cannot travel faster than the speed of light, it merely says that no one on earth will be able to ‘see’ him do it.)

The Simultaneous Issue? In referring to the problem of simultaneity in the introduction to his first book on relativity, Dr. Einstein pointed out that since our only contact with the world about us is through our senses, and since all of the knowledge which we have concerning the universe has come to us through them, if we are to formulate mathematical rules based upon our observations, we must begin with the postulate that the things which our senses tell us are true. If we should observe through a large telescope, the creation of a nova in a remote galaxy, and at the same time observe the eruption of a volcano upon our own earth, we must assume, for the purpose of our mathematics, that the two events are simultaneous (see detailed explanation on Time – StarSteps3)

A review of the definitions, for the purpose of measurement, will assist in defining Common Denominators in the major factors of Nature – space, time, mass, matter, energy, gravity (and fields in general) as represented by frequency.  (see Definitions)

curvedlaw d4a55-yen4tcmove

Moving away from a straight line to infinity, super-imposed space time coordinate systems, and a CURVED space, we will look at the nonlinearity of physical law itself.

 The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

The series of mathematical formula which Albert Einstein gave to the world in 1905, he called “A Theory of Special Relativity”. Einstein brought to our attention that the factors of Gravity, Space, Time and Energy were not absolute and independent entities, but that they were variable factors, each having a value which depended upon the value of others. Thus the first faint light of understanding began to filter through the dense screen of absolute determinism which had been erected about the physical science.

Unfortunately, science, instead of pursuing this bright gleam of truth, attempted, from force of habit, to mold it into the common pattern of knowledge, by reducing it to a mathematical formula, which could be used without the necessity of understanding it. Special Relativity was made into a “universal law of absolutes”.

We have ignored the forward with which Einstein prefaced the mathematics, and so have created the very thought blocks which he hoped to prevent. We will refer to this problem later on, but it might be wise first, to devote a little time to the consideration of what we will call “the non linearity of physical law”.

A few decades ago, our physical laws were considered to be linear. That is: we had, by trial and error, by observation and test, developed a set of laws which apparently held true for all of the small segment of nature, which we were able to observe at the time. We assumed, therefore, that these laws would hold true in any segment of nature, no matter how far removed from our point of observation.

When, however, the study of physics moved into the microcosm, that is, when we began to examine the interior of the atom, we found there a set of laws which did not agree with those to which we had been accustomed. They too appeared to be linear, but operated at an angle to our established laws. The same disturbing situation was discovered in the macrocosm. When our astronomers developed the giant telescope capable of peering many millions of light years into space, they found there, still another set of laws operating apparently at an angle to both of the others.

For a time, we attempted to accustom ourselves to the existence of three sets of physical laws, each

set linear within its own range of observation, but each set operating angularly with respect to the others. Then, with the development of the principles of relativity, we began to realize, or at least we should have realized, that these different sets of linear laws were not actually linear, nor were they different sets of laws. They were simply three widely separated segments of the one great curve of natural law.

As long as we were dealing with quantities which could be observed with the unaided eye or with simple instruments, we were unable to detect the curvature, because the segment we were observing constituted such a tiny portion of the curve that its deviation from linearity was too slight to be detected.

For most practical purposes connected with the ordinary mechanics of our daily lives, these laws are still considered to be linear. Calculations are simpler when they are so considered, and the resulting  error is negligible. For the same reason, a surveyor who is surveying a small residence lot does not find it necessary to take into consideration the curvature of the earth, because the error resulting from this neglect is not detectable even by the most sensitive of his instruments. If, however, the surveyor is to make accurate measurements of large areas such as a State or a Continent, it does become imperative to consider the curvature of the earth’s surface, and to do this, of course, it is necessary to have a reasonably accurate knowledge of the radius of that curvature.

The necessity of an accurate determination of the radius of curvature of the natural laws was first realized perhaps by the late Dr. Einstein, who devoted a large part of his life’s work to this problem. The results which he obtained have filled a number of text books, and have been of inestimable value in the progress of the physical science. They proved to be the key which opened the door to the utilization of nuclear energy, and have many other implications which are sensed but not yet completely understood.

As soon as a successful effort is made to reduce these mathematical formulae to simple concepts easily grasped by the mind, these concepts, together with the additional truths which will then  become self evident, will open the door to space travel with a surety and ease which we would now find hardly possible even to imagine.

The difficulty with our present mathematical approach to the problem of relativity lies not in any error of the mathematics themselves, but in the fact that the methods and terms used in the attempt to explain them, often lead to incorrect thinking and assumptions.

For example: the best known formula perhaps, which has emerged from the study of relativity, is the expression E =MC2, which simply states that the quantity of energy (in ergs) which is inherent in any mass, is equal to the number of grams of that mass, multiplied by the square of the quantity C. The quantity C is considered to be a constant, in fact the only constant which has survived in a relativistic world.

In almost every text book on physics in the world today the statement is made that the quantity C represents the velocity of light (in centimeters per second), yet every student in the world who has studied the subject, knows that the velocity of light is not a constant. That its velocity, in fact, varies slightly with each different medium through which it is propagated. Any student who has ever passed a beam of sunlight through a prism to produce a spectrum of color, has demonstrated that not only does the velocity of light vary in different media, but that the change in velocity varies somewhat with the frequency of the light when propagated in material media. This of course is the principal upon which all of our spectroscopes are designed, although most textbooks state merely that the light is refracted or `bent’ in passing from one medium to another. There are many who will dispute the statement that the change in velocity varies with the frequency, but when sufficiently precise tests are made entirely within a single medium, the results indicate convincingly that this is true. At this point most students will remark that the quantity C refers to the velocity of light in a perfect vacuum, but where in the universe can we find a perfect vacuum in which to test this assertion?

Astronomers and physicists have estimated that even in the remotest depths of intergalactic space there will probably be found, from three to seven nuclear or atomic particles per cubic centimeter. A  beam of light traveling at approximately 3×10(10) centimeters per second would still encounter a rather large number of such particles during each second of its journey. While it is true that the proportionate decrease in velocity which would be produced by this minute concentration of matter is so small that it might be negligible for all practical purposes of measurement, nevertheless it demonstrates the fact that we have chosen as our sole remaining constant, a quantity which actually can never be a perfect constant anywhere in the know universe.

Fortunately there is a value to which the quantity C can be assigned which is a constant. Moreover the assignment of the quantity C to this factor makes possible a much better understanding of the natural laws involved in the propagation of energy.

The quantity C is actually the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter. In other words, if we take a gram (or any other quantity of matter: Newtonian mass) and convert that matter gradually into energy according to the formula E = MC2, and the resultant energy, as it appeared, were constantly applied to the remaining matter in such a way as to accelerate it uniformly in a given direction, when all the matter had been so converted we would find that we had zero Newtonian mass, infinite inertial mass and a resultant velocity equal to the quantity C, or approximately 3×10(10) centimeters per second (with respect to the given reference or starting point). The maximum velocity attained would always be the same regardless of the quantity of matter with which we started. This is a fact which can easily be verified by anyone who is mathematically inclined, and who is familiar with the laws of acceleration. The energy required to accelerate each gram of mass to the velocity C through energy conversion is exactly equal to total energy inherent in any matter having that mass.

This fact forms the true basis of the statement in our present day physics that the velocity C is a maximum or limiting velocity, since it represents the greatest kinetic energy differential which can exist between two given reference points. Since a good understanding of this concept is of great importance, it will be referred to again, and discussed more fully in the chapters on energy and matter.

Another assumption in the theories of relativity given to the world by Dr. Einstein, the natural laws, in general, are assumed to be linear, but the space in which they operate is considered to be “curved”. This concept offers the simplest mathematical presentation, since all of the deviations from linearity can thus be explained by a single postulate. Unfortunately, like most of our mathematical  presentations, the concept offers but little for the mind to grasp. A curved space cannot be pictured mentally, nor can it be drawn upon paper. The question always arises, if space is inside the curve, what is outside?

We have discovered that the linear mathematics which we commonly apply to the ‘laws’ or rules of nature, do not hold true when carried to an extent which permits the error to be measured, because they do not follow a straight line reaching to infinity, but a curve of finite radii. In a timeless universe, this curve, in any given plane, would be represented by a circle, but since the laws operate through time as well as space, the curve may be more readily understood if depicted as a “sine curve” or “wave”. The “base” line of the wave (which is the center line of the curve) represents zero, and the portions above and below the line represent the positive and negative aspects of the law.

Thus we see that there are points and conditions in which the natural laws reach zero value with respect to a given reference point, and that beyond these points the laws become negative, reversing their effect with respect to the observer.

The constant repetition of the term “reference point” or “observer” is necessary to emphasize the frequently unrecognized fact that none of the basic factors of nature have any reality or significance except when considered from a specified position or condition.

If, therefore, we exchange the existing mathematical postulate of linear laws operating in a curved space, for a concept based upon the curvature of natural law, we will find that we have not  invalidated or changed any of the presently accepted mathematics which we apply to these concepts. They can still be applied in the same way, and will give the same results.

By the exchange, however, we will have achieved a position from which the operation of the natural laws can be pictured by the mind, and can be charted upon paper. Our new perspective will allow us to take the mathematics past the velocity of light and infinite mass limits, past the disabled negative leg of gravity, and past the inappropriate explanations of our positive and negative mathematical frames of reference. It will take us past our limits and permit widespread application. And there is no more beautiful experience than when the world expands beyond its accustomed limits. Those are moments when reality takes on splendor.

For those that wish to read ahead:

1.      General Definitions – critical

2.      The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

3.      Gravity

4.      Matter and Mass

5.      Space

6.      The Quantity C

7.      Time

 StarSteps1

StarSteps1 

StarSteps2
 StarSteps3

StarSteps3