Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space.

[RascalPuff]

An Expansive Mass-Field Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:

The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1039 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.
The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1039 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...
Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.
The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.
There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, the earth, the mass-field constructed spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area, as its mass value increases with its velocity). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.
In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D space-time. For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze. Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their formerly dilated size and mass values.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that many years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
Up to the time of this writing, there are not even any failed efforts to conceptually account for 'time dilation' and the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.
The (resiliently unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of physical-material space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’. The fundamental import of this discussion is that the value of given units of time (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) is entirely determined by the 3-D value (size) of the spatial moment it (time/motion) occurs in.
Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie (The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Cosmological Constant.)

Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe' . Collectively enter in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding Universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker

[Lloyd Gillespie]

In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth).

RP, not only have you missed the entire reality of time being no more than "Fundamental Matter In Motion", your basic physics is backwards, i.e., increased velocity increases mass, not the size of hairs, or any other objects. As any mass approaches c, it's size shrinks to zero mass, through mass entropy dissipation___Lorentz/Einstein. One must remember, Einstein asked the question, "If I looked in a mirror, at the speed of light, would I see my image?" He answered, "No." The time dilations are others' foolish mis-interpretations of Einstein's original work, other than when he was theorizing abstractly. He never physically advocated any real time/matter/motion dilations. The quote in my signature is Einstein's own words.

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd Gillespie:
Please say what you think of this:
2.1 PART I
Scenario: Miniature & Parallel Universe
(Copyright 2007 by K. B. Robertson, all rights reserved)
The following question originated at a dinner party among friends. There was an interesting and educational variety of answers.

Question:
In a universe parallel to ours, exactly the same in every way; with all of the galaxies - including the Milky Way, and our solar system with all our planets as they are, including earth and everything on and within it and including its inhabitants and the molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, black body radiation - except... :

that this ‘twin universe’ and all of its contents was one thousand times smaller than the universe we in the here and now occupy - instead of the there & then occupation of the miniaturized universe (including all of our miniaturized selves):

would this miniaturized universal space and all of its miniaturized contents undergo and experience the same time standards as the ‘regular sized’ universe we are part of?
Yes or no.

Addendum options
Time would be the same in the two compared universes.
Time would be different in the two compared universes.
If yes, please explain.
If no, please explain.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Just goes to show ya RP, time is irrelavent... You start concentrating on real fundamental matter motions, you may start to do real physics___not until...

You still miss the whole point of physical facts___light must slow, for matter to expand... Like I said, get your physics fundamentals straight___First... As light accelerates, matter shrinks___Fundamentals first...

"Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’" RP, your question is Zeno bogus___You may trick many others with such false questions, but most sensible physicists and scientists, spot such tricks, immediately... True science has known light is universally slowing, for years___Aether matter density increase requires it___The radiation density has been increasing for 13.7 billion years___Go figure...

You have your physical fundamentals backwards...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Dear L.G.:
The two coordinate systems (Smaller Universe A and larger universe B) have different time standards accompanying their larger and smaller space standards. The thesis 'Twin Paradox & Time Dilation' resolved, w'out mathematics is actually a reference to the information at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie , which finds the physical as well as spatial universe in a constant state of accelerating expansion. The presentation you just read and are responding to is an abbreviated presentation of our universe at an earlier, smaller moment of time (Moment A universe, say, yesterday), and that same ('our') universe, at a later, larger moment (B - the 'eternal now'); hence there is a specific exemplary objective in the apparently 'surreal' setting.

That is to say, we are not actually talking about two different universes (A and B) here, but rather, the same universe at an earlier and a later moment, and the differences in the values of time that accompany the ever enlarging values of space. This is what is called a 'thought problem', since today's (larger) universe cannot be compared with its (smaller, relatively more dense) self, as it was yesterday.

'Trick'? Lloyd. I don't do 'tricks'. We apparently don't understand one another on this issue. Yesterdays universe was relatively smaller and faster than - when compared to - today's, in a spatially and physically expanding (accelerating) universe. No. The expanding universe is not slowing down. On the contrary. It's speeding up. The expanding universe has been recently and repeatedly measured to be accelerating. There's a tremendous controversy around this new information since '98 to 2000 and ever since.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

RP, I have read all your posts, and the entire many posts on the cosmological constant. I agree, much of what you have written, is as how I also see one interpretation of Einstein's thinking. You have probably described most of it better than anyone before you, including Einstein himself, yet you have offered little new, to someone like myself, who long ago figured out Einstein's thinking, most the same as you. However, there are two or more ways to interpret the cc{cosmological constant}. One is as you have done, I think, as you offer a rather confused substantive position of the velocity of light, staying constant, and not in other areas. I'll take it your model means constant light velocity, as cc. Now, the other way to explain an expanding universe is with a changing light speed, from past to today, which also allows for gravity, and all the other universal anomallies, known to exist. By having light moving faster 13.7 years ago, at the time of the real big bang, (as opposed to your model's today and yesterday, but I see nowhere else in your model, for real matter to come into the picture, except through big-bangs, small-bangs, stars, singularities, black-holes, etc.,) the universe could have also pushed the space and matter apart at many times faster rates, that we still happen to witness at great distances, then slowed to today's speeds, not speed, but speeds. There is no solid cosmological ground, for you to stand on, and say the cc is the correct model, as everyone knows there is no such measurable solid cosmological ground. Therefore, your model, as presented, though quite thoroughly, and with few mistakes, and excellent extensions, as to quantum field mechanics, is still only one model, among others, that are all viable. I think only figuring out the fundamental substance, and true mass values, will resolve the differences between the many possible, and the real actual model.

BTW, stating gravity is the 4th dimension, is a rather moot point, since this has been the case since 1905, and close to the case since Newton. Now, on the other hand, if you explain how the zero-mass/mass of fundamental substance, becomes gravity, totally mechanically, and technically mathematically accurately, accounting for transitions from quantum mechanics' false zero mass, to Einstein/Newtons real solid mass, of FS{fundamental substance}, then maybe we will have a new addition to all the existing models. The FS mass-gap must be solved___First!!!

No. The expanding universe is not slowing down. On the contrary. It's speeding up.

RP, I tell you honestly, there is no way to prove this, yet... Science has found no cc ground, to measure from, yet... It's all change, untill we know the FS mechanics of absolute mass... And BTW, I am talking about the same exact model you are, just with the subtle difference of the cc not being groundedly true, yet... In either your model or mine, yesterday's universe is smaller and faster___Today's universe is larger and slower... The tremendous controversy you speak of since `98, is the very fact of no cc ground to measure from, yet... This has been the problem in physics and cosmology, for hundreds of years. If you take Einstein's total ideas, they are truly no more than Ouspenski, years ago, stated them; "Relativity is intellect, inside intellect, looking at itself." This about sums it up, until we solve the mass-gap problems, between Newton/Einstein and quantum mechanics/uncertainty principle... This is the same E=MC^2 equivalence principle of years ago___still unsolved... E=MC^2 predicts positive mass, and QM predicts zero mass, for the fundamental substance___The true mass-gap...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Lloyd Gillespie wrote:
BTW, stating gravity is the 4th dimension, is a rather moot point, since this has been the case since 1905, and close to the case since Newton. Now, on the other hand, if you explain how the zero-mass/mass of fundamental substance, becomes gravity, totally mechanically, and technically mathematically accurately, accounting for transitions from quantum mechanics' false zero mass, to Einstein/Newtons real solid mass, of FS{fundamental substance}, then maybe we will have a new addition to all the existing models. The FS mass-gap must be solved___First!!!

Dear Lloyd:
The statement 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' is unprecedented in the history of physical science, until I realized, wrote and authenticated it over forty years ago. In calling it a 'moot point - since this has been the case since 1905, and close to the case since Newton'...

As far as that goes, sir, this - Gravity is the 4th dimension - has always been the case; on the other hand it has not ever been previously expressed as such until I recognized that case and vocabularized it.


Incidentally, the statement 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' was not derived from the Special Theory of 1905, but instead, from the General Theory of 1916 - reviewing the fact that the Special Theory deals with light and uniform velocity (C), and the General Theory deals with gravity and non-uniform velocity - acceleration (sound familiar? <acceleration - the status quo of General Relativity and quite apparently the universe at large>)...

Regarding your reference to...
"accounting for transitions from quantum mechanic's false zero mass, to Einsteins's/Newton's real solid mass of fundamental substance (fs), then maybe we will have a new addition to all the existing models. The fundamental substance mass-gap must be solved____First!"


I have submitted a conversely related, potential resolution in Total Field Theory:
(**illustrated below in the logarithmically accelerating expression of 1,2,3,4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9 and 10, 90o segments - additional 'quantum leaps' , alternately parallel to and at right angles from the first four 90o quadrants of the 360o whole (solid matter), and the extensional, alternating commencements at right angles and parallel to the 5th 90o segment. Alternative perspectives and definitions for dimensions <esp. 5 thru 8>, as well as the possibility of an acceleratng heirarchy of 'quantum leaps' are directly implied here. <Any suggestions?> - KBR)

(2)

Successive points dividing a golden rectangle into squares lie on a logarithmic spiral (Wells 1986, p. 39; Livio 2002, p. 119).
*************
There is no precedent for this offered dimensional interpretation of 'quantum mechanical photon effect' - what this author calls 'the translatory - exponentially accelerated - moment'. There seem to be many other important questions and answers in view of these expressions. Truly Yours welcomes the casting of more light on this - especially geometric - 'translatory moment' described, illustrated subjection. This explication of the (logarithmic-geometric) cause of the 'quantum leap' (without the accompanying equations) is illustrated and described on page 463, in the 1979 published, 627 page (sold out) edition of Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (Extraterrestrial Physics 101, the contents of which continue as a work in progress).


Moreover, the 'quantum leap' is a sobriquet from the popular consideration that a given unit of microcosmic energy moves from one (Niels Bohr) 'orbit' (or, alternative 'shell' theorized station) to another, without ever occupying the space - interval - between the transposed orbit. There is no explanation for this perplexing enigma-apparent ('the quantum leap').

This record submits that the transposition of a given orbit, as it is perceived in 4 dimensions instead of three, offers the alternative interpretation of the so called 'leap', as occurring in a spiral shaped path - unanticipated; uncompensated-for, in the status quo 3-dimensional failures to comprehensively accomodate 'quantum leap', as comprehensively expressed in the above two illustrations of 4, 5 & 6 dimensionally equivalent geometric structures.
That is, the 4-dimensionally interpreted 'leap' is not per se, any kind of 3-D perceived vertical straight line ( ----> ) - up or down, to and from orbit A to orbit B, constituting the (short cut perceived) 'leap' (from one orbit or shell to another) - at all, but, rather, is a (lateral, long way around) coil shaped ( @ ) - *spiral-spin-up (360o) transiency (which may be alternately and approximately perceived within the structure of the 'YinYang' or 'Tao' symbol, from center to outside parameters) from a lower orbit to a higher one, and conversely (*spiral spin-down, this perspective also includes the ambivalent dynamics of 'chemical valence').
Yin Yang ('Tao')


The symbol of apparent opposites with its connotations of antipodal contention is actually an icon of mutually supportive , complementary reciprocity, since about the 3rd century BC; accompanied by a philosophy proffering that its complete gestalt is beyond human comprehension (which it may well be, for all of its elegant - prescient implying - simplicity.)
(Refer Fritjov Capra's TAO OF PHYSICS, which allows for *the illusion of apparent contradiction: actually mutually supportive; that being the central meaning of * 'Tao'. In this case, vis a vis, the 'inexplicable enigma' of quantum mechanics and its perceived 'contradiction' of continuous field theory.)

In the Bohr modeled atom of planet-like, nucleus-sun orbiting electrons, the orbits are not circular or elliptical, but rather - as with any other orbiting entity's 4-D path : spiral shaped.

The 4-D space-time continuum is presently said to be 'acknowledged' in academic and experimental physics; yet, the effects of that continuum, continue to go unrecognized, denied, discarded and unaccounted for. The round - O and elliptical - 0 - 3-D structure - wherever it orbitally occurs - is not anticipated or perceived as spiral shaped - @ , as it is in fact, in the prevailing, four dimensional setting.
There is no precedent for this offered (4-D spiral 'translatory moment') explanation, regarding the cited 'incomprehensibility' of Quantum Mechanical Dynamics; including a solution applicable to the 'quantum leap' - in this case, the transition ('translatory moment') from ominidirectionally accelerating (4-D) solid matter to further - omnidirectionally - accelerated (5-D) light energy.

- RascalPuff

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The 4-D space-time continuum is presently said to be 'acknowledged' in academic and experimental physics; yet, the effects of that continuum, continue to go unrecognized, denied, discarded and unaccounted for. The round - O and elliptical - 0 - 3-D structure - wherever it orbitally occurs - is not anticipated or perceived as spiral shaped - @ , as it is in fact, in the prevailing, four dimensional setting.
There is no precedent for this offered (4-D spiral 'translatory moment') explanation, regarding the cited 'incomprehensibility' of Quantum Mechanical Dynamics; including a solution applicable to the 'quantum leap' - in this case, the transition ('translatory moment') from ominidirectionally accelerating (4-D) solid matter to further - omnidirectionally - accelerated (5-D) light energy.

This is what I wrote about the same idea, but there's no four body math to prove either of our models; "This is the point where I see almost all quantumists' and relativists' ideas break down. What I mean is, trying to use quantum/relative logic to understand sub-quantum actions___I say it can't be done. The sub-quantum, or more appropriately, pre-quantum universe, requires its own special language of description. As an example, you talk of sub-quantum photons, or entities that make up photons and actions; Dave talks about sub-quantum substance of space and motion; and I often talk of sub-quantum hydrodynamic motion and substance. The way I see it, all these subjects require an entirely new sub-quantum linguistics and maths to accurately describe any of these events. Yes, it is true we can apply many of the quantum and relative world's maths and actions, to this sub-quantum universe, we can not, at the same time, assume its total correspondences, i.e., such as that of the velocity of light, or the true values of mass. We only can know such velocity of light as being of the quantum/relative universe, since the big-bang, inflation, first star, or however you want it. We can not know the speed of light to be an eternal wave motion, and herein lies the problem of trying to associate quantum ideas with sub-quantum ideas. We must first take a closer look at a possible pre-quantum, sub-quantum reality of slower, much slower motions___first and foremost. There is no law in the universe, that says light had to travel C or faster, for eternity. As a matter of fact, it most likely travels slower, and faster, in many areas of the universe, than in our local area of the aether. This would explain much of quantum/relative cosmology's problems of observations and facts, since such facts would make it truly impossible for observers to tell whether the universe is expanding or contracting, or whether certain parts are doing both___conspansion is a very real possibility, without us ever knowing the difference, since we are local area light locked in our real vision...

So, since light may be traveling at different velocities, in our observable universe, what's to prove it wasn't traveling at very different velocities, in the pre-quantum, sub-quantum universe? I happen to think it was traveling much slower than present C, in the sub-quantum universe. This would change the entire dynamics of everything we are looking at. It would allow a simple sub-quantum, pre-quantum formation of absolute fundamental space substance, to collect into a first star, by simple hydrodynamics, thus and then producting the real quantum world of electrodynamics, and chromodynamics, if one wishes. You must have the primary wave first, and I say it's a thermo-hydrodynamic wave, or an unlimited many, as the case would be, of fundamental space/matter substance motions..."

And this is the model; "The trouble I see with all classicists, physicists, cosmologists, hydrodynamicists, quantumists, and relativists is trying to see a dynamic universal process with a one dimensional view of wave mechanics, and by one dimensional, I simply mean as a single model view of wave mechanics. To me, the universe is a 3 stage process of wave mechanics; 1.Pre 1st star; 2.Within 1st star; and 3.Post 1st star. I don't believe one single model view of wave mechanics is capable of capturing this dynamic process. Most all of the last hundred years of physics deals only with stages 2. and 3. They all ignore stage 1., and IMO, to their peril, but like I said, let me bring it down to the simple electron model, I see.

Since we both agree it's a FS photonic universe, let the basic aether field be filled with stationary photons___size doesn't matter for this simple model. Now strip your mind of other wave interactions for simplicity's sake. Picture an electron traveling straight through the FS photon sea___any wave/particle traveling through such a sea must increase in mass as it approaches true c. Where does the mass increase come from? The electron must gain photons as mass increase___there's no other source. Velocity and density of the FS photon field require this. Velocity also creates heat. What is being heated, since the electron is also made of photons? The only possible answer is photons___simple logic. Now, what is truly happening inside the electron as it increases photon mass and heat? The electron is acting first as a condensor storage magnetic moment capacitor, then as a radiating generator of electricity moments. What is making up this process? Photons___plain and simple. This all is happening at the speed of light___mass is increasing creating the magnetic moment of the em wave, and then critical mass entropy is reached and the electron radiates/generates its electric moment. This is all photon on photon action, and is the same for all frequencies of light and waves. It's just faster for faster waves, such as gamma rays, and slower for micro-waves. They all must increase in mass proportional to true velocity. We just have trouble distinguishing between true c and sub-c velocities. Nature does it quite easily___just imagine how many entropy cycles in a gamma ray traveling only a short distance. The electron, we seem to know more about, thanks to Maxwell and others, is still frequencies of mass entropy cycles, and the attendent velocities, that create the varrying heats of photons contained and radiated as the heat of mass velocities. I can't imagine why you still think photons don't change temperature, when all is of photons...?"

The above was written long before I ever saw any of your material, I think the comparison is obvious, and I do agree with your model, at this same level. It's just I state it is absolutely real solid FS matter, whether considered by others as energy, waves or what-not, it's FS matter. Now, if you'd like to discuss the four dimensionality of it, that's up to you, but there is no math possible to describe my model or yours___It's the 4-body problem... Maybe this is why physics just gives up, and stays within the safety zone of its 3-D world...

Lloyd

p.s.
Now, do you see why "gravity is the 4th dimension", is a moot point? It can't be mathematically modeled, due to the 4-body problem. At the time of inception, Poincare' couldn't even solve the 3-body problem, and to this day, it may not be solved___one solution is being tested.

And BTW, Einstein's 1905 srt work was what I meant to refer to in my last post... It first showed gravity as the 4th dimension, and the later grt more directly confirmed it. And btw, what's so special about saying gravity is the 4th dimension? That's just plain obvious. So, what causes 4th dimension ground state motion, to begin with?___What's the prime mover? Now, there's a question? And don't say the standard answer, "It's always been." What is the scientific prime mover? There is only one...

[RascalPuff]

Lloyd Gillespie wrote (at closure of his last message):
And BTW, Einstein's 1905 srt work was what I meant to refer to in my last post... It first showed gravity as the 4th dimension, and the later grt more directly confirmed it. And btw, what's so special about saying gravity is the 4th dimension? That's just plain obvious. So, what causes 4th dimension ground state motion, to begin with?___What's the prime mover? Now, there's a question? And don't say the standard answer, "It's always been." What is the scientific prime mover? There is only one...
___________________

Dear Lloyd:
Direct me to any published work that proclaims 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' in those words, that precludes my work beginning in 1959, published and distributed in hard copy out of Naples, Italy, in four different languages, and I will concede your notably tenacious insistence (that it's 'just plain obvious') and shake that author's hand.

Until then we have all kinds of proofs that gravity is the 4th dimension, but no such recognitions (that it's 'just plain obvious'). You speak of the Special Theory showing that gravity is the 4th dimension. My book is all about how a heck of a lot of things show that gravity is the 4th dimension, but they don't say it in those words. Einstein proves it in his Special Theory's E=MC2, and proves it again with the elevator analogy and the identity of inertial and gravitational mass values - but he doesn't say gravity is the 4th dimension in those (altogether unprecedented) words...

You doggone right: "It's just plain obvious". I couldn't agree with you more. So you speak as though you knew these things before you learned them from me. In that case, why didn't you publish it as I was compelled to do upon making these realizations? Where is your dated, published, copyrighted essay or book with those observations? Did you make these discoveries and decide to keep them to yourself?

Meanwhile, most people will and do argue that gravity is not and cannot be a dimension... And, that electricity and magnetism cannot be and are not the 5th and 6th dimensions, respectively. Moreover, since electricity moves at right angles out of 4-D matter it is - for the first time - identified as the 5th dimension. Furthermore, since magnetism moves at right angles to electricity, it is - and always has been the 6th dimension. But, until I recognized these facts (from the shoulders of giants), no vocabulary existed to make such - altogether unprecedented - identifications and proclamations.

Regarding 'the prime mover' you speak of so vigorously - it is not my obligation to tell you why matter is four dimensionally expanding, it is only my obligation to prove that indeed that is what it's doing, and, what that means in our own direct experience. The same amount of energy distributed over an increasingly greater area, squared. Reinstatement of Steady State theory...

No infringement on the law of convservation of mass-energy. I find matter moving perpendicularly outward from all three of its recognized dimensions, I document that inescapable fact as it has not ever been documented or pointed out before..

Where do you get off speaking of 'only one prime mover', demanding that I tell you or anyone else why matter is 4-Dimensionally accelerating at right angles from its three recognized dimensions? Armed with that knowledge I went on to be the first person to identify electricity as the 5th dimension and magnetism as the 6th. You say you've read my book as it exists in this location, but it doesn't sound like you've read it all. My work also non-mathematically reaffirms gravity, demystifies 'geodescs' and the 'curvature of space time', reinstates Einstein's formerly abandoned Unified Field (and the Steady State theory) And no (you don't jack the universe up and put a new one under it - you find everything right where it's been all along; previously unrecognized), 'there is nothing new about it', except it's unprecedented recognition of previously known but unrecognized facts. The (macrocosmic) 4-D expansion of mass inertially acts on or near major gravitational masses; the 5th and 6th dimensions of electromagnetism act at a distance, effecting aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric tides, the orbiting of planets around the sun and moons around the planets. The microcosmic 4-D space-time continuum constitutes nuclear binding forces; submits an unprecedented geometric solution to the enigma of quantum mechanics (quantum field theory); reinstates the unified field by way of finding electromagnetism and gravity as two apparently unrelated forces having the same causal identity, reestablishes the steady state theory, and there is little doubt that much more will come of it as the number of persons aware of it increases - When gravity, electricity & magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions become as familiar to the public as Time-Life magazine and Reader's Digest.
__________________________________

CAVEAT (Aviso)
In 1998 google search did not find a single reference to the statement/title 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension' (of course that statement is by definition a matter of google - and other net crawler - archived history).
Since December 1999 the statement began to appear, excerpted from a book by the same title, authored, printed in hard copy, distributed and sold out by K.B.Robertson in nine small press editions since 1959 thru 1999 and placed in several locations on the astro/internet in 1999, by one Brian Kirk Parquette (Bkparque), who, upon reading the book and introducing himself to this author, requested what he called 'the honor', of posting it on the net (beginning with the Astronomy net departments), since, at that time, this author did not use or know how to employ the internet.


Since 1999 a passel of google findings emerge with references to 'expansion theory' and 'gravity is the 4th dimension' including a series of early placements "Posted by Brian Kirk Parquette" - verbatim and extensive excerpts of the issued book; without reference to the authorship of K.B.Robertson, directly implying that B.K. Parquette authored the work, which has since emerged in several forms under several allegory authorships ...

Including the beginning - first two - chapters of Mark McCutcheon's 2003 release of The Final Theory. Refer google: 'Discussing the Final Theory with Mark McCutcheon, by *David Ruske', excerpts follow: Mr. David Ruske addresses his readers:

"In July of 2003 I stumbled across an Internet advertisement for a book by Mark McCutcheon titled "The Final Theory." After reading through his website (http://www.thefinaltheory.com), I felt that the author had either formulated a very different physics, or had crafted some very fine snake oil. I was curious, but couldn't find anything on the web telling me whether the book was really worth US$30.


"Well, now I know. The book is another take on an expansion theory. In a nutshell, expansion theory says that the reason gravity is so indistinguishable from an acceleration is because it is acceleration, caused by matter expanding at an ever accelerating rate. There is no gravitational force in expansion theory; it's Einstein's equivalence priniciple taken literally. "The Final Theory" starts there, and doesn't end until it tries to rethink much of modern physics."


Mr. David Ruske addresses Mr. Mark McCutcheon
*"I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is "expansion theory" mentioned, instead the basis of this "final theory" is kept vague. You're not the first to try to take Einstein's equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google <Since December 1999> will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you're aware of the fact."...



Discussing "The Final Theory", Mr. Mark McCutcheon (the first two chapters of his book conspicuously parallels Gravity is the Fourth Dimension) responds with his disclaimer to Mr. David Ruske:

"In answer first to your suspicions of my sincerity, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to discuss my core concepts on my website. There are many others who have tried their hand at alternate theories, as you know, and, frankly, their ideas are quite kooky and half-baked, either because they have the wrong inspiriation initially, or because they are unable to follow it through to any depth. But this doesn't stop them. They go on and on making less and less sense, and ultimately end up just chatting quite irrationally in their own websites about all their ideas. I realize that some may still put me in that boat with my theory, but I see a clear difference with my book, and I will not diminish it in that manner. This truly is the answer to how our universe operates -- not just in my opinion or pet theory .. examine the evidence as you read, even solid mathematical proof as on page 190, which it seems you may not have reached. Taken out of context, my ideas would probably be laughed off the stage, but in context, I hope you can see it is a serious, viable, scientific theory that puts standard theory to rest. Also, yes I am now aware that at least one other person has tried to pursue discussion of expanding matter on Google groups .. one of the other readers who responded (and who has volunteered a review on my site and is now part of the discussion group) informed me of that the other day.


"I assure you, I'm not that person and I have nothing to do with any such physics discussion groups. I have been well aware of the existence of these groups for well over a decade -- perhaps two? (Mr. McCutcheon is confused about whether it's 10 or 20 years since he's been aware of the 'google groups' - talking about a book he wrote in the past few years...) -- and have always been horrified by them, partly because they are (Brian Kirk Parquette is) so abusive, and partly because most people there claim to be scientifically educated and intelligent (and I'm sure they are), yet they banter on endlessly day after day and even year after year about who understands one aspect of our science better than another. In the end, no one really has any solid answers, which is why they're all there, typing away endlessly, hoping to convince themselves or others of their current understanding, or hoping for answers from others, which never com. I hope you can see that that is all you're left with, without my book. I have never joined these groups, and have had no desire to even scan them for over a decade, since I already know what they're all about. This is the legacy that today's science paradigm leaves for even our most intelligent, educated, scientifically enthusiastic people."

- Mr. Mark ('for decades') McCutcheon, in response to Mr. David Ruske's previously stated questions, doubts and 'suspicions'...
<The chapters following 1 and 2 - of McCutcheon's 'Final Theory' - form a slapstick trend of Mr. McCutcheon somberly dismissing reality for lack of evidence> ).

In several of B.K.Parquette's (12/'99, 2000 dated) posts of K.B. Robertson's work (far preceding M. McCutcheon's 2003 dated 'Final Theory' and the discussion referenced above), Parquette - the 1999 originator of what Mr McCutcheon calls 'the google groups' - overtly identifies himself as the 'author' of the work, while Parquette argues with established authorities (Including Prof. Wheeler of Princeton) on the subject of Einstein's work and theoretical physics in general, simultaneously impersonating this author (K.B.Robertson - Truly Yours).
Gravity is the 4th Dimension (Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions; the Big Bang Theory is Wrong; the Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Theory) is a narrative and an anthological compendium of quotes from other books, researched, gathered and editorially connected to one another (by way of employing and connecting previously unrecognized works) in the unprecedented commission of what amounts to a historically substantiated - overwhelmingly documented - reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned *Unified Field Theory. *The objective of which is to find electromagnetism and gravity as being two apparently different phenomena, actually having the same causal identity.
The achievement of reinstating Einstein's formerly abandoned Unified Field Theory includes a seriatim of major break throughs in theoretical physics. When Parquette's impersonation and displacement of myself as the author of the subjected work was brought to my attention, I forthwith expressed my disappointment in him, at the same time that I assured him that all he would succeed in doing is making a fool of himself and expediting the conveyence of my formerly hard copy, small press confined work to the world.

(Editorial note. Excerpts - as they are found in 'About this Book' - in its full presentation, follow, to be edited for sequence before completion of this introductory. This condensation is a work in progress; a condensation of Total Field Theory, as it occurs in this book as it appears on the net - the tenth edition of a 47 year published, distributed and sold out work... The 6th hard copy, 1979 released edition of which is 627 pages duration.


The first mass printed hard copy edition of 1970 was distributed and sold out internationally through the Portola Institute's WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE. Following editions were distributed in 41 bookstores throughout the state of California, with emphasis on University of California bookstores and a variety of bookstores in Berkeley California. 'About this book' is intended to be a condensed, thumbnail sketch of the less condensed book that accompanies it at commencement of this delphi forum's location.)


After being elaborately ridiculed (and rarely complimented) for this work since 1959, I find it a very interesting experience now, to witness the New Age purloiners's of it arguing among themselves about who pilfered it first...(And how 'just plain obvious' it is, pushing on to demand that I explain why corporeal matter is in a four dimensional state of constantly acclerating expansion; accompanied by intractable 3 and 4 body problems. Do you want all the answers? I have only those that I have documented. Any cogent answers that preceded mine are called upon to authenticate themselves, or, take a number and get in line... The more controversy that gathers around the findings of my book, the sooner the work emerges in the world at my front doorstep where it originated. Your remarkable knowledge and understanding of theoretical physics is rightfully impressive, decisively inspirational, but, it does not displace or gainsay my work.).

".....what's so special about saying gravity is the 4th dimension? That's just plain obvious. So, what causes 4th dimension ground state motion, to begin with?___What's the prime mover? Now, there's a question? And don't say the standard answer, "It's always been." What is the scientific prime mover? There is only one...
(I'm only guessing, Mr. Gillespie, but I think you're alluding to God... You're certainly right in saying 'There is only one', but could you make your enigmatically poignant question a little more user friendly? <Please refer to 'Science "versus" God', in my featured articles here at Theory of Everything> )


- RascalPuff

"Reality is merely an illusion. Albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

[purveyor of knowledge]

Dear Lloyd Gillespie:
Please say what you think of this:
2.1 PART I
Scenario: Miniature & Parallel Universe
(Copyright 2007 by K. B. Robertson, all rights reserved)
The following question originated at a dinner party among friends. There was an interesting and educational variety of answers.

Question:
In a universe parallel to ours, exactly the same in every way; with all of the galaxies - including the Milky Way, and our solar system with all our planets as they are, including earth and everything on and within it and including its inhabitants and the molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, black body radiation - except... :

that this ‘twin universe’ and all of its contents was one thousand times smaller than the universe we in the here and now occupy - instead of the there & then occupation of the miniaturized universe (including all of our miniaturized selves):

would this miniaturized universal space and all of its miniaturized contents undergo and experience the same time standards as the ‘regular sized’ universe we are part of?
Yes or no.

Addendum options
Time would be the same in the two compared universes.
Time would be different in the two compared universes.
If yes, please explain.
If no, please explain.

This is a brilliant question rascal! How big our universe appears to us is dependent solely upon our consciousness. If we lived in a universe that was smaller but the speed of light were the same, it would be as if nothing changed accept our consciouse perception of how fast the speed of light is - so instead of distances being shorter, the speed of light would be faster. But how fast is the speed of light if not based on our consciouse perception of the rate of time? In other words, without conscious perception the speed of light is arbitrarily fast or slow, so the speed of light is really a measure of our own consciousness and how big we perceive things to be.

What makes a second feel like a second, and what's to stop a second from feeling like an instant or an eternity? It is our conscious rate of perception which is guaged by the speed of light that determines how big we guage absolutely everything to be.

So how big or small could a universe possibly be? Well, the speed of light could never possibly be greater than 1/0 because if it were it would actually be less than itself (1/0 is the crossover of negative and positive infinity - imagine it as the overlapping of two circles or as the yin yang symbol where duality is complete). So 1/0 is the greatest speed possible and would be the universe where consciousness is completely condensed. So basically that's what's going on inside of light. The light inside the photon is travelling at a speed of 1/0 because the pure light is the most condensed form of consciousness.
Pure Consciousness=Pure condensced light travelling at the speed 1/0