Site Contents; With Falsifiable Proofs,
GRAVITY SPEED OF
Light, Speed Of
Evidence for faster than light motion;
Mass Energy Equivalence
Field and Ship Theory
About The Michelson Morely Experiment
Where Is The Low Energy Higgs'?
Where Is The Low Energy Higgs'?
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
GRAVITY SHIELDING
PROBLEMS WITH 2 Recent "PROOFS of Relativity"
Gravity, Speed of
I believe Gravity 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.
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.
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. (The low energy Higgs' has recently been found by experiments and due to Field Line Removal as I say here, I believe the low energy Higgs' causing gravity inertia and much about Special Relativity and thus electromagnetism may be more important than the high energy Higgs'. By Wilczek's nobel prize winning method, the high energy Higgs' only gives 1/5 of the fractional charges mass in QCD. Field Line Removal FLR may remove most of the high Energy Higgs' influence while just moving around the room shows the influence of the low energy Higgs' which would also be dark matter. ) 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 also is 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). See also SHIP and FIELD Method; Gravity
Light, Speed Of
Is nonfundamental like Einstein believed (in my method I name General Wave Dynamics 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 which may apply to other forces than electromagnetic fields. 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, and if the force between them is constant, the speed of light he predicted is based on the density of the wave. 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 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;
Chao'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 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 its wavelength caused by force and no tidal force near the speed of light 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 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,
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 separate points of space and time. A "slow" speed of light would allow the "separate times" of relativity 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 of my idea (modified La Sage Gravity MLSG) 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. (Gravity a "superfluid flowing from cold to hot" would violate energy conservation to hold the cosmos together, if all is winding down by radiance gravity would wind it up and there needs to be more holding the cosmos together than radiating out or we would be at 0 density already. This would be how galaxies have small visible mass yet 1000s of times more weight since at more distance the electromagnetic field thins out and gravity adds more and more mass of its own. And pulsars also would speed up.)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..
The Moment of The Electron
A simple result is that according to the moment the electron's spin is faster than light.
The Collapse of the Wave Function
This is what would keep quanta spinning by tracking them around with faster than light waves like gravity waves (derived from the same gravity source in the superdense field of black holes, the field line removes here forming the quanta with an outer wavelike field around each quanta so they don't reradiate). The quantum waves change both wavelength and frequency like the acceleration of gravity. These waves are Faster Than Light since there is no equation for the collapse of the wave function; it's instant and at all points. The FTL waves would need to be faster so the Higgs' wouldn't slow down by entropy and so the quanta would stop spinning without the negative entropy FTL waves may allow..
-
That the wavelength of light always fits the change in speed of the high speed observer is evidence for a faster than light component in the field because for at least the light approaching this observer no light can connect the starship with the light until it reaches the ship, with no faster than light connection possible by relativity, the information about the wavelength of the distant light couldn't change, and for much of the region around a high speed observer, relativity wouldn't hold. This would be another form of the disproof by the change in wavelength of the Maussbauer Effect, See Above.
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 its high resolution would be plausible and doesn't rule out that gravity is faster than light (they measure the gravity of a 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".
Einstein and Mach believed that inertia is the same as gravity so I believe what LIGO has found is merely the speed of light field of the particles of inertia. (These would radiate out from the source from one machine to the other sensor not radiating "in" from the distant sensor to the near sensor like we would expect with gravity). The inertial waves may be much faster than light to connect the high speed starship to the distant wavelength changes of the light before they reach our proverbial starship since uniform motion is so common in Special Relativity.
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 because motion is motion.
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 its high resolution would be plausible and doesn't rule out that gravity is faster than light (they measure the gravity of a 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".
Einstein and Mach believed that inertia is the same as gravity so I believe what LIGO has found is merely the speed of light field of the particles of inertia. (These would radiate out from the source from one machine to the other sensor not radiating "in" from the distant sensor to the near sensor like we would expect with gravity). The inertial waves may be much faster than light to connect the high speed starship to the distant wavelength changes of the light before they reach our proverbial starship since uniform motion is so common in Special Relativity.
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 because motion is motion.
In the recent experiments with both LIGO and Ice Cube neither gravity waves or neutrinos were found from the nearby supernova as expected even though they are both well within the predicted energy expected to see both. This may be evidence for both FTL neutrinos and gravity waves too because though one might go we wouldn't expect both machines to fail, Click here for More.
You may say, "GWD is merely about the high and low notes of the fields, the strong force and gravity. These are mere virtual events and they always add up to the speed of light in combination, so there's no real information sent here." Yet information about changes in speed and wavelength are sent all the time in Special Relativity, and information about gravity as I say is independent and not the same as inertia as in a ballistic arc. Quantum computers involve the idea that the computations are real and like the EPR are much faster than light. And all these other evidence and types of evidence I type seem in favor of GWD.
While other physicists haven't accepted the low energy field, Einstein believed in this for gravity and Newton for the bucket experiment. Actually as with the constant rate of fall of different masses for the theory yet changing acceleration with time for the predictions of General Relativity, Einstein believed in both no low energy field for the speed of light independent of the observer and yet for his the equivalence of gravity and an accelerated inertial frame, he believed the relativity of motion was as physically real as the gravitational field by way of Mach's idea that the distant masses induced the field in the moving starship. Many like Stokes were reluctant to do without the low energy field, and if the low energy Higgs' field is viable, many amazing things may be possible and it's tough to blame them to have hoped for more.
While it's true the displacement and the speed of light fit Special Relativity for the general frame, the wavelength changes really don't since they need a faster than light connection between the starship and the light to send the information or it couldn't be changed before it reaches the observer in SR.
Like Newton I believe a spinning bucket's water is evidence the bucket is interacting with the field nearby not the entire cosmos first, and the low energy Higgs' field is believed to be the same flat all around! Constant. This seems to allow a simple cause for centrifugal force by comparison of the round motion of the wheel and the quanta and the flat field to cause the force. This is because the inertial and gravity elevators are fundamentally different or enough so the force is caused that can't be transformed away by just choosing a way of motion. I believe both fields are real and not caused by motion alone yet gravity and inertia are not equivalent.
This may be why prime numbers seem to show some non patternicity. If the number ends in 9 the next prime number ends in 9 about 60 percent less, like comparison of different speeds of centrifugal and inward force by resonance so the round and flat would have unevenness as I say on my video (Charles Frederick Lawson You tube). Thus there may also be some nonpatternicity of pi since it's derived from the same general method by comparison of a nonlinear and linear field.
Mass Energy Equivalence
It's much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa; only inside strong gravity is more energy converted to mass, etc. Because in a ballistic arc the x and y coordinates are completely independent, I believe it's not impossible to imagine also separation of mass from energy i.e. centrifugal from centripetal force. The positron has some mass and less energy, while the electron has some energy and less mass, this is exactly what Einstein didn't believe. The distinction between the charges gives the constant speed of light or the tension to keep it in motion in GWD.
This might be possible to separate the spin components. I imagine a spinning mass where we remove some of the Higgs' from each quanta as I say on my video site (Encyclopedia Comp Video); the faster than light waves around each quantum then speed up since if mass isn't equal the outside force holding the quanta together needs more mass or attraction to not radiate out, and then we add the Higgs' to the quanta to then receive the energy.
In GWD this becomes possible because of its extension from relativity.
My Youtube page also describes how this might be achieved by my idea of a Higgs' laser to remove the Higgs around each quanta. In addition as I say on my videos there may be many more amazing things about the Higgs' laser.
If the pulsar speeds up with gravity waves and the wave around the quanta is derived from gravity, the squeezing of this quantum to cause radioactivity doesn't violate energy conservation, yet if we say the amount of mass is the same as the metabolites after the reaction, we may only be assuming what we are trying to prove with mass and energy equivalence. The work done on the field changes the mass to something else, yet it's easier to convert the mass to energy than vice versa. This time asymmetry would be where relativity fails. As George Ellis the physicist says, you can go and change the past or future if you like, I'll wait!
If in Special Relativity space and time are unified, to reverse the high speed motion of the observer in space would reverse time also and this isn't so.
When you move masses together they have more gravity and the field in the spaces between them has changed while the mass hasn't. Relativity works for the inside of quanta where energy is conserved while gravity may be loosely related yet with other events unlike in relativity. The problem of adding velocities to your own speed is more allowed for gravity so the frame of the Earth tends to be more priveleged than the moon or the sun more than the Earth is solved by general separation of gravity from relativity. So a body in motion can depend more on the sun as the frame of rest. Yet this isn't so for relativity and is solved by the extra degree of freedom with the tensor for gravity not found in relativity, only in the space between the quanta like light or other heavy quanta by Line Removal.
Consider one of the supposed proofs of SR; this is about how if we see a distant starship with a faster than light connection, the events would both be changed by relativity yet not changed by the sensor, reductio ad absurbdarn! But I think of this like a ship in the ocean we might assume if the boat interacts with the water much and water is all we've seen, yet if we then found light some might say, "how can the boat be both changed by the waves yet the light tells us it would be the same" obviously this is proof of what they are assuming, so this isn't a proof of SR. I've seen several of these different types of proof that seem to only assume what they are trying to prove.
Einstein's prediction of "magnetogravity" has been found in experiment, at billions of times higher energy than Einstein predicted. This is the energy of inertia not gravity. A high energy centrifuge weighing pounds has centrifugal force of millions of time the Earth, yet if gravity is the same as inertia it would be billions of times weaker as Einstein believed.
Something of note is that even if LIGO finds the speed of light displacement for the distant sources, this doesn't mean the main cause of gravity is the same as inertia. Where's the huge gravity inside an ultracentrifuge if gravity and inertia are the same? In this view "inertia doesn't cause gravity" any more than uniform motion causes acceleration and the Earth wouldn't slow down with greater wavelength if more mass is added with more redshift, instead it speeds up. My idea General Wave Dynamics may be more general since it's about both changes and cause (dynamics) and not just motion without cause as in Special Relativity. Einstein's observation that it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can emit and absorb waves is why in GWD waves would be more more important and general than in Relativity where Einstein believed light is a quanta unchanged from the source to the observer with the constant speed of light by its non wavelike stability. Therefore the real speed of gravity as measured by its near zero displacement of e.g. the Earth around the sun may await future low energy telescopes not LIGO.
MY COMPLETE PAGE; GENERAL WAVE DYNAMICS/FASTER THAN LIGHT.
. ...
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 the particles around you as you fall 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. There would be almost as much force felt while at rest as in fall if the field is only at the radial speed of light. You are moving at a slow speed at rest or in motion compared to the speed of light, which would be at much the same speed. And you really can add your speed to the speed of light because of the tensor for gravity that relativity lacks. If the Earth is more at rest than the moon, you can use the mass with more value more as a rest frame. (If each quantum has mass and this is spinning energy since quanta are always sources of gravity, you may know of the experiments that seem to show gravity isn't influenced by spin, yet Coulomb's law is so much like Newton's gravity with two masses or charges, a constant and over d to the second power, since Coulomb's Law by experiment readily is related to spin I believe the spin is a small number about the speed of light near 0 compared to the speed of gravity, and the effect would be there just too small yet to be seen with experiments that measure gravity and spin. The vector of gravity may be huge, and the spin on one limb considered with it at the speed of light may be small.) 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 in addition to the higher speed wave component. 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 Method 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 Higgs') 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.
This version of the Boat and River method I've modified due to shielding. If you have a boat and you're downstream of it there would be changes in gravity below any mass. So my later method is about Field Line Removal FLR. The quanta around us would be created in supermassive implosive events like GRB, supernovas or other supermassive events. At this energy the gravity is strong enough to remove its own field lines, so the heavy quanta around us have larger mass with faster than light spin if mass is spinning energy yet no gravity inside. This greater mass is in accord with both its
assumption to give the huge precision of renormalization and by the deep scattering experiments. This is why even so the heavy quanta don't have large or quantum gravity as would be needed if there is much density inside the muons baryons or leptons, and this is also why the heavy Higgs' found in the LHC is mostly removed from influence in QCD as Wilczek has proven. Line removal means the inner field is only loosely connected with the outside, so while Einstein believed if we have all the particles and can control them, I don't believe in complete determinism. Einstein also said it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can also emit and absorb a wave. This might seem to allow complete control of the inner events of a heavy quanta, but if we used a high speed wave counteracting machine I can conceive of by using something like a comb filter used for an atomic clock and with another level of a much higher speed filter to fizzle out the quantum waves to the more basic level of gravity waves, due to Line Removal this would be no more control of the inner events than reducing a room of common masses with high explosives is more control of the boxes and shelves around in the room. Line Removal is why Einstein's Unified field failed even while all the forces share some things in common. While the change of phase allows the quanta to go on spinning it also puts influence of the outside events out of reach except as in the explosion of removal of the higher level and as in teleportation this would seem to need to destroy the event and this would reduce the control. (Even so I believe as in the low energy quantum experiments that prove Einstein was partially right, we might go under the level of the amount needed to collapse the wave function with the Higgs' laser on the outside edge of the quanta where it seems more under reach of outside influence as Einstein believed without Line Removal. And since the low energy configuration of each quanta may be the code for the EPR, we might be able to control how the distant collapse of the quanta takes place. When we entangle the quanta, I imagine a sort of remote control by using the Higgs' laser to encode different information, and the possibility of also using the Higgs' configuration to also receive the information on the other side always without collapsing the wave function. This may allow a lower power influence that was under the energy level needed to collapse the wave function as Einstein believed, yet with the value of influence of the internal "EPR code" that makes it so just that quanta finds the other in entanglement science. So it would free us from having to keep sending more entangled quanta to a distant realm for these uses as a way to influence distant events at much higher speed. (The EPR resonance itself I think of as like two fans set spinning in resonance by the air between them. The flat Higgs' field makes the tube of force constant with distance. If the heavy quanta move together or apart they just borrow that much more or less of the field from the outside to add or subrtract from the tube inside. Unlike two fans that would stop spinning with time and enough labor, Line Removal makes them so they never stop even if the field/and so it has extenal tension.) Another possibility I consider is use of the Zeno Effect which uses polarized light in rotation to find energies much lower than that of the quanta. This may help us find and change or even create the low energy quanta as Einstein believed and perhaps create wires by the Zeno Method for super high speed computers or even blocks for materials at reduced size that I believe may be a totally new state of matter. Both the Zeno method and low energy Higgs' have recently been found in lab experiments, and using both combined may be a good way to improve Einstein's idea about this and more.) The gravity has no quantum numbers or shielding or huge strength due to Line Removal yet by common origin they all obey symmetry laws like translational or rotational symmetries. The masses of F=ma are with the same area as "a boat" and the radius of the sum of all the quanta give its magnitude. So each quanta is like a small "boat" and larger masses are like a sieve in the river more than a boat even while they feel the force of gravity yet without shielding.
The gravity doesn't shield like the boat in the river because by Field Removal it goes only in the spaces between the quanta, like the neutrino, which I think may have related physics. It has three states like the fractional charges in QCD and this I unified to one attractive method when I learned about this that gravity and the strong force are both attractive forces, so if the strong force has an odd number of charges, gravity might also cause acceleration by a like method; the neutrino goes in cycles and like rotation of fermions 720 degrees for one circle around, the odd number of charges for both the neutrino, the strong force, and gravity might be the mechanism of cohesion and the phase change that allows the neutrino to not lose power moving through common quanta. It radiates out like light on the outside, yet inside it may have reversed entropy. When it hits a heavy quanta it radiates in almost as much or more than out.
The method might be by way of the odd number of charge states; unlike relativity and uniform motion without acceleration, with each go round, the third state of the neutrino or other force might not match up at the finish, and it finds change here that doesn't match up, and this is the cause of all cohesive force. So even charged forces like electromagnetism and special relativity are linear, but forces that attract unlike inertia that tends to radiate out, by the "slow" speed of light would have odd numbers of charges. I can't say how many charges gravity might have, the bound quanta by spooky action seems to say there may be a large number since by the Higgs' code only the bound electron finds the other, and this seems to need a large number of charge states to make the code. The large number of the low energy Higgs' would be why gravity is so fast and with the number of the Higgs' and their spin at the speed of light in accord with the speed. There are only just the right number of low energy Higgs' to give the predicted speed of gravity in GWD.
The quanta are always sources of gravity, and this unevenness would be how it causes the acceleration, and changes in both wavelength and frequency, not merely wavelength as with relativity or other even charged forces. Gravity is the opposite of electromagnetism in my belief. Gravity radiates inward to one and electromagnetism radiates out to many, so they are the opposite and gravity would use this method even against the resistance the low energy Higgs' would cause by way of Line Removal.
(My mechanism uses the leftover code from quantum entanglement to cause gravity, so this method for gravity would make entangled quanta have other acceleration than the same masses with common gravity, this idea is testable with new experiments using the resonance of different quanta and this actually has been used to measure the gravity even acting on heavy quanta. Click Here or see site Link At The End Of the Page, Thanks. If a conservation law is involved with only the same mass for all entangled or unentangled quanta externally, the code would need some way to go outside the quanta for the unity and at some energy there would seem to be a change outside the quanta, this is the best method I can think of for how gravity and entanglement unify, Maxwell was concerned about unity of the fields, as by energy conservation, and symmetries. If all electromagnetism operates by radiance of like charges why does gravity attract with like masses? The leftover code from the EPR may be what gives mass change so it's more unified with electromagnetism even so.)
Another way Gravity May Be Caused By Spin Even if Gravity is Radial Outside.
Antimatter won't fall up so gravity isn't caused by spin. All the small changes in this effect would multiply up for more massive events or larger sized ionized bodies and it would be well known. So I believe the spin of the heavy quanta is inside the area of Line Removal, and part of the gravity wave signal of that quanta is like an old time FM signal, it has the constant source wave of some of the low energy Higgs' entangled while the component that causes the acceleration is also causing more constant changes in the data by the same source as the changes that make it unpredictable what the output from a probe will give in scattering experiments like with accelerators. The measure of the signal and the data is inside the Line Removal radius, so even if all the quanta spin, gravity may be spin independent and this is why outside the quanta it's simpler as Einstein believed.
Gravity would have a change in mass if the sources are only partially entangled vs entangled quanta which wouldn't have as much influence by the changing "data" source and with entanglement, more of the bandwidth is "used up" or occupied and would cause the possibility of reduced weight for the entangled quanta or other change in mass.. Thus a large mass of entangled quanta may have changes in weight that the same quanta untangled might not have.
I would say that since all heavy quanta are sources of gravity and the changes of the waves around each quanta are the source of the gravity, even if the overall result is a radial out wave for gravity, that the source wave itself is faster than light is evidence that the wave component of gravity is faster than light, by the high speed (even if not instant if it's finite) speed of the collapse of the wave function.
I wondered how all the quanta would cause gravity by a common history of entanglement with leftover unity. Most of the quanta around us aren't often with entanglement enough to be the cause of gravity by this method.. this would be solved by the common source of creation in the black hole, while the randomness of the wave around the outside of each quantum would compare itself with the source component. So by the probe methods like the Higgs' laser or polarized light etc. my idea is that all heavy quanta may have "a common constellation" of the low energy Higgs' inside the wave and they are the quanta used to send the gravity wave signal outward we may find with our sensors eventually.
It still seems somewhat plausible to me that gravity is caused by spin in a more direct way, because some masses are much larger than atomic size, and so more area is inside and the spin is not so modified by Line Removal. The experiments with gyroscopes by the two Japanese physicists in the 1990's seemed to show more weight with spin one way and the same weight in the other spin motion. It turned out these events were not so much repeated! And someone would have seen it was so if this was viable. I wondered if sheets of crystals all with the quanta of spin one way might weigh a bit more than if we just flip the plate with opposite spin, this would be how to prove or limit this with much higher resolution if it exists and a simple spin method like I originally considered for the quanta about gravity seems possible. And if the quanta were overlapping this might seem to change the ratio of Line Removal to the external weight field and also change the mass "seen outside" in a more complex way.
I believe the gyroscope experiment itself may not have been in error. One problem Maxwell asked about was why opposites attract and likes repel for electricity yet not for gravity!
As I note experiments with quanta seem to show gravity doesn't care about spin.
The possible solution is that line removal makes gravity loosely around the outside of the heavy quanta yet by gravity the outside spins are are all clockwise. Like wires with the spin of the field the same attraction is inward.
So even if the field is only loosely connected the larger speed of gravity would spin around trillions of times for the gyroscope and the final spin would match up with the electromagnetic spin but only in one direction. This might about the near quantum spin of gravity be why the gyroscope would have reduced weight clockwise and not the other way around.
So perhaps if we do the experiment with the gyroscope at the speed predicted by GWD with the huge speed of the gravity around the quanta the events would repeat, and this might fit in with GWD.
The use of a more constant carrier (EPR) wave modified by the information (gravity) wave for each pair of heavy quanta would solve the causality problem for gravity waves; if they radiate out, why does the force radiate inward? This wouldn't seem viable like a pond with the waves starting at the outside around the shore then radiating in to the source of the wave in a time reversed way. My solution is that the carrier wave is more like a rope already connected between the sources and then by simple motion of any kind the oscillation of the rope pulls the two quanta or masses more together. I had wondered how the spin would "know" just the right speed and wavelength of the wave to otherwise reverse or not the entropy. Even so a rope will move the two masses together with many changes of the two masses on each side.
This would allow the neat solution that would have the low energy quanta falling into the masses around us. They hit the outside of the heavy quanta causing scintillation, the quanta are already connected by the EPR "line" and the change caused by the inward low energy quanta then cause both the force inward as the carrier wave is moved inward as well as more low energy quanta moved in by induction from the outside to then maintain the tension on the carrier wave in loops. Gravity would need change to operate as Maxwell asked about why like electric charges repel yet like gravity attracts. The random angle and speed of impact of the low energy quanta would be the cause of the change, without change gravity wouldn't be an acceleration.
A hallmark of a real idea in science is that it explains something no other method allows and it makes predictions... The above method explains how two masses attached to an L shaped boom rotate definitely around a center of gravity in what Einstein called "empty space" others would have called a field with lines of force. The carrier wave would form a straight line between the two masses and the heavier mass is nearer that center of mass since it has more quanta with their tubes of the lines of flux bent toward each other. I think of it like a T boom with two masses at one side attractng the line of flux to each other and also this line then attracts the longer line so the center of mass or spin is moved from halfway between the two masses on the top of the T outward toward the more distant axis of the T. A heavy mass has nearer center of mass because of the tubes moving sideways with more quanta and the bent tube like the T boom also then matches up with the more distant mass. Relativity can't explain this because it's supposed to be empty space time not a regular event. It behaves like a function and no function of 0 alone exists.
Relativity tells us that gravity can't radiate inward. Since gravity shows no displacement toward the sun, I believe the information wave is much faster than light, and what LIGO has found is the speed of inertia. So my prediction is that since Special Relativity is so much about inertia and the speed of light with the quanta of light unchanged from emmission to absorption so no change in the speed of light as Einstein believed, inertia like centrifugal force radiates outward like particles of a gas, and the speed of inertia is indeed the speed of light. So if the inertia radiates out, a particle in the field of the "wave" would move outward in a machine like LIGO from the optical source of the change and the more distant sensor would also move away a bit but with reduced force. For a non inertial event the nearer sensor would move a bit more toward the source not away. For both inertial and gravity, the wave will radiate out from the source.
We only find evidence more of the low energy quanta since inertia and gravity are mostly loosely unified by the Equivalence Principle. Particles of centrifigal force would radiate out like a gas. If gravity waves were the same energy as inertia, gravity would be much much stronger, and exactly the same and at the same speed. The x and y coordinates of a ballistic arc would show the same displacement, yet for gravity it's radial. The tubes of flux as via the earlier theorists of the 19th century exist and are maintained by the tension of Line Removal. With relativity the lines don't exist and if they did there is also no mechanism to maintain them.
I believe Einstein rejected the Kaluza Klein interpretation of the electron's mass because of both Relativity and the Unified Field. Relativity doesn't explain rest mass which would be spinning energy. The electron has to thus spin faster than light inside for larger mass than Relativity allows, this is the extra degree of freedom of the Kaluza Klein method. And the unified Field would connect up this degree of freedom too much to the outside, causing friction that would slow it down so it would have no extra source of momentum caused by the disconnection to allow the spin to maintain the external tension Newton believed in for gravity or Maxwell and others believed in for the medium of light. That mass is spinning energy also allows mass to move through time even if at rest in space, the spin of all the quanta are like a small clocks, and this is one reason why I believe gravity is about the spin of the quanta. Gravity has momentum, momentum is always about spin even if at rest, the more gravity you have the more you tend to be at rest and the faster you tend to spin. This may not seem to be true for like planets, but the more mass a quantum has the faster it spins, and it also has more gravity.
If spin would seem to be about time via the reversal of time for spin up or down, this isn't so. I was talking to an associate about my original idea like Einstein's that time is pehaps reversible by reversal of spin, and she whirled around and said, "I haven't reversed in time!" And so I went back where I went before drawing boards were invented and learned from evidence improved about Line Removal. So as Feynmann believed time reversal by spin like this is only at short range, and Line Removal makes the longer range forces not time reversable. Mass is always positive on thr outside and gravity only attracts because all the spins outside are one way which the subatomic physics as formulated in 2019 as I speak has no disagreement with. The higher level information like the sound of a bell in a jar being pumped out isn't conserved but the more basic spin information is. The bell spins in one direction by the heavy quanta, and the cosmos spins a bit in the opposite direction even if the sound doesn't convey. A shelf can be converted to a wall from the woods, so higher information isn't necessarily conserved.
Gravity at many different speeds and wavelengths around each heavy quantum would have different radii where time is more or less reversable even for gravity somewhat, as well as conservation of information. This is a definite prediction of my idea about how gravity might work. Gravity doesn't mostly care about spin long range because of Line Removal so gravity sees the quanta as spheres. A time reversed movie of the planets moving around the sun would look much the same because gravity is more slippery on the outside of the heavy quanta while reversing the spins of more connected heavy quanta conserves spin and time also.
The problem Feynmann noted about the Earth gaining two masses per second by the particle method of gravity (Lasage Gravity) is solved in my idea, Modified La Sage Gravity by the spin at nearer radius. As I say above, the EPR type connection of all quanta would be like a rope that any vibration of the heavy quanta the rope unifies to would send the bunching up wave between the quanta and increasing the tension and reducing distance between them. The outer low energy particles would cause the scintillation of the heavy quanta on the outside, and in order for the Earth not to gain any mass (as Einstein thought old electrons may weigh more than new electrons, and I don't agree!) the low energy Higgs' might circulate in loops and this would seem to need poles of the quanta, and this would seem to need spin, so at any rate at a near radius I believe even gravity is about spin.
To solve the shielding of the boat in the river with the gravity mass like a roof above us, the waves are both in and out, yet only at the optimal radius do they become equal as wave and particle. So they might exert pressure like the water as you go downstream yet there is no external splash of the bus in the opposite lane as you go up the superhighway.
I believe by F=ma each mass in the cosmos has the aura of particles at any rate around the quanta at quantum radius that interacts with the external field so the more mass the slower it moves with the same force compared to a small mass. It acts like the Boat, or that is each quanta would be the unit of gravity, not the boat, even while all the quanta build up to act like the boat with pressure of the field with motion yet without shielding the boat always has and so on.
About The Michelson Morley Experiment
The spin of quanta is maintained in GWD like terminal velocity of a falling body in the air, except by Field Line Removal, it takes less energy to keep the quanta spinning indefinitely to maintain the tension of the distant light by Maxwell's Method than for the quanta to stop spinning..(because the outside Higgs' field "doesn't know" the electric field or strong force well, Einstein believed that gravity is simple) I believe in the external particles and waves because centrifugal force radiates out like particles with sides and gravity and inertia are at least loosely equivalent, like F=ma and not by Einsteins hope of Emc2 for gravity and inertia. Gravity needs waves to unify and overcome the radiance out of these particles so waves are also involved. For any body in motion in the universe waves like acceleration derived from gravity with changes in both speed and wavelength would track it forward. The inertial waves may be much faster than light like the EPR because of the induction of the distant light from the starship, as the speed is changed the wavelength is also changed before it reaches the ship. And centrifugal force doesn't shield metal plates, so this would be because the waves that radiate in for the force to radiate out the particles change phase faster than quanta like the electron on the atoms of the spinning centrifuge to cause more force than can show a lag by shielding.
If gravity doesn't shield and is much faster than light I considered much faster than light for inertia like with spooky action at a distance. The neutrino doesn't shield much so since inertia has so much to do with the speed of light there is no reason to believe inertia is faster than light. Even so as I say inertia isn't gravity. Einstein hoped to unify gravity and inertia by the same general method Maxwell used to unify electricity and magnetism, this would seem to need quantum gravity or at least quantum inertia, and to Einstein's dismay he would say with sound, "why do we plug in the quantum equations for gravity and infinities are seen!" The main reason I believe inertia is at the speed of light is about the LIGO results so far. Even so this may not turn out to be valid as Miles Mathis, the researcher who brought down BICEP 2 says on his website.
I believe the force of a rocket in the distant field is a form of pressure that either changes or stores information about the momentum of the field, it's only stored in uniform motion not absent. Galileo when asked why the particles don't feel the force of the Earth as we move around the sun replied they are like an atmosphere moving along with us. One major problem with particles is about this type of force. So much higher speed waves and Line Removal might solve this if by the line removal the quanta maintain the tension of the light yet the heavy quanta don't lose power. This would be because the radius where the lines start to be removed is a sort of cosmic balancing point. All the forces gravitate to electromagnetism, and so for the force to be both well stored and changed in SR, this radius of each quantum makes the Michelson Morley experiment fit, so it seems as if there is nothing there as Einstein believed. He just ignored the force felt and the information about the changes in the wavelength of light of the starship with changes in acceleration.
Just as the weight and counterweight of an elevator store the information about the elevator, the tension of the quanta by Field Line Removal also store the information about the wavelength of light in SR.
Usual terminal velocity in the air has waves moving the cushion down, and the particles with friction for constant speed. This would show changes in the Michelson Morley method if the radius of balance was more or less, it's in perfect balance, or enough that it only shows relative change of the light, like the quanta. The flow has large density because light is a transverse wave; even so the Earth has no problem moving through it since like for gravity without the boat it's more like a sieve in the river than a boat in the river, without shielding or quantum numbers that it would have if the radius for gravity or inertia were in more or less than the radius where the Line Removal is used. This is essentially a quantum effect so it hasn't got friction and both stores and transmits the momentum and wavelength of light information of light in SR so well.
If Line Removal and the faster than light waves of GWD could only store, or only change the information, the Michaelson Morely experiment and SR wouldn't be as viable as it is. Without changing it it wouldn't fit the Lorentz transformation in different directions, and if it couldn't store the changes linear motion, would slow down! And this is why this Line Removal radius is important to GWD.
As the Earth moves through the field if it is in balance it doesn't matter how dense the field may be locally, as in other theories of this type as they are called Non Abelian Gauge Theories With Local Symmetry. I was shocked to find the air has about 250 volts like the air pressure, it cancels all around so I'm not shocked!
Where Is The Low Energy Higgs'?
Wolf considers what he calls the "fotons" which may be like Einstein's low energy particle he used as a counteraction to the quantum randomness. I agree with Wolf and Einstein that there may be low energy particles, yet where are they? The answer is that they are waves in the area between the quanta and only at the radius of density do they become small quanta, this is an important solution to the problem of where the particles are mostly for much of the force exerted of gravity and inertia at any rate. I believe there are some residual particles like this in the external field, it's known that the Higgs' doesn't disappear at the lowest energy. This is also important to maintain the stability of the external field like small gyroscopes. The low energy Higgs' has been found by experiment but only if the quanta are jostled just so so they may be tougher to find at more radius. Even so I believe it may have import for the Higgs' laser, gravity relativity and inertia.
Another claim by Wolff is about the speed of light for his method of in waves and out waves. I certainly believe in these even at much faster than light. As Mcutcheon says the gravity of the Earth and moon is more like a ball and spring than a ball and string. So I think of the waves as changing angle like springs in a simple way to send changes in information. Only at the balancing point of the quanta at the right radius do the gravity waves become particles. This simple way of changing the waves allows for what is literal superfluidity so Einstein's belief in complete continuity for the field is mostly viable. Even so since the field isn't infinite the complete fluidity is more with a certain level of friction. Quanta attract quanta. Even the field also attracts the field.
Wolf says that in the EPR diffraction experiment, we should look for high energy speed of light in waves that change the outcome before the experiment is set up. But if the waves were indeed high energy they would have already been seen. Different ways of setting up the experiment could prove this or not. If two sets of quanta are entangled with each other on both sides the in waves can't go in both directions so this seems to disprove Wolf's idea. Even if the quanta are entangled before the experiment the information doesn't have to be at the speed of light.
I believe thus in two sets of waves and two sets of particles, the in waves and out particles for inertia (which tends to radiate out like for centrifugal force) and the out waves and in particles that cause gravity. We never see or feel the waves yet with our machines here in 2017 but the particles have real influence. The reason Wolf's in waves and out waves haven't been found may be since they are at the speed of light in his method SWM so they would be at much higher energy and they would have already been found. My waves are both lower energy and faster than light, so they give what seems to be a much more continuous field.
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 possibility with no law of science broken and an eventuality on 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 feasibility 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 mostly thermodynamic 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 reconnect 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 method 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 it increased. Most masses like the galaxies with jets or the earth would have radiance 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, this may be 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 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 acceleration, 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 accelerations 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 (wavelength). 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.
Since by GWD gravity is more basic or at any rate F=ma is more general than E=mc2 and if all forces are derived from F=ma, Special Relativity and all forces only would be derived from gravity, this is why general historic improvements in science have been achieved by improvements with gravity.
Sir Issac Newtom believed mass has tension that causes gravity; and if there wasn't a source of the tension by Line Removal as above all the low energy Higgs' would have friction and all the heavier quanta would stop spinning. So the phase change of Line Removal would be important both for gravity and about the tension and balance of Maxwell's resilient medium about the speed of light.
GWD and Line Removal offer a simple reason why there is no antigravity. While all the quanta are sources of gravity and the internal spin of the quanta creates "internal antigravity" by contact force, since mostly the gravity is outside the quanta and they only spin at the speed of light mostly overall, it would take hugely faster spin than the speed of light to be strong enough to be antigravity. By GWD gravity is so much faster and more wavelike than the heavy quanta its entropy remains negative even while the fields are unified loosely in general like by symmetries. The quanta are sources of gravity because of the common moment and method of creation in the black hole by Line Removal even so there is no antigravity at lower energy here. Maxwell noted that the common spectra of all the stars and uniformity of nature tell us that the mass and energy around us are manufactured not created. The common origin with massive events yet the problem of no antigravity around us would be unexplained by manufacture only.
As I say below Under the Title ANTIGRAVITY, relativity predicts there should be antigravity since if you oscillate a mass and measure the force upward against gravity, if there is inertia there like a circus ride and you feel no gravity, since inertia and gravity are equivalent, there would be antigravity. GWD predicts no antigravity yet relativity does, even so I believe since LIGO may be about inertia at the speed of light there is considerable equivalence of inertia and gravity, not quantum but on the continuous scale of F=ma not so much E mc2, and there is the possibility even of some antigravity in GWD.
If inertia was the same speed as gravity the inertia around you of the field is in balance as you fall in the gravity at 32 feet, as in Einstein's moment of revelation when the man fell off the roof in Berlin and said he felt no force. Einstein thought he had unified gravity and inertia like Maxwell had unified electricity and magnetism. It seems to me this wasn't as great a day as his early revelations about space and time which are indeed straightforward improvements based on Maxwell. However by GWD this like Maxwell would need quantization of inertia. If LIGO has found inertia to be at the speed of light, this only seems about inertia. And we could say that like the magnetic force being unquantised, since the magnetic flux of the electric field of the electron gives a spin faster than light, there is no reason to believe gravity by the same measure isn't also much faster than light.
Falling is at rest in the rest frame of the acceleration except for tidal forces on tip and top yet Einstein's method offers no explanation for the edges moving away. If gravity is at the same speed as the inertia there would be no motion downward because being at rest is achieved with or without gravity present. This may be evidence that gravity may have a much higher speed than inertia.
Gravity may have changes in both wavelength like light in SR yet because gravity radiates inward and down and light as in SR radiates out and up, this opposition would mean gravity also travels with different wavelengths and speeds. This is also an expession of the round way that gravity wraps around the heavy quanta and worlds. Even so the general speed by Maxwell's method I use is much the same. Gravity can combine lots of masses to see the source as one point so its ability to wrap around and combine would involve the ability to change at more than one speed. Each heavy quantum would have the orbits and suborbits of the low energy Higgs' and as above the uneven numbers of each would cause the nonlinear changes in the waves outside the quanta. I think of the method of causing the acceleration as a conservation law that has many speeds for all the changes at near radius caused by the low energy Higgs' yet overall it would always add up to the same speed for the mass at a distance. I've tended to believe the huge speed of the waves might allow huge bandwidth of information and also huge storage capacity by going under the collapse of the wave function as Einstein considered. And like a much more powerful quantum computer since the heavy quanta are more limited in radius, the use of the random scintillations of the Higgs' may also be like a computer, but the amount of computation without the collapse of the wave function may be hugely greater and also possible to retreive if Einstien's idea is at least partially correct as recent experiments seem to show.
Because of the conservation laws for all forces, I believe they are all related to gravity by the common origin inside the singularity of massive events. There is enough reradiance by the faster than light centrifugal force, and it's not removed from the cosmos at the singularity and connects by way of energy conservation (a well proven idea in the history of science) by the jets that are also faster than light.
So the wave around a heavy quantum is attractive and holds the quantum together, so it may be like an area much like gravity. And if it's not infinite as Einstein believed since recent experiments have put limits on the infinite worlds idea, it may have the changes even so in wavelength and speed like gravity, and so by more experiments that may find what the speed and changes are, the underlying cause of both might be seen. If it fits in with GWD, this might be evidence for the speed and mechanism of gravity. The speed would be lower, and even so finite like the gravity, and have changes in both wavelength and speed to keep the quanta spinning, and so relativity is disproven by the collapse of the wave function.
I can imagine first extraction and saving of the historical evidence of all the quanta of the Earth (since the quanta may store all the evidence by changes in the low energy Higgs' because they're all connected and have a history of entanglement) then using all the quanta of the earth or more as a computer, then storing the data here again using the huge power of the quanta as a storage medium, and then sending the data anywhere by way of the super bandwidth. Of course this is speculation for now, but I base it more on Einstein's and Maxwell's ideas and so they seem worth consideration at any rate.
Wilczek proposed a "time crystal" in 2012 and this has been found in the lab. A time crystal involves the common repititions of a crystal in space except the oscillation is also like an atomic clock because the quanta are more aligned and resonate in time. It's believed this might not only allow a much higher accuracy of the clock but also about computing. I believe this may also be of use for gravity, with the same general value except and much higher speed for the uses.
One problem with a "gravity computer" or signal sent by this method would seem to be that Gravity goes right past all quantum walls. Line Removal seems like a method of removing gravity so it may seem that if we merely move enough quanta close enough it would be where the machine area would be secure. And this seems about pulsars, they have no shielding and it's been established that if there were even a bit of shielding or antigravity, a huge explosion would be seen, and no star would be seen. My way of solving this is by way of the area between the neutrons or the neutrons of an atom which also don't shield are wrapped around by the low energy waves and particles.
Here I use Einstein's ideas about the low energy particles that he hoped to solve the Uncertainty problem with. He believed the low energy quanta would be essentially smaller than the quanta even if at low energy. After all if all the boxes and cones around us in the room with more mass have more size, so the reduced masses would seem the same. This I name Modified La Sage Gravity (MLSG) a method La Sage used, the only "machine based" method of gravity that science has ever devised, except with the extra tensor of the waves that change both speed and wavelength.. Some problems of La Sage gravity that have been considered were about the huge permeability and huge friction needed to give the force of gravity, and this would be solved along with the other problems of La Sage gravity by the low energy, high speed and also the small size of the waves and low energy quanta Einstein also considered.
.
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 oscillation 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.
My experiments haven't found this effect, yet by Einstein's equivalence of mass and inertia this should be so, if not then GWD and faster than light seem possible, yet it may allow both if F=ma is on a more continuous scale than E mc2; you weigh lots of weights from the N to the S due to many ratios of gravity to inertia, and this seems evidence against Einstein's idea.
My mechanism for centrifugal force uses the change in the round motion that compares itself to the the Higgs' flat field, so the equation for centrifugal force has only one mass term while the equation for gravity has two, and it would seem the wheel relative to the Higgs' field is as if two mass terms were involved, but the Higgs' field is seen to be constant. This would be what Newton's idea about the more absolute space around the spinning bucket is compared to the wave in the bucket. This is a different mechanism for inertia than gravity not caused by Relativity.
One problem would be if the low energy particles cause centrifugal force, they might radiate out and cause mass induction, shield or cause antigravity if aimed up with the oscillating wheel. Yet momentum seems to be conserved so I believe the force is generated and this induces the low energy particles so they radiate out but the waves they were inside the wheel convert to particles that exert pressure, yet only at the inside radius of each heavy quanta. They wrap around the quanta if force is about spin, and this converts them back to waves outside so there is no mass induction, or antigravity as Relativity seems to predict.
This is why light is a transverse wave yet it would have a high density with the high speed of light by the snapback of known waves, and the density would seem to resist motion like for the motion of the planets in a strong way. If you spin a bell around in a jar and remove more and more air, you can't hear the bell, yet momentum information about the inner and outside is conserved. This would be because all information isn't equally conserved, the higher level sound information about the sound doesn't make it through while the more basic information about energy and momentum are conserved. So the light is connected between the positive and negative charges as by Maxwell's method. The low energy particles only would convert to the huge density at short radius and all the rest of the information sent between the light and the quanta is the lower energy waves which would convey the same amount of force on the light because the lower energy is made up for by the higher speed than that of the light itself.
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 math based method 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 WMAP 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.
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 Chaou'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 Chaou 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 its 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!
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 method 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 its own. If all the fields are made of gravity and they shield, it's inconceivable 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 would 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 perihelion) 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 millenia.
..
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. Others agree with me that 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..
.PHYSICS, GENERAL SITE MAP
Here's The Link For New Experiments Being Done about Quanta and Gravity (As above My prediction is that Entangled Quanta may not Weigh The Same as With Usual Gravity.)
276 228 3465
Copyright 2007 by Charles Frederick Lawson
