[humanbydefault]

IT would be the same as reserving the status of a human observer as the reference point for something he never really understood: the true substance of the "fabric" of our universe; the eather.

Albert Einstein decided to follow the "almighty" mathematical approach in trying to explain why the difference in the perception concerning the size, momentum and position of objects [even light] among different observers.

The personal decision of looking at the issue as a warping or curving of an alleged space-time continua [his virtual invention] was a set back to modern physics until today.

I know that many among you here will find my words a little harsh and somewhat inappropiate considering the statue of the man who change the way we see the universe today... I'm sorry if I hurt someone's feelings with this posting but I have an entirely different perspective about the same issue and I have the same right anyone has to express his or her opinion about science.

Allow me to include a link that will help us to get an idea of what I'm going to say next:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time

I've mentioned before this thread of course some of the contradictiong aspect of the subject, however I believe it deserves more opinions and discussion until the truth becomes the final ruler.

The need for a virtual deformation or curvature in the topography of what Einstein baptized as "space-time" [including the 3 spatial dimensions and time] was a pretext to renormalize our mathematics and being able (at the same time) to explain an obvious discrepancy concerning incompatible results among observers of the same event.

The concept of space-time continua was a XX century's approach to something Einstein never understood seeking for answers his entire life: The true nature of matter. His famous equation "E equals M C square" was another way to renormalize the concept of matter as we can perceive it from our position as observers*

I am convinced that each scale of the universe... starting in the very core of the simplest atom of hydrogen to the very extent of the universe there is one thing in common: the actual density mass-energy changing from one scale to the next>>> the local eather.

I could resume my thoughts by saying that even at the atomic scale among shells and sub-shells making for the atomic structure, the nature of the eather changes modifying the conditions that made Einstein to blame the topography of space-time in the macro-world.

We must need to find the answer in a comprehensive theory that includes the changes in the nature of the eather [the local density between mass and energy in 3 D space] as the only reason for the contradiction observed by different frames over the same event.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

Hi HBD;
I have learned not to allow the Einstein worshipers to influence my cold hard science thinking. Spacetime is just another term for eather, aether, or whatever term one wishes to use. Special Relativity is the subjective mathematics that maps space in terms of observer and motion. General Relativity is the one that actually provides mathematics for the behavior of the aether and thus the behavior of fundamental matter itself. Unfortunately, none of this is Einstein’s originality; it is more like his plagiarism of existing science at the time and by giving it a new name, laid claim to it as if it were entirely his own. The math is not wrong, the terms are just misinterpreted. Time dilation is the most misinterpreted, and mass runs a close second. Though I agree with you - it’s really not worth demeaning the old dead guy. You should blame his current press agents for continuing this path of obscurity.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'm with you 100% HBD, especially your theoretical ideas of going deeper into the atomic structure to find better explanations. I see the same inner dynamics of electrons, protons and neutrons, as the only really possible true explanation of the relativity space time phenomena. I also agree that Einstein throwing out the old eather theories, and replacing them with grt srt, was the greatest mistake of the XX century. Keep up the great ideas...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by humanbydefault IT would be the same as reserving the status of a human observer as the reference point for something he never really understood: the true substance of the "fabric" of our universe; the eather. Albert Einstein decided to follow the "almighty" mathematical approach in trying to explain why the difference in the perception concerning the size, momentum and position of objects [even light] among different observers. The personal decision of looking at the issue as a warping or curving of an alleged space-time continua [his virtual invention] was a set back to modern physics until today. I know that many among you here will find my words a little harsh and somewhat inappropiate considering the statue of the man who change the way we see the universe today... I'm sorry if I hurt someone's feelings with this posting but I have an entirely different perspective about the same issue and I have the same right anyone has to express his or her opinion about science. Allow me to include a link that will help us to get an idea of what I'm going to say next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time I've mentioned before this thread of course some of the contradictiong aspect of the subject, however I believe it deserves more opinions and discussion until the truth becomes the final ruler. The need for a virtual deformation or curvature in the topography of what Einstein baptized as "space-time" [including the 3 spatial dimensions and time] was a pretext to renormalize our mathematics and being able (at the same time) to explain an obvious discrepancy concerning incompatible results among observers of the same event. The concept of space-time continua was a XX century's approach to something Einstein never understood seeking for answers his entire life: The true nature of matter. His famous equation "E equals M C square" was another way to renormalize the concept of matter as we can perceive it from our position as observers* I am convinced that each scale of the universe... starting in the very core of the simplest atom of hydrogen to the very extent of the universe there is one thing in common: the actual density mass-energy changing from one scale to the next>>> the local eather. I could resume my thoughts by saying that even at the atomic scale among shells and sub-shells making for the atomic structure, the nature of the eather changes modifying the conditions that made Einstein to blame the topography of space-time in the macro-world. We must need to find the answer in a comprehensive theory that includes the changes in the nature of the eather [the local density between mass and energy in 3 D space] as the only reason for the contradiction observed by different frames over the same event. HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

DAVE WAS RIGHT! All that they claim blamed as a result of alleged changes in the topography of an assumed existence of something called "SPACE-TIME" was a misundrestanding from the very beginnings, but I think that there is more we can say about this particular issue and discuss it among those here interested in the subject at hand:

WHY was space "married" with time in Einstein's mind back on 1905?

I have dealt with this issue for a long time trying to find an empirical explanation... a good reason why he decided to link a physical and real "entity" of our universe with a "relative-virtual and human-made" one [time]. I know that put it this way it may sound a little weird but I'll fix this up in a moment:

How many of you here have dedicated time to analyze what time actually is? I've reached the conclusion that we have [fortunately or not?] given to what we see as time in our equation a highly especialized and universal meaning.
Think about this! Time is defined by the increasing magnitude of a human-made "measuring unit" classified in decimals and multiples of one second. "A millisecond lapse..." "In a millionth of a second time..." "A biilion years process..." Even a billion year could be expressed in seconds with a lot of zeros or exponetials couldn't it be? right!

So... Tell me if you know of any country or group of scientists that have a different unit for measuring time. I tell you what, there isn't one!
However spatial dimensions enjoy a wide range of units... all different and sometimes with not an exact proportionality to say the least!
Inches, meters and nautical miles... etc. Humans have been too careful in dealing with time and that maybe to blame in our unconcious inconsistence about its internal structure.

I wanted to begin with what's coming next no before having this small clarifying observation rigth. I think now we could continue with the analysis of the "arranged marriage" between both in a second.

It's true that to describe an event in 3D space we needed a 4th coordinate with the info about when the given event took place in the past, present or will take place in the future.

The problem with this issue is that we don't have and never will have [for that matter] a perfect prediction of how the eather will bee in a particular future tense. Assuming I am right in describing the eather as the actual density energy-mass in a 3D region of space [be that the atom's core, the chain of a protein molecule or the solar system...] the status of that density depends on many factors among them the process taking place inside the sun and the actual position of the planets spinning around the system,etc.

The past is much easier since that has already happened, but we are missing a lot of knowlege with respect to the eather and its nature still.

The E.P.R. experiment [Einstein's last attempts to prove quantum mechanics incomplete] brought up an important question linked to this conversation of ours:

"Is physics local or non-local?" If I want to be honest with you in this question I had to admit that physics is both "local" and "non-local" depending the scale of the analysis.
The locality of the physics world as I have mentioned in the first posting depends and it is conditioned by the boundaries of the given scale where the event is taking place.

Let's assume that we are going to analyze the decay in heavy atoms, just to make an example. If we were to find an explanation why heavier atoms decay, then we have to include [no doubts about it] the status of the entire universe and the rate of evolution of it and its local or regional influence in the especific atoms we are observing. However if we were to explain the actual process occuring inside the atom when decay occurred we had to consider the internal process as a "local one." Why a local one? because we are observing something that occurs in a local eather>>>> inside the harmonics and/or standing waves produced in the very core of the atom. If we start considering each scale and therefore each level of the atomic structure as a different eather with its own equations it will be a trully and complete science.

It's weird that I chose to title this thread as "space-time" and I'm here talking about the internal structure of atoms... but believe me when I say that there has to be a comprehensive and holistic view about the whole issue before we could start talking about a theory achieving the explanation of everything.

I don't really have much time today to continue with this amazing discussion but I'll get back to you with more as soon as I can.

Allow me to finish these ideas with some interesting puzzles:

If we assumed the eather to be LOCAL in nature and structured in scales from the very small to the very big across the universe.... could "c" [the speed of light] be physically faster than 300,000 km/sec. >>> here the seconds again!<<< in those internal regions of matter?

In other words.... If we assume that the eather is "connected" with the answer to why the speed of light is a constant [in our macroworld of course...] why a different and local eather (one we have no access to with our instruments) very deep inside matter, wouldn't be "capable" of accelerating any scattering taking place during decay or after particle collisions inside "atom smashers?"

What's the status of the eather during the E.P.R. experiment? Is it responsible for allowing what we have called "entaglement?"

As you see, my friends, there is a lot we must discuss here and I intend to in my next meeting.

regards to all!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

When we hear the word "eather" in case it wasn't brought to our attention to be criticized and attacked, we visualize the vast space between planets and stars. It could sound weird having to accept the idea that someone conceive the eather as a whole system from the deepest center of the smaller atoms to the confines of our universe. Sometimes the weirdest ideas are the ones carrying the weight of the truth... who knows.

There have been plenty of examples in physics where we believe to having found the perfect theory capable of explaining everything and we end up making fun of ourselves. I've written many articles and posts about the consistency of the so-called "Pauli Exclusion Principle." By looking at the theoretical cathegory of what a principle means in physics, we are talking about something almost universaly recognized as absolute.

Then... lately in some controversial experiments with certain insulator a group of researchers found themselves beating their heads against the wall in front of what they believe to be a clear violation of a principle we thought to be universal in nature.

I urge you [especially those new members interested in the subject] to take some time and search in the internet about recent publications objecting Pauli's Principle.

Now! If you asked me what I think... I have to get back to the beginning of this thread and make a couple of analogies so you will see why the paradox.

"Pauli's principle" describes the "occupancy of electrons" in each atomic orbit. It is based in the law of physics that says that any force will follow the square of the distance effect... just as magnetism. the magnetic force will decline in strength [in a square proportionality] as we move far away from the closest point.

I do not agree with the actual structure of the atom [for those who haven't read my model you could always go back to my first threads and take a closer look at my physical images] and for that reason I can understand why Pauli's principle must be violated in heavier atoms as in fact happens.

Have you encountered in the table of elements the obvious discrepancies in some elements [chromium and others] with respect to the "electron occupancy?"

I believe that we have had this violation for a long time now... we were just blind to see why these type of "paradigms" occur. For those who accept the structure of matter [the atomic structure] as a sort of compact association of quasi-particles linked to each other by a combination of four forces the paradox will be stronger than ever and the "light at the end of the tunnel" will get farther and farther away from you.

Try to open you minds and for a short interval of time concentrate your attention during a short voayage into the deepest place of the universe.

I'll ask you to [at least for amoment] accept that the materialistic reality we are accostumed to see, touch and measure is not a sort of "zooming" of the same thing but it is made as we jump from one scale to the next above. It is a sort of building reality from the basis to the top. De Broglie found that those levels we call electrons were also distributed in what he compared to standing waves in sound. That was one of the greatest observations in the beginnings of quantum mechanics and somehow it was kidnapped and transformed to be adapted to a new concept of particles with their own right to exist.

I don't plan to go back into the history of those controversial concepts instead I will try to resume what is that I see. To me those spinning sub-atomic particles are nothing but that De Broglie found in his mind: standing waves of a constantly transforming energy [a high energy point interacting with others in the context of an interference]. We know that wave interference could be constructive and destructive and that is what causes [in my personal opinion] the sudden and unexplainable disappearance of entire "electroinc orbits" spinning around the atom'c core. The principle we believe universal falls into questionings because we can't admit that the problem is found in the erroneous model we have taken for granted for more than a century now.

Reality at the atomic level [and beyond] is subject to peocess occuring in deeper levels or scales we ussually don't have access to. Both, the weird irregularities in the electronic occupancy of certain atoms and the recently discovered phenomena in those insulating materials is entirely LOGICAL and there are all backed up by human COMMON SENSE.

Our problem begun with the first assumptions coming from those who discovered the first signs of problems. It was Neils Bohr who said that we can no longer speak about an electron as a particle or as a wave since those subatomic particles "behave" according to the setting of our experimental "apparatus." To me that implies a contradiction that I'm willing to discuss with you in a second:

If we consider the accepted denomination of a particle, we have to say that a particle is something whose existence can't be eliminated or make to disappear. However if we assumed that a wave or the interference of waves could in fact make the appearance of a particle [even if the existence of that particular particle is real in a off and on basis] why not looking for another answer to the nature of matter?

I believe that the existence of matter as a progressive and constructive interaction of energies [working from the very core of each atom] acquires the status of reality given the fact that there is an eather out-there forcing it to exist as it is.
We are aware of the huge space this universe of ours takes... Why not conceiving that as the eather changes in different regions of the universe other types of matter also could make its appearance in a new sort of reality entirely ALIEN to us?

In my personal views, it is the eather what determines and condition the materialistic existence of matter in our universe [the one we live in]. God knows what other forms of matter or semi-matter may be encountered in far regions of this universe. For me... the table of elements is just a LOCAL achievement in the knowledge of matter. The alphabet of elements is incomplete and it is the density of the eather [what we don't know in its secrets] what will have the last word.


HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Resuming then:

If we accept that TIME was nothing more than a human-conceived tool allowing us [helping us] to measure a given physical process in the universe... from the rising of the sun in the East side of the Earth to the scattering of energy from atomic decay... why should we mix space with it? and also... what's space that seems to be something a lot different than what we have assumed until now?

Conditioning SPACE with a progressive and relativistic unit of "time" only makes things worse, in my humble opinion.
To understand why Einstein decided to engage both concepts into just one, we need to re-discover the true concept of SPACE all together.
Let's go back to our classical example of asynchronism between the two clocks [one on board a satellite and a second on the surface of the Earth].

The only thing I'm asking you is to use some common sense in the analysis... please.
If both clocks were "ticking" the same way, which means that the "time interval" measured by both independently of the actual physical distance between both of them was perfect... [using atomic clocks and other more sophisticated types too]... then:

Why should be any of those clocks showing us a differential in the reading?
Do you agree with me that those clocks were measuring what we could call REALITY?

Reality, existence or a any name you which to asign... in fact it its the topography of the eather. We can't blame SPACE for the shape "shifting" and much less TIME to be able to contract itself or shrink just to fit with our equation's results.

So! If we accept that it was a energy-mass density change in a region of space what resulted in that asymmetry affecting both clocks, we will have to redefine Einstein's views and make it better.

You see...! Einstein begun his assumptions by subconciously accepting some sort of universal reality. Reality for him and to the rest of the scientific community is something that prevails in the entire universe at once. To make possible the understanding of why those TIME discrepancies took place in his calculations [and in true life as in the satellite-earth conflict] he conceived SPACE and TIME as absolute dimensions interacting in a relative manner... what he called relativity later on.

For Einstein and [why not?] for most of you here in this forum, SPACE is something that is out-there and could perfectly be taken for granted. For him and most of you too, Time has [ALSO] other possible meaning other than a simple measuring tool used by our intelect as humans in trying to make sense of the universe's evolutionary process.

The only thing REAL enough to me, the way I see it and am trying to bring to you in images is the eather. It is a changing and non-uniform distribution of energy and mass along the shape of this expanding universe.

What's fascinating to me [I think I had said it before...] is that the actual structure of the universe >>> IN LAYERS<<< or scales as some physicists have call them is what's responsible for matter to acquire its physcial properties. Without stars and solar systems matter as the way we see it [including us] couldn't be formed in its different states: solids, liquids, gases, and plasma.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

You may find still today [if I'm not mistaken, in the university of Columbia in N.Y.] the name of T.D. Lee among the physics depatment's list of professors.

He was in charge in deciding who was right and who was wrong in the case two ships traveling close to the speed of light and conveniently attached by a "hypothetical rope" could STAND in that way the effects of Einstein's relativity concepts while breaking the rope as they cruise in space.

The "paradox" was famous back in the 90's and it was used to protect and defend Einstein's views about space-time continua.

The sad part of the story was that even John Bell [from C.E.R.N.] along with the entire team of physicists working then in that european facility coincided with my personal opinion that the rope will stand in ONE PIECE!

BUT... A nobel prize awarded, physics professor and old friend of Albert Einstein came to the rescue of an absurd theory by convincing a bunch of scientists that they were wrong and he was right.

According to professor T.D. Lee's calculations: the rope will brake given the fact that space-time diagrams resulted in such conclusions.

Once again LOGIC and COMMON SENSE was disregard as useful tools and a simple hypothetical example [impossible to achieve in our time] will remain in shadows.

I had a different opinion than Mr. Professor here, but I'm a "NO-BODY" to say anything against it, especially after so many years past the incident... but I though it was interesting for you to get acquintance with the event.

The way I see it... The eather or density energy-mass in 3 D space where both ships were cruising together was relatively the same. Unless the rope were as long as an entire solar system which wasn't part of the original idea at all.

To me [once again] no change in the eather meant no change in the physical REALITY around those ships and therefore no reason for the rope to shrink or contract with respect to its original length.

The speed of both ships was the same in all cases [according to the hypothetical assumption] and therefore the only effect that relativistic fans alleged was the space-time change in the fabric of the cosmos.

The same explanation could be applied to the "Twin Paradox" too.

A long and fast trip of one of the twin could and in fact represents a differential of REALITY between both of them given the fact that one of the twin was cruising across different density of energy-mass in different regions of space producing a differential in the paralellism of both REALITIES... THAT'S FINE SO FAR!

But what you must take into consideration is that the TRIP BACK HOME will un-do that "DIFFERENTIAL" in the nature of both twin's realities since the one going back HOME was doing the same trip IN REVERSE!

I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING! Let me guess....

Well! then why the satellite clock remained with asynchronism even after they arrived to the Earth's surface?

Because the "trip" followed by the satellite was ELLIPTICAL>>>> It was following an ORBITAL PATH!

In the "twin paradox" case, one twin was traveling to a distant region of the universe to later on encounter his brother... the path wasn't elliptical and therefore he was not SPINNING around the Earth's surface!!!!

Don't you get it? Think about it for a while and you'll see my point here!

I see each possible ELLIPTICAL ORBIT around our planet Earth as a path of EQUAL REALITY COORDINATES. The point is that it is the center of the planet what defines those elliptical [not circular] orbits as concentrical with the TIME-SYSTEM built-up in our planet.

In other words: The shortest angular distance in each possible elliptical orbit aorund the Earth is in fact the lower and more stable state for any object to follow without the waste of further energy! That's why a satellite can orbit around the planet for a relative long time. To make an orbital correction you need energy but to follow that orbital path you need almost nothing but to keep up with the Earth's rotational pattern around the sun. Since we haven't calculated and therefore build a system to resolve this small discrepancies, the satellite is always destined to fall to the surface. I believe that a calculated "propelling mechanism" on board of any artificial satellite put by us in orbit will result in an eternal orbit with no lose of altitude.

As I have said before... Since the EATHER responsible for the gravity we "enjoy" and the path of our planet around the star is originated inside the sun, the physical REALITY [including the concept of "SPACE" in it too] follows the same pattern I've explained above.

If we were capable of transmitting an instantaneous image of the twin brother traveling to a far region of the universe to a TV set watched by his twin brother back on Earth the age difference could be huge enough to make him pretty concerned and sad.

The thing is that an instantaneous transmission of the info is also impossible at a greatest speed than light. It is known that using entanglement technology we could send signals F.T.L. to other regions of the universe, but if you go deep into the subject you'll see why is not feasable as a technique to transmit INFORMATION from one corner of space to the other... check it out if you wish...!

In other words.... the SYMMETRY OF REALITY is what's important and there is no possible way to cheat it in any way!

Do you want to re-create the "twin paradox" in a correct way?

Put one of the twins in a fast spinning ship around the Earth and you'll achieve a substancially observable age differential between both.... but to do that we will need to increase the speed of the spinning ship to impossible speeds....

WHO KNOWS...

I wouldn't find impossible to believe that as we speak there are ALIENS doing the same thing! They maybe interested to establish "FIRST CONTACT" with humans, but since we are too primitive for them, they decided to SPIN around our home-planet for as long as it's necessary.... An interesting hypothesis, don't you think?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Some time ago I tried to describe to way I see how TIME and physical SPACE [making for what we considre to be "our reality"] was affected by a trully curious changing elliptical and spinning structure "moving" from point to point in 3D universe.

Here is the address:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/spacet...es-system.html

It wasn't too popular back then and I don't hope it will become as such today either, but it could give you some perspectives to see why SPIN connects with our REALITY in the big picture.

WHAT'S IN COMMON BETWEEN THE PATTERN WE ENCOUNTER IN THE COSMOS AND THE ONE INSIDE THE STRUCTURE OF THE ATOM?

The shape. Elliptical in 3dimensions and in a constant rotational motion around a [ALSO MOVING] point.
As you may recall, it was the "relativistic" approach to the atomic structure what was missing in the first methematical steps into the secrets of quantum mechanics.

It wasn't enough to announce the laws that rule and defined the "number of quasi-particles or electrons" in response to an alleged wave function showed by small "particles", but it was also very important to calculate why the inconsistence with respect to their actual spin while studying it from the scatterings.

Could you finally understand why it is so dangerously contradicting the idea of ignoring the existence of a different eather at those deep levels inside the atom?

How could we state that there is one and only one eather that looks the same across the universe while blaming SPACE and even TIME for a bunch of inconsistent results?

The reason [in historical terms] is easier than you think. Albert Einstein wrote his special theory of relativity and later on the general theory a long time before quantum mechanics had rooted into the minds of the greatest mayority of physicists. Since mathematics is the language scientists use to corroborate their findings and hypothesis, it was necessary to re-normalize our equations with what was actually happening in our experiments. In the particular case of Einstein [a genius non-the-less] most of the theory's basic fundaments were "discovered" out of his mind in images he kept from the very childhood of his.

As time went on, in great part thanks to his [mathematical] explanation of the so-called "photo-electric effect" quantum mechanics started to dominate every branch of science, except for "stamp collections" as Ernest Rutherford joked once.

But he [Einstein] never took very seriously the very fundaments of the notion of quantum mechanics. The general theory of relativity hasn't changed since those very early days when he proposed it to the scientific community either.

So! How could a theory proposed by a man that did everything in his power to "ignore" the existence of a contradicting theory [quantum mechanics] based in personal beliefs and other considerations of the sor, could be somehow "connected" I'd say "pluged-into" the rest of the other theories explaining the small world?
I bet you still remember the famous quote" "God never play dice with the universe." That was Einstein's deepest concern!

We have accepted the STATUS QUO! General Relativity WORKS for the macro-world [the big] and quantum mechanics for the MICRO-WORLD [the small]... and every body should be... HAPPY!

String theory which stands for a mathematical attempt to renormalize both theories including the existence of more than 3 dimension in their equations tending to solve the dilemma was a final and desperate mission of rescue...!

Is it easy to visualize how everything is inter-connected in one comprehensive picture?

Of course not! There are many variables involved, but I'm sure we could explain our REALITY using nothing but mathematics and also that the math to-be-use to that effect must be created in support of a physical understanding [very different to the ones tought in schools and universoties today] of the mechanics of the universe as a whole.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cut a short piece of the article I mentioned to you above:


As the satellite clock concluded its first tick, the picture “seen” (according to special relativity) was something looking more like an incline than a straight vertical line [as the one happening on Earth’s clock].
That was the argument used to “demonstrate” theoretically that time suffers a sort of dilation or contraction in one inertial frame respect to the other. (BUT) If instead of considering a fix clock in the surface we hypothetically build a clock located at the very core of the planet the situation would be entirely different.
Then, no matter the position of the satellite our new clock would always rotate having a perfect straight alignment with any clock on space. Both pulses will be oriented in 0 degree at all times leaving the distance from the center of the Earth to the satellite’s position a simpler alternative to calculate the equivalence. The altitude of the satellite from the surface would be referred to the point in the center of the planet. It will be a point whose location will always be equidistant from any other point within the same radius [orbit around the globe]. It would be possible to build a planetarium system of time coordinates that could supply scientists with a universal clock capable of simultaneous coordination between inertial frames of observation.
Every clock in every observation post must have to be in sync with the central one even if its existence could be a hypothetical one the plan would work. The fact that we can’t visit the center of the Earth it doesn’t mean that we don’t know where it is! It’s just a matter of measuring the time that will have to be CHANGED. Air towers around the world and its computers would have to be synchronized into a new set of time coordinates originating at the center of the Earth and every single flight around the world would have to be time-related to the same point.

Take a short glimps to what I wrote some time ago. If a hypothetical OBSERVER were located at the very center of the planet [Earth] he or she would definitely looking a "tick-tack" of Einstein's "laser clock" working in sync!!!

Remember what I was talking about a satellite that will never fall into a lower orbit and eventually returning to our atmosphere?

Well! If we were able to MATCH the speed of an artificial satellite spinning in its elliptical [natural] orbit in a way that a hypothetical observer could see in perfect sinchronism the "ticking" in both "laser clocks" that satellite willnever fall into the lower atmosphere!!!

It means that we had found the exact angular speed for any orbiting object to avoid the eather-generated attraction to the center of the Earth.

Think about it!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

I'll try different images so you'll decide which one fits better as a model:

Close you eyes and transport [inside your mind] yourlseves to a coast-line right near the ocean waves. Let's assume that the waves of water hit the shores in a perfect 90 degress angle. Now... imagine yourselves standing in a spinnin platform right where the waves touch the land. If you were to draw the resulting movement of the waves as you see them, you'll end up drawing a perfect sine wave... don't you?

Since the water waves will always arrive in a 90 degrees angle with respect to a paralell refered to the coast-line, the picture in your drawing should be a perfect line but since the frame where you observe those waves is in a continue rotational pattern, as the wave goes through and returns it has formed the path of a sine wave... got it?

The example could be reproduced in a piece of paper, but I wanted to include the ocean waves since gravity must be one day interpreted as just that.

Take a piece of paper and draw a perfect circle in the center of the paper. then place the tip of the pen in one of the points along with the circle and as you rotate the circle try to move the pen up and down in a perfect straight line. What you'll get is no other than a sine wave... RIGHT?

Let's assume that the entire planet, Earth, is a huge circle as the one you draw before. Let's assume also that those huge and powerful gravitational waves coming from the sun hit the surface and continue their way across the interior core of the planet to later proceed their spinning in an elliptical rotation that includes other planets and moons too.

Here comes the greatest REVELATION I really wanted you to see:

Wouldn't this 3 dimensional structure of those waves hitting the surface [those making for the eather responsible for the position and movement of planets around the sun] look JUST THE WAY WE HAVE SEEN IN OTHER VERY FAMILIAR, AN INTERESTING AND CONTRADICTING EXPERIMENT BEFORE?

YOU BET! "The two slit experiment!"

If you look at the pattern of dark and clear patches... alternating regions of shades and light... don't you recognize the true nature of those results using the help of my images?

You need to see it closer! Instead of an accumulative increase of "particles" in certain regions of the screen, look at it as the 2 dimensional representation of a continue sine-wave one link to the next one!
Try to see the darkest regions as the top of the sine wave and the more clear spaces as the curving into an almost white region. There are a lot of books where you may find the original photo of the experiment performed with atoms and you'll see it easier.
You probably know that the contradicting experiment have been reproduced using not only light, but "sub-atomic particles" of all kinds and even... atoms!

The pattern will always emerge the same way no matter the intensity or density of the emission.... the problem that seems very weird and unexplainable was [from the point of views of physicists] why is the universe so jelous in "insisting" to produce the same spectrum over and over again! (?)

I wrote an article about it right here in this forum [years ago!]. I mixed this same conclusions with a little bit of fantasy and fiction but the idea behind the conclusions was the same then as it is today.

If you do some little internet research about the experiment you'll see my point and what I trying you to visualize...

Please... go to the web page below, look yourselves the puzzle closer than ever and see why it is so easy to understand something "they" can't explain at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The answer does not lie in the mystery of what "particle" hit what point of the screen at a given time! The particular impact of each and every "particle" [quantum of energy to me] is entirely...

IRRELEVANT... MY DEAR PROFESSOR!

What's important... what really determines the eventual formation of the spectrum and therefore the pattern of bright and dark bands in the screen was the sinusoidal structure of the incoming eather from the sun as it touches each and every point of the surface of the Earth... but not limited to the surface alone!

It is the rotation of the Earth what "makes" the eather waves from the sun to "look" as sine waves in its structure. The sine structure of the density energy-mass distributed in a 3 dimensional space is what finally determined the eventual PATH EACH "PARTICLE" WILL FOLLOW IN ITS ROUTE TOWARD THE SCREEN!

Now! If you were a physics student... do you think that this kind of analysis its what will make you a good student in the class?

Do not repeat what you have seen in those images in front of your teacher or professor if you don't want him or her to call you... an "alien" with too much fantasy and little knowledge of science...(?)

Thank you!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

Last note:
Do you want a good laughing? Go to your closest library and borrow ones of Michio Kaku's book where he included the "two slit experiment" in an entire chapter. I'm trying to recall the title but I read it a long time ago... sorry! The point is "making the long story short" that he explained the origin of the spectrum or pattern of bright and dark bands by assuming that electrons had a wave-function sort of "attached" to them and that the wave was responsible for "calculating" the right spot where each electron HAD TO HIT! I don't think that Michio Kaku had an idea of the stupid and barvarian of his own conclusions! He [as many of "them"] blamed the pattern on the interaction of different waves as they build up in the screen. But he couldn't explain why the pattern insist itself in the same shape even when electrons where shot ONE-BY-ONE! If there was a different explanation to the one I just gave you... there would be NO WAY to explain the formation of the pattern over and over again NO MATTER THE TIME DILATION BETWEEN SHOTS!!
Imagine that you try to reproduce the two slit experiment shotting one electron-atom or what-have-you! with a time lapse of one month between them!
Do you want to bet against me that the pattern will still be there after a 5 year experiment? I'll win the bet... you know?

So! ask your professor about his scientific opinion concerning why the spectrum in that experiment and have a good time laughing with me!