[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner The expanding Universe Curiously, someone has yet to come forward to explain just what happens when the acceleration of the Universe achieves that rate of atomic interaction commonly referred to as light speed. According to Einstein, anything that attains the speed of light has infinite mass and occupies a place where time stands still. In describing what happens when the Universal expansion achieves this milestone we apply quantum theory to describe the result. The expansion of the Universe can be described as a wave form, as all things in nature co-exist in resonance and all obeys the laws of quantum physics. This wave cycles from a place of "rest", ie. where time stands still and mass has infinite value, to the beginning of the next cycle, ie. where time stands still, and mass has infinite value. That place is represented by what I llike to call a "black crust" or shell. This is depicted in a partial cross-section of the Universe below. We place ourselves for the sake of argument after the fourth cycle of the wave of creation has begun.

Baud, what would possess you to think that galaxies or universes could ever reach the speed of light, when any galaxie is carrying its own local area light transmission, and there is no centropic transmission of light, anyway. Light and energy are produced at all infinite areas of the entire universe. I agree that it's infinitely expanding perpetually, but I strongly disagree that the real matter universe ever comes close to the speed of light, anywhere. Even if we take all the cosmological evidence in, we still must conclude that the measured speeds near the speed of light are local universal area pertaining only in relation to other areas, instead of correctly separating the two independent areas, into their own area independent light speeds. This centropic problem of mis-understanding has been with us for over one hundred years, strong, and for thousands of years in weak form. I think it comes from our belief in the one centropic ego, for far too many eons.

sorry,
Lloyd

[baudrunner]

Even if we take all the cosmological evidence in, we still must conclude that the measured speeds near the speed of light are local universal area pertaining only in relation to other areas, instead of correctly separating the two independent areas, into their own area independent light speeds.

I understand what you're saying Lloyd, that in essence the Universe is expanding uniformly and this effect is observed from any point of reference within it. I don't argue with that, but if reality is limited to this analysis wherein the rate at which anything can travel is limited by the rate of the propagation of light then you must acknowledge that the size of the universe could not be calculated to be around 156 billion light years in diameter if it is only 13.5 billion years old! Read this article to find out how in reality this is actually the case.

from the article (with reference to the expansion rate of the Universe):

There is nothing in special or general relativity to prevent this apparent velocity from exceeding the speed of light.

We are observing superluminal (faster than light) effects elsewhere in the Universe. This article describes the case of the blast wave left by a gamma-ray burst. The expanding ring does not observe limitations of the rate of propagation of radiations in the optical spectrum produced by simple excitation because of the intensity of the shock wave front produced by the blast wave, which exceeds the rate of light propagation.

from the article:

The apparent expansion rate of the ring is faster than light due to a relativistic effect which occurs when an emitting source moves at speeds close to the speed of light almost along the line of sight.

In other words, if you throw a ball at thirty miles an hour while on a train moving at one hundred miles an hour the ball is actually moving at one hundred and thirty miles an hour.

If you are unwilling to consider my theory of the nature of the propagation of light, which effectively explains particle-wave duality as well, then you will have trouble accepting the evidence for superluminal phenomenon. The community in general is averse to accepting that the "speed of light" represents merely just another barrier to be broken as evidenced by the cautionary approach of any discussion pertaining to phenomena which display superluminosity where words like "apparent" are routinely employed. My Universal wave theory to which you are referring is a postulate of what might be the case in reality, and I am not breaking any laws in describing it. It represents a good case for the existence of dark matter as well. Not only that, to describe the Universal front of creation to be occurring as a wave is natural and elegant.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner I understand what you're saying Lloyd, that in essence the Universe is expanding uniformly and this effect is observed from any point of reference within it. I don't argue with that, but if reality is limited to this analysis wherein the rate at which anything can travel is limited by the rate of the propagation of light then you must acknowledge that the size of the universe could not be calculated to be around 156 billion light years in diameter if it is only 13.5 billion years old! Read this article to find out how in reality this is actually the case. from the article (with reference to the expansion rate of the Universe):

Baud, I calculated the above for myself, back in the early eighty's, and found all numbers being used by accepted science and physics to be false. They are still false, period. The universe is not limited by the propagation of light, as new light is eternally propagated, so your statement doesn't apply. I simply and logically accept only a finite matter and infinite space universe. Anything else is outside of logic, including Einstein's GR and SR, when bound by the false concept of space-time. Logically, space is a concept and time is a percept. The two can never be joined - tis outside logic. In other words, the last 100 years of physics' guessing is outside sound logic, period. It has been proven so by many recent physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, and astronomers, as recent pbs shows, i.e., Nova have clearly shown.

Originally Posted by baudrunner We are observing superluminal (faster than light) effects elsewhere in the Universe. This article describes the case of the blast wave left by a gamma-ray burst. The expanding ring does not observe limitations of the rate of propagation of radiations in the optical spectrum produced by simple excitation because of the intensity of the shock wave front produced by the blast wave, which exceeds the rate of light propagation. from the article: In other words, if you throw a ball at thirty miles an hour while on a train moving at one hundred miles an hour the ball is actually moving at one hundred and thirty miles an hour.

Again here Baud, you are talking outside the bounds of observable logic, and so is the article. No velocities can be observed beyond the speed of light, because we are using light speed instruments and natural light speed eyes to observe, and also because we are trying to observe electrons with electrons, thus the uncertainty principle still holds. I admit super-luminal makes all theories very easy to show all the answers we strive for, but not the logical answers we want and need. I'll take logic, as I myself, tried this shortcut in the early and mid eighties, and then abandoned it as non-logical and unprovable. Great idea, but blind logic, no-good. You, or no one else, have or ever will, prove anything beyond the speed of light, other than the simple idea of space distance shrinking between two galaxies' light beams approaching each other. We are locked in a light bound logic.

Originally Posted by baudrunner If you are unwilling to consider my theory of the nature of the propagation of light, which effectively explains particle-wave duality as well, then you will have trouble accepting the evidence for superluminal phenomenon. The community in general is averse to accepting that the "speed of light" represents merely just another barrier to be broken as evidenced by the cautionary approach of any discussion pertaining to phenomena which display superluminosity where words like "apparent" are routinely employed. My Universal wave theory to which you are referring is a postulate of what might be the case in reality, and I am not breaking any laws in describing it. It represents a good case for the existence of dark matter as well. Not only that, to describe the Universal front of creation to be occurring as a wave is natural and elegant.

Again Baud, the problem is super-luminal. Super-luminal is and always will be outside sound logic. I discovered a similar super-luminal theory in the early eighties, as I have mentioned, so I am well aware of all the hypothesising. Just to let you know, I thought up a psychological cyclotron so my mind could exit the entire known universe, to look back at it, and asked where was I and what was I withnessing? I saw the same super-luminal expansion, but instead of "crust", I saw it just shrinking into nothingness at the speed of light plus one[even Newton's mass theory requires this]. When I turned the theory around to go backwards, I saw it all collapse into the big crunch. So you see, I could play this theory over and over to create any number of big bangs and big crunchs, or shriking universes into new creative energy. The only trouble was, it was super-luminal and unprovable - elegant yes, but outside of logic. This is when I started working on pre-big-bang ideas, yet inside of logic possibilities[luminal].

Sorry, but I can't accept beyond the luminal,
Lloyd

[baudrunner]

Hi, Lloyd,

You're certainly entitled to your opinions and ideas. However, it occurs to me that stubbornly refusing to accept that superluminal velocities are possible (even though superlumina is curently being proved in the lab) involves the same style of thinking as insisting that God created the Universe. Why did God create the Universe? Because the bible says so. Why can't we exceed the rate of atomic interaction (speed of light)? Because Einstein says so.

I wish that we had both lived in Einstein's day so that I could hear your refutations of SR and GR in real time. You reject these theories yet they are the foundation for establishing speed of light limitations.

Incidentally, I would like you to explain just why we cannot achieve superluminal velocities.

SL

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Hi, Lloyd, You're certainly entitled to your opinions and ideas. However, it occurs to me that stubbornly refusing to accept that superluminal velocities are possible (even though superlumina is curently being proved in the lab) involves the same style of thinking as insisting that God created the Universe. Why did God create the Universe? Because the bible says so. Why can't we exceed the rate of atomic interaction (speed of light)? Because Einstein says so. I wish that we had both lived in Einstein's day so that I could hear your refutations of SR and GR in real time. You reject these theories yet they are the foundation for establishing speed of light limitations. Incidentally, I would like you to explain just why we cannot achieve superluminal velocities. SL

Ah yes, the super-luminal is curently being proved in the lab; that's funny, last I checked it is impossible, period - and that is mathematical logic. And as to why we can not achieve super-luminal is very simple. When any matter is speeded to the speed of light, it must increase mass and shrink in size. At the speed of light any matter just plain turns into quanta of light, zero mass, period - matter approaching speed of light is required to exit massive quanta. These facts have been known since early quantum studies, whether of Plank, Poincare, Lorentz or whomever. The formulas have been around since then. These same formulas exist all over this site, I don't know but even you have posted about them - remember Feynman's renormalizations' infinities to avoid just such truths - and I might further add, to destroy the whole mathematical integrity of quantum mechanics for half a century, plus. As a further explanation, when solid matter of any mass approaches the speed of light, it must give up massive amount of quanta to continue toward speed of light, as light at the speed of light loses its cohesive power and such matter starts to lose all it coherence - remember Lorentz transformation math stops at 85% of light speed, as math starts approaching infinities and becomes too difficult to continue. The opposite of the above is simply the reverse process of wave/particle building from first quantum processes on.

You and I in two rocket ships, looking out windows at each other, as we approach the speed of light would disintegrate and not see each other any longer, as light couldn't travel fast enough to reach our eyes, or hold our molecular structure together. Einstein's clock and measuring bars disappear at the speed of light, not go backwards and shrink. Even Einstein was aware of this but exaggerated physics since has another tale to tell, many other tales to tell. One of Einstein's true theories were quanta of light imagined in a mirror, a much more real tale. Sorry, but I adhere to the newer physics of wave structured matter, and infinite space quantum energy.

Incedently, speed of light limitations have nothing to do with SR or GR. Speed of light limitations existed billions of years before, and many measured before Einstein. As to SR and GR establishing limits as refers to science, it never was seen before either - light, each time it was measured, was always the same, with small errors of such measurements.

BTW, there's nothing stubborn about stating what is known to be outside of logic.

Lloyd

[baudrunner]

BTW, there's nothing stubborn about stating what is known to be outside of logic.

I agree, but then logic does not necessarily reflect practical common sense, nor does it always represent truth.

I could continue to bait you as you fall ever deeper into your own conclusions, conclusions based on erroneous premises, which premises begin with reasoning like

as light couldn't travel fast enough to reach our eyes

...false because light doesn't actually travel at all. It is emitted through the wave behaviour of the outer orbitals of atoms by their interactions with other atoms. You are right in saying that we would not be able to see each other in each other's rocket ships because we would be travelling faster than the rate of atomic interaction would permit us to see each other but our molecules would be no less structurally integral then they are now for we would still occupy a still frame of reference with respect to the environment outside of our rocket ships.

I've been pointing out the inherent flaws of math-dependent theories for some time, and that is why while I respect SR and GR I do not hold them up as unconditional and pure. The two do not always agree because they are math independent and that pretty much proves my point.

You will come around to a truer appreciation of the nature of reality when you accept the fact that photons don't scoot across the universe, that photonic "energy" is merely an effect which can only be quantified by the energy required to produce it and that light is static and does not move and that the modulated characteristics of which propagate atom by atom.

You firmly believe in the finite matter and infinite space Universe. No doubt then you have found a new function for the cosmolgical constant. I maintain that the Universe can only be observed from within and that space and matter are created in a continual process occurring at the periphery. Beyond these two basic disagreements that you and I have, ie. light behaviour and the model of the Universe, our theories converge in many ways, and I find that intriguing.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Baud, since we seem close as to theories, as you mentioned, why don't we try to accurize our ideas into a truer theory of everything? I'd be glad to throw ideas back and forth to see if we may make headway...

Originally Posted by baudrunner I agree, but then logic does not necessarily reflect practical common sense, nor does it always represent truth.

Logic reflects common sense and truth only when parsed through our other essence agents, as does any essence agent when parsed through enough other essence agents. It always takes more than one to create common sense and truth.

I could continue to bait you as you fall ever deeper into your own conclusions, conclusions based on erroneous premises, which premises begin with reasoning like ...false because light doesn't actually travel at all. It is emitted through the wave behaviour of the outer orbitals of atoms by their interactions with other atoms. You are right in saying that we would not be able to see each other in each other's rocket ships because we would be travelling faster than the rate of atomic interaction would permit us to see each other but our molecules would be no less structurally integral then they are now for we would still occupy a still frame of reference with respect to the environment outside of our rocket ships..

Baud, I suppose you could try to bait all you may wish, but I think it rather difficult to for me to fall when I am sitting on the very bottom of my mind, looking up. My false reasoning of moving light is not an erroneous premise - if I feel heat moving away from heated steel and its light reaching my eyes, I am positive of heat and light traveling, sorry. Physicists may dream up all kinds of ideas about something they can't see, i.e., light waves, but when I see and absolutely know something different, they are quite unconvincing. Nobody knows for sure what a quantum of light is, yet! And as to your still frame of reference, you have failed to distinguish between such simple examples of passengers on trains, here on earth at low speed, and us theoretically nearing the speed of light. At a theoretical speed of light all reference frames merge into one - We disintegrate! The invironments inside the rocket ships would merge with the outside environment at light speed, i.e., good-by! Of course, these are all Einstein abstracts, and can never exist in reality - nothing can push matter to the speed of light. Only the properties light is made of can attain the speed of light and only at zero mass, i.e., waves/light quanta.

I've been pointing out the inherent flaws of math-dependent theories for some time, and that is why while I respect SR and GR I do not hold them up as unconditional and pure. The two do not always agree because they are math independent and that pretty much proves my point.

Baud, I am not using math dependent theories to arrive at my conclusions. I am simply using truth, common sense, logic, and sound judgment to reacess the entire problem anew.

You will come around to a truer appreciation of the nature of reality when you accept the fact that photons don't scoot across the universe, that photonic "energy" is merely an effect which can only be quantified by the energy required to produce it and that light is static and does not move and that the modulated characteristics of which propagate atom by atom.

Light moves, just as Plank proved its heat does. Get the metal hot enough and you can see both the heat waves and light waves. And I know these are waves as I am a long range sniper rifle shooter, and I see and have to counter for such waves and parallaxes, earth's rotation, hemispheres, precession, etc., on and on - simple common sense. Even someone watching heat waves on a hot tar road or dessert knows waves move heat and light, or vise versa... There's still much to learn here, in this hugest of quantum mysteries. I agree, the mathematics leaves much to be desired.

You firmly believe in the finite matter and infinite space Universe. No doubt then you have found a new function for the cosmolgical constant.

I am using the same cosmological constant that Einstein did, that of the speed limit of light, but not as projected by space, his extremely flawed thinking, but that projected by each individual star, in infinite space. You see, I'm more of an individualist than Einstein was.

I maintain that the Universe can only be observed from within and that space and matter are created in a continual process occurring at the periphery. Beyond these two basic disagreements that you and I have, ie. light behaviour and the model of the Universe, our theories converge in many ways, and I find that intriguing.

Baud, could you please explain why you feel your theoretical mind is trapped inside the universe...? Theory should always be able to go beyond, to any imaginal intelligence level whatsoever, as long as the end result is run through sound judgment and mathematical logic, to find its ultimate truth...
I think our differences are in the light, frame of references only... To me the star's light generations all must be separated into local area sources, just as all the newest cosmology and astronomy knowledge and testing, through real observation, has shown. According to the newest knowledge, something is pushing the universe apart, more than attracting - this is new, and this is where Einstein's SR theory breakes down. Spacetime is incompatible with the newest observations and knowledge. The new knowledge requires a separate space and time, and makes much more sense when you really think about it. You see, Einstein's spacetime closed model traps one in a non-infinite space, and I or my logic can not accept that. My innate logic, working naturally arithmetically, finds a closed universe of any kind repugnant.

[baudrunner]

I don't consider a Universe to be closed if it is infinitely in acellerated creation mode and continuing to expand in volume as its space is expanding. The reason that the Universe can only be observed from within is simple, space is as much a creation as the matter which occupies it. I take it that you assume that space existed as an infinite expanse before your big bang created matter. Not so. Most cosmologists do not agree with you.

Heat waves and light waves are like the waves in an otherwise still pond after you drop a pebble into it. Each molecule of water affects its adjacent molecule etc. etc. like the particles that make up the medium for light wave propagation. The long wavelengths of heat waves that are visible are like sound waves, which are like wind, and they are not the originating microwaves that produced the heat to begin with, remember the pond. The continual dropping of randomly sized pebbles in a pond will produce longer wavelengths as the waves reinforce, similar to the production of long wave heat waves by a constantly randomly excited sea of molecules, the atmosphere.

Einstein was essentially correct in his gravity and velocity relativity theories. Because of these phenomena corrections were made to the onboard GPS satellite clocks to compensate for those very same relativistic effects, thereby increasing the accuracy of determining ground position. The difference is substantial, a whole 38 microseconds per day overall, which may not seem like much until you factor in the velocities of those triangulating satellites and the distances involved, where fractions of an arc second can translate into huge errors.

Why should we break up at light speed and not at, say, 95% light speed?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Baud, the tinyest quantum waves affect all waves and matter - all!

"Why should we break up at light speed and not at, say, 95% light speed? - Baudrunner" I wasn't trying to imply only at light speed, but as it is only the theorizing of the impossible anyway, the breakup of molecular structure may occur anywhere along the velocity increase line from rest to light speed, with faster breakup the closer to light speed, as that is what Lorentz's mathematics originally showed, in a so, so manner. Check out my most recent post on "The Quantum Radiation Theory of First Cause", for more information, a post from another board.