GRAVITY SPEED OF
Light, Speed Of
Evidence for faster than light motion;
Field and Ship Theory
HIGGS
Time How to measure with Higher resolution
Gravity Wave Telescope
Time Travel
Black Holes and Time Travel
Black Holes
General Relativity
Speed Of Subatomic Spin
Centrifugal Force
EPR
Antigravity
Big Bang
STANDARD THEORY
Ghost Particle Theory
GRAVITY SHIELDING
PROBLEMS WITH 2 Recent "PROOFS of Relativity"
Gravity, Speed of
Gravity in my causology may have two components, a longer wavelength much faster than light component (the lighter you go the faster you go by F=ma; if the mass, m is small, the speed, a, can be much faster than light for a finite Force, F) and a slower speed field component made of virtual particles like the Higgs boson. The predicted speed of this high speed component of the gravitational field is 10X 10 to the 34th the power of speed of light, because like in Maxwell's method of prediction of the exact speed of light, the lower the density, the higher the speed would be by F=ma for mostly linear motion. Angular motion, being opposite might allow gravity to have much faster than light motion (a nonlinear line is not round, and a wave can never be a particle at the same place and time, so with more density, the strong force would spin faster than light, but with reduced density, gravity would go much faster than light with a more linear motion). If the mass m were 0 the speed, a for the force F would be infinite. (Waves in love and life are "us" without sacrifice of a "me". or power is a "me" who was so amazin I'd achieve push ups in a wave machine!) The predicted top speed of the low power component of the field may be proven or disproven by finding the wave from a solar storm (the most explosive event in the solar system) and then seeing if a modified Torsion Balance machine would register the gravity wave from the distant solar boom much faster than the wave of light from it. Another method to measure the speed using the solar flares may be via atomic clocks which also measures comparable changes in gravity and may be more of worth in a spacecraft sent to the right distance from the sun. SEE Gravity Wave Telescope.
This unified motif of motion might also be found for the large scale symmetry of the cosmos of the Wilkenson probe. If one side of the cosmos changes a bit the other would move a bit with it. The above would be almost instantaneous, but the motions of the sides might prove the predicted speed of General Wave Dynamics with enough wait with the large distance of separation of the source.
WHY A HIGHER ENERGY LOW SPEED COMPONENT OF GRAVITATIONAL FIELD In GWD the higher speed low energy component flexes and smooths the flow of the field of the Higgs, my explanation of why electromagnetic waves like the electron made of the Higgs never slow down or wear out. I use the combination of the high speed component of gravity combined with the slow even if still faster than light speed Higgs type field (or lower energy Higgs equivalent like Einstein hoped to use to disprove the Uncertainty Principle, which could also be a building block of mass) both to explain why inertia and gravity are much alike by the equivalence principle and yet why gravity is unlike inertia in many ways, (no shielding, and no reversibility like the field inside an elevator, huge mass of the earth needed to cause the same acceleration as a centrifuge of 32 ft. at the earth's surface near with the SHIP and FIELD Theory, and so on). Proof of the field being made of these particles, it's operation by pressure, and so on may be proven by ANTIGRAVITY q.v. See also SHIP and FIELD Causology; Gravity
Light, Speed Of
Is nonfundamental like Einstein believed (in my causology of this page of General Wave Mechanics a general adaptation of Maxwell's) because in GWD it seems obvious Maxwell had the more general equation from which he exactly predicted the speed of light found by later evidence. Einstein's way is where we have to take the speed of light on faith. Maxwell used the more general idea of waves changing speed with more or reduced density. The long wavelength component of gravity may go much faster than light without large Relativistic mass gain because of antennas of unlike wavelength not resonating, gravity being mostly much lower power in a vacuum would pass through the more electromagnetic field of Special Relativity without much change. Actually the Higg's type field in GWD has to be strong enough to shape the light yet fluid enough to not shield and to perfectly retain the changes in pressure of the wavelength of the light with changes in the accelerations of the high speed observers. This may be caused by low energy quanta, like a low saucer or bowl that has the fluid of the higher speed low energy field flow in and out at higher speed than instant coffee. By this the continuum is complete down to the subatomic level even though it's got enough definition to e.g. change the wavelength of light according to the speed of the observer from a distance, this takes a more active field too. Maxwell thought the electric charges are constant, the force between them is constant, so the speed of light he predicted based on the density of the wave is constant. Fractional charges would be lighter so would move at faster than light because you lighten up to travel fast. The fractional subatomic charges wouldn't have infinite mass of faster than the speed of light like in relativity because fractional charges would have reduced force of the field around them. The field from which the relativistic mass gain would be derived would have reduced resistance to the motion through it without the infinite mass, and the strong force would also have more motive power, so the particles would spin faster than light at higher energy. They have fractional charges and are lighter, so they would spin at that much faster than light. A particle with charge 1/2 would spin at twice the speed of light, a particle with spin of 2/3 would spin at 3/2 or 1 and 1/2 times the speed of light at lower radii in conventional physics like the LHC. And the electric field and the strong force field are at distinct wavelengths so the strong force would have reduced resistance by the electric field at higher energy. This would allow the strong force higher speed.
..
Evidence for Faster Than Light Motion;
Chin's Tunneling Experiments, the charges are lighter by about 1/3 or so and the waves in the experiments are about 1/3 faster than light, the lighter you are the faster you go,
The GREAT WALL, a huge realm of matter that couldn't have formed in the time since the expansion of our part of the cosmos without faster than light waves to unify the mass;
The Mossbauer Effect (where gravity causes the redshift between the light at the top and bottom of a tower) seems to be proof gravity may be faster than light in this experiment because by relativity if gravity can't move faster than light and the light going downward in the tower is already at the top speed, the gravity wave is moving along with the light wave at the same speed. Thus no information between the light and gravity wave can be exchanged, and there can be no change in the wavelength of light if gravity moves at just the speed of light as Einstein thought. If slower, it would have no way to flex the earth or other massive source. As you move a falling mass nearer and nearer to the speed of light in the tower, by relativity there would be less and less change in the component in it's wavelength caused by force, but if the gravity is much faster the difference in motion would be small and the acceleration would be much the same, so the wavelength of both the light and the falling high speed mass like a muon in the tower at would have almost the same change in wavelength in GWD due to gravity if gravity is much faster than light, but not quite.
The High Speed Jets of Massive Bodies like radio galaxies, is evidence for faster than light motion; the acceleration of the masses and black holes that emit these high speed jets must be faster than light to overcome the inward flow of field at the speed of light or faster,
The Wilkensen probe is evidence for faster than light motion needed to unify the large cosmic symmetries made of mass so connected by gravity. See Gravity, Speed of
That light waves are miles in width is in favor of faster than light motion. The wave has to have inner cohesion to stay coherent and a signal must go from the following edge of the wave to the leading edge faster than the lights overall motion to make the light stay a photon and not lose power.
Centrifugal force of the moon may be evidence that gravity might be faster than light, light is like special relativity, straight line motion. So centrifugal force is caused by the seperate points of space and time. A "slow" speed of light would allow the "seperate times" Einstein's causology is about that disconnect masses with centrifugal force or other expansion with distance. But if gravity outdistances the centrifugal force and it's at just the speed of light gravity would be much faster than light or gravity wouldn't have "a weigh" of attracting all masses of the cosmos. Centrifugal force in GWD is caused by the outward flow of the low speed component (electrogravity) of the field (See Gravity, Speed of>Low Speed Component). This would explain why no gravity is present while the force of the centrifuge behaves much like gravity in my interpretation of Einstein's ElevatorTheory.
A lower speed more dense particulate gravitational field as proposed by Van Flanders has the problem of particle scattering with distance, so gravity could only radiate out and this is not seen. Only with the higher speed wavelike continuous attractive component overcoming and moving the particles inward would both the attraction and resilience of the field be so the field is unified for gravity and energy conservation. The low speed particulate component would cause centrifugal force by outward static pressure and gravity by way of their inward pressure under the unifying influence of the higher speed more wavelike gravitational field for gravity.
..
The low speed high power component doesn't attract much like in the "Ghost Particle" theory, proclaimed in 2007, it would make gravity much too strong if it were also the cause of centrifugal force. If centrifugal force is caused more by electromagnetism and electromagnetism is shieldable, a prediction of GWD is that at the right energy, perhaps of The HIGGS BOSON (q.v.) centrifugal force may be shieldable.
.Sideways motion of radiant light as the wavelets radiate outward is well proven by the wave theory of light and is faster than light motion. Any sideways motion at all when the light waves radiate outward would allow vector addition of the two components of motion to faster than light for the resulting component. While it's true in special relativity you can't add your own speed to the speed of light of lower speed mass, light itself is more absolute (just what relativity disclaims). The constant speed of light is the foundation of relativity, so it has no room for this, it's already known to go at the speed of light, and blend sideways well also. The radial force from the center to the outside of the wave or even a particle at rest is an additional vector of the speed of the wave, and relativity says you can't add vectors or your own speed to the speed of light at high velocities. Only if the waves inside particles move at faster than light would the particle not expand outward continually.
-
While Einstein said if any of his ideas are disproven they all are, actually these aren't disproofs of special relativity for electromagnetism and it's ancillary physics, they would be just for gravity and the strong force. If you hear a train's doppler shift for sound and it seems to reverse like the time of the sound as you listen in a higher speed airship, the physics of light to see what's actually going on with the train more reliably are not disproof of the physics of sound.
Relativity includes all the physics of sound plus electromagnetism like with the train and airplane, and General Wave Dynamics would explain all of physics including Special Relativity by way of changes in wave speed and wavelength including the prediction of the speed of light. The waves of thermodynamic forces like relativity speed up (or the equivalent change in momentum of redshift) with decreasing density, and the waves of attractive forces like gravity would slow down the same amount to conserve momentum relative to the electromagnetic field. Both types of field, waves that slow up and others that speed up with the same change in density are needed to explain energy conservation, change in momentum, quantity of motion. (In general the more attractive force like gravity moves faster in linear motion with lower density and faster in spin with increasing density and angular motion. Gravity would be the fastest of all in general because of it's much lower density, and it would move faster yet in the higher density of massive bodies, because light slows down in gravity so to conserve momentum gravity would speed up.) Since general and local are opposite, locally the lower density forces like gravity and the strong force speed up with increasing density and so on but in general, the lower the density the faster the speed of the waves.
-
The recent observation of a supernova and no signal picked up by the gravity wave telescope that would have been able to find it by it's high resolution would be plausible and doesn't rule out that gravity is faster than light (they measure the gravity of an attractive woman walking past the machine outside). This would be because the light was emitted thousands of years ago from the event and the gravity wave from it would have moved past the earth almost at that same moment light years ago. Indeed, because of displacement of the "old" light we may expect to "see" the source of the gravity wave supernovas to be perhaps at a large angle above or below the plane of the Milky Way, where the Milky way is mostly right "now".
On this Wikipedia site it says Faster than Light has been seen for opposite moving galaxies away from us;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
If there's greater space between the galaxies for whatever cause, or two opposite light waves, it seems that if for any reason the motion is Faster Than Light such as the opposite galaxies we see this is one disproof of the impossibility of Faster Than Light. They're moving away as if they were at reduced speed earlier and this would be because they were slower than light and have since indeed moved Faster Than Light even relative to the field. Rate is distance/time and more distance per unit time is more speed. If they would have been connected in the history of the cosmos, and later are seen moving away at Faster Than Light this would only be after crossing the Speed of Light limit. They can't start out at the same point without slower than light motion.
. .
..
FIELD and SHIP Theory
Near the earth gravity is caused by a fluid field of mostly heavy particles like the Higgs, they go at the usual sped of 32 ft. So if you let go, falling at this rate the field is at rest around you, you feel no force. If you stop moving at rest the field is flowing through you with pressure, so like a boat at a water bridge or tied to a line, force is felt by the boat in its rest frame or a mass at rest. This is a simple explanation of the acceleration resistance in a field of low gravity in General Relativity and gravity. It uses the assumption of the fluid at near 32 ft. of acceleration. If most of this field were at high speed, (see Gravity speed Of, above) no large change like in the force felt when at rest or when you fall would be observed. This use of boat and field may be evidence that some component of the field is of speeds comparable to the motion of falling masses. I think the slow flow of a somewhat dense field like the boat and waves is the explanation of most worth. Its acceleration would be powered by the long wavelength field of gravity in the interstices of the Higgs, so the gravity doesn't shield, and the electromagnetic fields never stop moving, unlike waves of the ocean, so by smoothing and flexing this explains why electromagnetism stays in motion and why gravity is not shieldable in eclipses (with even a bit of shielding eclipses would have changed in time since ancient history). Gravity and centrifugal force would be alike in effect, both with the higher energy field flexing of the resilient field by particles to exert the pressure of both forces, but gravity would operate by the flexing by the lower energy field not present via centrifugal force. Complete Explanation.. The Boat and Water Causology also would explain centrifugal force (Q.V.) and why a starship moves by exhaust pressure against a resilient field, like a boat in the ocean. If no field were present, the ship would have nothing to exert pressure on and it would have no way to move forward. Click Here. for More. A proof would be if the virtual electromagnetic (or Higg's) field were made of more wavelength (perhaps just with a centrifuge) with reduced or more density of the field to exert force on, the rocket wouldn't go forward as fast for the same amount of rocket propulsion. In Einstein's way of the field being just made of empty space time, no field would be the reaction source of the ships motion.
HIGGS
A particle Predicted by the Standard Theory, well proven in physics. The Higgs is called "the god particle" because it may give all the other particles mass, the only particle predicted by the Standard Theory not yet found in the big machines. I use the Higgs to explain gravity (see Boat and Field above) and centrifugal force exerting pressure by outward flow of the field made of these particles. The Higgs or it's equivalent in GWD may be used to make super strong lightweight materials, improve the science of teleportation (wikipedia entry, where they say no disproof has been found) used to make super high speed chips, penetrating rays with low radiation, and the ability to see much smaller distances of resolution than atoms.
Time How to measure with Higher Resolution
A laser sweeping around and finely divided in it's sensors around the path it searches out hugely would increase our resolution. The laser itself or other beam would have to be more finely divided than the electromagnetic time of the frequency and resolution of light, but this way of measure uses the assumption of subdivision of the light by it's matter wave sub components like the Higgs, which may be a good assumption based on the triumph of Standard Theory. The worth of my Boat and Wave Theory of gravity and my theory of Centrifugal force are also in support of my belief in the Higgs field.
Gravity Wave Telescope
To know it it may work before we build it a scaled up Torsion Balance machine (used since the 1800's to prove gravity) would have the known distant mass or near with its waves, the known mass of weight in the machine to find the waves and the known distance between them with just these three components in the usual way they change, the proof of whether a gravity wave telescope will be of worth is found by this simple motif, worth billions saved if information wealth is worth building. If out of range of this sort of machine at this time or others, this tells us just how massive our machine would have to be to achieve it, and it could be used to measure gravity waves from earthquakes, Click Here for More.. The use of the Torsion Machines to measure the speed of the gravity waves caused by solar events would be much cheaper than building an even more giant interferometer than machines already being built in hopes of explosion of a supernova. Supernovas are only about 1 in 100 years, the time from the supernova 1604 to the one about 2000 was about 400 years so if the solar events are a way to prove GWD, use of this method may be without having to wait hundreds of years or with the high cost of machines like the GEO 600. Since gravity in GWD is so fast it may have a high frequency, much higher than light, time measurement to find more resolution than just the general wave may necessitate time resolution of much faster speeds. Another way to measure fast waves wave by wave (if they exist) may be by using the faster than light motion of the Einstein's EPR paradox and the Bell Theorem they now have on a chip. While usual chips may be too slow to measure the possible gravity wave speed just as you couldn't much measure the speed of light in air using sound it may be possible with a machine of comparable speed to the wave. They would be connected to a line of larger masses, when the fast wave would go through each mass it would be measured via the chip, making it so much higher bandwidth could be measured and broadcast, better than the looser connection of just the Torsion balance machine, because of the slower speed of light and the low power of gravity, so a Torsion Balance may just measure general motions of distant gravity wave stars.
Another option as I say may be to send an atomic clock near the sun and compare the speed of light from solar events with the changes in the gravity also associated with the events, if 15 light minutes from the sun, by GWD the gravity wave may almost be instantaneous.
See Time, How To Measure.... See also Gravity, Speed of
MORE ABOUT MACHINES TO FOCUS AND CREATE GRAVITY WAVES.
Time Travel
Possible but not probable anytime soon other than with small machines that would store all our information about our bodies and save them to a dish to be rewound in some age ahead. This is believed to be a real possiblity with no law of science broken and an eventuality in the Wikipedia Site about teleportation. This type of time machine may be of use for time travel travel to the future of much duration, the visitors would not age while headed to distant cosmic realms. A big time machine that would rewind the whole world would have to be built to visit any time in the past before the present. While in theory this would be just a simple relocation of the particles of that hour from ours by way of a reliable record of the events of the hoped for time to visit this may be mostly limited a lot by feasability issues. The world of the past exists no more so to visit it it would have to be rebuilt some way to exist. This would need a huge machine to relocate masses of the whole world, not a small machine like in HG Wells, explaining why no physicist has invented a small machine that would allow real time travel, it would need a big machine and a huge power source.
..
Why Time Reversal Is Uncommon For The Cosmos and not a disproof of Faster Than Light Even With The Evidence and Causology Of GWD In Favor Of Faster Than Light.
BLACK HOLES and TIME TRAVEL Black holes couldn't cause time travel because they are just a blob of one by the gravity and all the time we are made of is complex and so to visit an ancient time would need rewinding of all the complex particles to another set of points in space. A simple blob of mass is reversed life but it may overunify. If lots of black holes rewind time they would have to reverse complex physics and presumably the whole universe (like a time machine of H.G. Wells the ancient world doesn't exist now so must be recreated by some influence of the machine, wherever the voyager travels for time to be reversed the influence of the machine would be needed) and this would be common and we would already know.
Black Holes
These are a special type of massive body in my theory that are formed just when the spins of the two stars that formed it cancel out and form a mass with not much spin. No spin means no poles, so no jets like with most of the large masses astronomers see. Conservation of energy means that the mass that falls in is not lost, it's stored. By the implosion of the virtual particles (SEE HIGGS) of the field the few black holes emitting no radiation that would actually exist would add weight and spin over time building up mass till the jets would reconect the mass to the rest of the cosmos. The time it would take from the formation of the black hole to the ignition of the jets would be determined by the spin of the parent masses, the actual amount of virtual field flowing in, the mass of the black hole, and how much of usual mass is accelerated inward to fuel the fire. This theory predicts that black holes that are actually black are rare, due to most massive orbs having spin enough to power visable jets. So the theory of energy conservation with all the cosmos unified predicts fewer black holes seen than otherwise
.
. The Boat And Field theory of gravity (q.v.) implies that the Higgs or other virtual particles flowing in with the gravity would add mass to the black hole over time, so rate of fall of stars around a black hole gaining mass from the field would be more till the jets would ignite. Proof that mass increases over time by way of implosion of the field would be if no other mass were falling into the black hole and the star's rate of fall around the supermass increased. Most masses like the galaxies with jets or the earth would have implosion about the same as implosion, so not much mass other than a smaller amount for work would be won or lost and the rate of fall of stars around these large masses with jets would not increase so much, even with the inward acceleration at faster than light. See also FASTER THAN LIGHT, and TIME TRAVEL> Black Holes
Fifth and Sixth Force
The galactic jets are too strong to be powered by fusion. If the acceleration in is faster than light, the only way to power enough centrifugal force to counterbalance it (so energy is conserved and the mass isn't of infinite implosion) would be by Faster Than Light spin of the particles inside the massive power source. The source of the jets would be a fifth force stronger than the strong force, and since forces are always in pairs a sixth force would also exist here. This I name superfusion. Some say gravity is the power source, but because forces always are in pairs, but this is like saying a fusion bomb is caused by the implosion of the chemicals used to generate the reaction outward of the strong force. If gravity alone were the power source and the density of the strong force was the reaction force it would implode past this density to the infinite density, but these densities are not seen in the output. Since a higher power output of finite energy is seen that's stronger than the strong force but not infinite, the explanation would be a more dense force than the strong force. No superfusion particles may be found around us because in GWD they may be stable just at high densities and fizz out to usual more usual matter with the expansion, a possible source of the otherwise unexplained cosmic rays. The jets have unusual light output, so they are an unpredicted sort of mass the Standard Theory has no explanation for.
RELATIVITY, GENERAL AND SPECIAL
From the same rate of fall of different masses, Einstein thought of gravity as relativistic, either the ground was rushing up at the same rate or the masses would fall at the same rate, so all mass was the same. His theory says in uniform fields of gravity relativity holds because all masses fall at the same rate. But the moon falls around the earth at another rate than the earth around the moon and because the more mass you have the more gravity you have all masses by definition are nonuniform, there are no uniform gravitational fields. All mass attracts with it's own value according to the mass, more mass has more attraction, reduced mass has reduced attraction. You fall at other rates on the moon than on the earth, or than on other worlds. Acceleration is disproof of relativity, and all the "proofs" of General Relativity like the change in the rate of fall of Mercury, The Mossbauer Effect, the bending of starlight, frame dragging, are proofs of acceleration. Einstein was not wrong about all this about the acceleration, but gravity because of the nonuniform fields, I think gravity is non relativistic. All the proofs of General Relativity are proofs of Einstein, not of relativity. You say, "Let's go to Ohio, not, Let's wait awhile and see if Ohio goes to us!" Motion may be relative, and all is not in motion, the Earth is more at rest than the Moon and the Sun is more at rest than the Earth. So if some would say, here's all this proof of the relativity of gravity and special relativity, why do you say faster than light wave motion is possible? Because I think this is disproof only of what's named general relativity, not relativity based on uniform motion. Einstein held two opposite truths in General Relativity, that the masses near the earth fall at the same rate, and that all the other proofs are of changes in accleration, the masses fall at the same rate, Mercury at a changing rate. The masses near the earth may fall at the same rate and a rock and the earth fall a nonuniform rate relative to each other. To assume the relativity of mass, when you lift a heavy mass and a light mass to the same height you've already disproven what your were trying to prove because it takes more force to lift the heavy mass than the light, and dropping them also liberates that much more power. The union of the masses near the earth and the moon and stone falling at other rates is that to make the masses the same in terms of force, you can lift the lighter mass higher with the same force, so it falls faster like the moon around the earth. If they fall at many speeds, this is disproof of the relativity of gravity and explains why I believe the more changing acclerations of what is taken to be general "relativity", the more disproofs of relativity also are achieved.
While Special Relativity has the constant speed of light in uniform motion, the speed of light speeds up or slows down with the starship observer so that relative to the observer when the acceleration is stopped it's once more constant, but at a higher or lower speed (wavelebgth). The speed of light (or the equivalent change in the motion of the light internally by changes in the wavelength, and this is the same because all changes in wavelength are changes in momentum, and motion) changes with the observer, not relative to the observer. If you have 20 speeds, you would have 20 speeds of light! The constant speed of light is the foundation of Einstein's belief in uniform motion, when the observer accelerates relativity is disproven. And because gravity is an acceleration, gravity is also disproof of the relativity of more rest with more gravity. While Special Relativity is well proven, gravity is unproven by relativity and the disproof of the absolute hold of relativity allows the possibility of faster than light motion.
..SPEED OF TUNNELING
The strong force is 137 times as strong as the electric field but the tunneling speed isn't 137 times as fast because of the resistance of the field via relativity, so the predicted value of the speed would be the inverse of the fractional charges, a charge of 1/2 would have a predicted speed of twice the speed of light. Since mostly the spins cancel in heavier nuclei of Chin's experiments, only a residual spin is left. And the speed of most of the travel of the beam would be slowed to the speed of light because Chin used a source and detector a few feet distant, the probe would be moving at faster than light just when travelling through the protons and neutrons of the target. So to find the predicted value of twice the speed of light for a charge of 1/2 the source of the beam could be moved to just the outside of the hadron of a light atom that adds the speed of the spin and the source of the beam and it's detector would be moved nearer so more of the time of travel would be at the top speed. The speed would be higher with deeper contact with the dense field. The higher speed of tunneling of such as protons might be used to make a much faster computer chip by making proton wires through which the signal would be fast and then just crossing them like in the crossbar computer chips that are just made of wires at right angles.
The speed of spin is always in the standard units of one or 1/2 for heavy particles, not at faster than light at longer range because all the spins would slow down at lower energies and longer distances to fit relativity well by the unified electric charges. Since the spin and charge are well linked by the quantum numbers if the charge is controlled at more distance by realtivity, the spin would be too. Spin is about the top speed of the rotation of the electromagnetic or other field, so while this would follow from relativity about the spin always being at just the speed determined by relativity at longer range, at shorter distances by the same idea that the charges are fractional, they also would spin faster than light. While the units of spin are of this type with relativity controlling the charge, the tunneling experiments seem to show faster than light wave motion, so I think it's at the speed of light at lower energy and faster than light at higher speed!
...
CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
Even with part of the field of gravity flowing at much faster than light, (See Gravity, Speed of, Above) the slower speed component is necessary to explain both gravity (see Boat and Water Theory of gravity) and centrifugal force. If the field of a centrifuge was at much higher speeds than light alone and also was much lighter yet, it would be unable to flex outward by pressure when you spin around in a gyroscope, this is also explained by a higher density slow field. No gravity is present in the centrifuge, and a higher density slow field would exert more pressure well than a low density high speed field. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a definite force you experience when you spin around. See also Evidence for faster than light motion; Centrifugal Force above.
The expansion of a field made of the Higgs (or a dense field made of other near electromagnetic particles) explains centrifugal force. The expansion of the field in turn would be because of inertial mass in special relativity being about the speed of light. The nearer the speed of light the more linear the travel of a high speed starship. The slow speed of light makes it so events are causally disconnected. If the speed of light is the highest speed, by relativity alone it's impossible to prove if an event happens before or after an event here compared to a distant star like Alpha Centauri. The disconnection is what inertia is about and the level lines of inertia are what cause the inertia of such as the Earth around the Sun. Each particle goes in a straight line as much as possible, and they are disconnected by thermodynamics and the finite speed of light, also explaining the expansion of entropy.
Antigravity
Antigravity, between the center and outside of a spinning wheel may be achieved in my theory of the Field and Ship, for the same reason a weight spinning on a line (not a laundry!) generates upward force on your arm even when it's upside down. The slow moving field is flowing upward more than the gravity, and if the speed and mass of the wheel is adjusted to just counteract the downward flow of the field, like the ship in a field of no motion around it, the ship would be held stationary in radius from the massive source of gravitation, and the motion of the field upward from all the small fountains of the particles of mass that make the earth is what holds us so we won't fall into the earth. While if no antigravity was possible this wouldn't be so, the pressure of the earth pressing upward below like a boat at a grate or water fence is explained by the Field and Ship theory, also. See Field and Ship theory.
BIG BANG
I think the big bang is just a local expansion with a limit; you can't pull a cosmos out of a hat. An explosion out of a void would violate energy conservation, the most well proven theory of science. My (elaborated) cosmology has a circulation of the field at jets on both sides like other high powered masses in the cosmos. After the expansion, the field contracts in this theory around the outside of the imploding disc, powered by the gravity which never wears out or runs down to recycle and rewind up the entropy. If all is unwinding, and energy has existed and will exist forever, it must have some way to wind up or we would be on Dance Fever with an audience that was "live". We wouldn't see the jets and wheel of the cosmos except on the largest scale at relatively low power, this is just what the Wilkinsen probe seems to measure. Complete Explanation and possible proofs. COSMIC JETS AS AN EXPLANATION OF ACCELERATED COSMIC EXPANSION
STANDARD THEORY
A well proven theory that is taken to be perfect. However it doesn't explain the parameters like the speed of light or predict the masses of the subatomic particles.
ANVILS IN SUBATOMIC PHYSICS
A new type of machine may be to slam and/or use pressure of two small anvils to create super high pressure, this may be used with fuel to be converted on the anvil, with more than two anvils forming an enclosed realm of super high pressure, and/or with laser beams or other such beams aiding the pressure and power from the side, this may be of value to make much higher power reactions at low cost.
Ghost Particle Theory
A theory proposed in 2006 (although I may have priority with the web my witness) would explain General Relativity well (see Boat and Field theory), using the attraction of the particles. In my theory these particles have no attraction and just exert pressure by way of the "true" gravitational field of longer wavelength, which by this mechanism is the motive force of gravity not just attraction of ghost particles alone. If the ghost particles were and are near the strength of electromagnetism, necessary to the theory of electrogravity like my theory Einstein believed in, they would be like the strength of electricity and gravity would be much stronger and much more like electromagnetism, and this is disproof. So I think the ghost particles may exert pressure by way of the lower power field. See Also Gravity Speed of, Boat And Field Theory of Gravity, Centrifugal Force, Antigravity
GRAVITY SHIELDING
A prediction of my own belief about Field Preservation. If all is unified by gravity and energy conservation gravity would be the foundation force from which all other forces are energised up, each force would be an energised force with all the motifs of the forces below it and also it's own. If all the fields are made of gravity and they shield, it's inconcievable that gravity is without shielding. This might be proven with eclipsing massive sources like black holes or eclipses of other massive power. Antigravity (q.v.) would also be shielding of another sort.
..
.Problems With Assumptions About (What Are Taken To Be) Two Possible Proofs of General Relativity As of 2009
..As of 2009 there are two "accepted proofs" of Einstein's belief that gravity waves move at the speed of light. The first is about the measured rate of binary stars to see if they were speeding up or slowing down by the rate of the predicted gravitational radiance predicted by Einstein at the speed of light and the other was about bending of starlight by Jupiter. One problem is that if gravity moves inward to masses like the stars at the speed of light as Einstein believed because it has 0 rest mass like light there can be no outward radiation other than at faster than light relative to the implosion, so like two starships in opposite motion at near the speed of light, no "proof" of General Relativity may be by gravitational reradiation. For light itself moving towards us, no change in our speed is allowed, because we woulf be moving toward it at a higher speed, it would take infinite mass to make any change if the light has any mass, another belief of Einstein's and my own.
The second possibility for the proof is that the measured value may be a measure of the change in the stars by way of an impactor. More recent research shows that only Mercury shows the value of the shift of the perihelion predicted by General Relativity. Many other planets have other known values of the change of perihelion, with Venus 5 times the retrograde. Not only this, many star systems also show what seem to be definite disproofs of General Relativity by way of their oscillations, so perhaps the real value of what was otherwise taken to be the speeding up via the radiation may be by some type of impactor just as in the history of the planets. We know that in the proof of the shift of Mercury, Einstein first found the value for Mercury and then would consider no other evidence because he was so sure he'd found what was of highest worth without more consideration. The value for other planets like Venus was known for years before Einstein disregarded them in his elation about Relativity. We might conclude Einstein was justified in his conclusion because by GWD indeed Mercury would fall faster and give way more in the strong gravity of the solar mass. I think it does fall faster because by definition acceleration will change speed with time. The real value may actually be a more random one found in many star systems so this would be a way to both see about the shift of the perihelion of worlds star systems at higher resolution than just a few random samples. If Venus is retrograde and both Einstein and GWD are true, Venus and other star systems even if retrograde by impactors may actually have smaller prograde changes by being shaped and molded by the "real" value of this acceleration, headed towards prograde. GWD says that unlike Einstein's contradiction in relativity with both constant acceleration near the Earth and Mercury's changing acceleration, masses fall at many rates not the same rate with time. Even so the Earth is more at rest than the field. Otherwise in General Relativity Einstein has us believe the earth surface in relative motion to the field would accelerate upward at 32 feet per second to reach the speed of light in less than a year with huge mass augmentation of the mass around us by way of Special Relativity.
By Einstein's belief gravity may be radiation, my own is that while there is an implosive component of the field to explain the inward attraction of the gravity, a weaker force with reradiation of a component of the field of reduced force may exist to explain why the earth e.g. or other stars don't put on huge weight too from the field implosion even if not in relative motion and at rest. The reradiation of the implosion to expansion can have many values so gravity and inertia are only loosely in union, you weigh a different amount at the poles and further south because in GWD the Equivalence Principle is not all the physics there are. The force of the reradiance may be small with scattering or we would fall off the world by expansion of the field, so the value of the slowup of the two stars would be smaller in GWD than in General Relativity. It wouldn't be a changing acceleration with time (other than the shift of perhelion) if the impactor had already left the star system. Another possibility might be a massive unseen planet causing the change. If it's indeed not with acceleration like the solar system and Venus the actual value of the motion seen may be caused just by the luck of the history of the star system.
We see the force of the Earth's acceleration is 32 feet/second, the air pressure is 32 feet above us, Wood has an "astounding" R Insulation value of R 32, and ice thaws out at 32 degrees, and even if I will be 32 1n 20 years! this doesn't mean 32 has cosmic worth, likewise if the motion of the stars in the star systems are constant it may well be caused by the luck of an impactor. After all, why hasn't this been seen for the motion of other stars? More observations will be of worth here. Gravity is an implosion more than an outward reradiation so my belief is that Relativity with it's empty space time may not be the cause of radiation and the measured speed up of the stars even if so it's not proof the gravity is at the speed of light. The philosophers would say, empty space time can't radiate anything, in truth empty space would have no resistance to motion and infinite speed would be possible. The distance to Alpha Centuari is constant in GWD because of a balance between the expansion and contraction of the field between us and the stars, if there was no field we could travel to the stars in no time, or it would take a thousand months.
..
The second experiment to see if the bending of starlight by Jupiter proves the speed of the low energy field also involves the assumption that gravity is at the speed of light to have the same bending of the light ray from the distant star. We may find another speed if the mass of the gravition is much lighter, so for the same bending of the light observed, the speed may be much higher. The light has the same mass but the field that bends it is what's of worth to prove, the field that bends the light not the light is what's being considered. Einstein's assumption that gravity is at the speed of light is built in to the equations, so refraction of the light would be proof it's a force, not that the force is not faster than light. Thus these two experiments would not be disproof of GWD.
....In the history of physics there have been many interesting ideas in science that were in error, with Ptolmey and his belief that the cosmos revolves around the earth, who have been wrong for a thousand more years, actually since Einstein agreed with Ptolmy as in the above about all masses being the same and how he believed the cosmos revolves the same around the earth, after 2000 years finally with GWD this may be disproven, but actually who knows? If even Einstein was wise GWD may be wrong. While as of late 2008 I believe GWD may be of worth, I hold in cautious optimism.
.
Back To Encyclopedia Comp
PHYSICS, GENERAL SITE MAP
276 228 3465
Copyright 2007 by Charles Frederick Lawson
