For the fabric of space to create a potential energy (at each point in space) when it is bent requires some type of cohesion, the minimizing force! That cohesiveness, in itself, should also affect space in the same way a soap bubble is spherical. If there were no surface tension in a soap bubble, the bubble could not have grown out of nothing. The same relationship should exist for our first virtual particle. While a three-dimensional fabric of space could have an innate cohesive property, a better fit arises if the cohesion is considered as a fourth dimension. All that is needed for the very first virtual particle to have had a small chance at existence is for the strength of cohesion to be directly proportional to the fabric of space's energy density, which would be expected.
(Our Universe should be in a continual state of expansion unless the minimizing force (fabric of space's cohesiveness) at some time reaches equilibrium with the maximizing force (desire to be straight). That galaxies are receding away from each other is not evidence of an expanding Universe since the Universe would continue to exist (and expand) even if all the matter in the Universe miraculously disappeared. There is an extremely important dilution factor. Even with a constant expansion rate, any point in space would sense an expansion slowdown over time because the yearly ratio of additional volume to existing volume continually decreases. This becomes very important later on in explaining the matter and anti-matter paradoxes.)
Soon after the very first "virtual particle" lost the probability of not existing, separate "sections" of the expanding, first virtual particle became capable of possessing their own separate uncertainties, and so matter and antimatter virtual particle distortions arose. There is no compelling reason to believe that only one specific fabric of space structure was the only structure compatible with the Universe's existing. Each of the possible, allowing for existence structures would have had a certain probability of being randomly chosen by that first virtual particle as the Universe's structural template, locking in forever that particular structure. This is one of two basic reasons for the non-math approach. We need to first deduce which basic structure affords the best fit for the known Universe before even attempting to write down any descriptive equations.
The existence of matter is the eighth paradox. How did all the matter in our known Universe spontaneously arise? The Big Bang 14 billion years ago could have been the disintegration of the Absolutely Nothing Universe, but how to account for the absence of anti-matter?
Since the only thing that really exists is the fabric of space, then elementary particles are simply stable, or semi-stable deformations of the fabric of space. There is the distortion itself, and the energy associated with cohesion "stabilizing" the distortion. There are but two choices. Electric charge could be the stabilization energy, and mass a stable deformation of the fabric of space. Because of the weakness of gravity, and because opposite electric charges attract, a much better fit arises if the stabilization energy is mass, and the stable deformation gives rise to electric charge.
In the same way that all water drops dripping from a leaky faucet are all the same size, the interaction (ratio) of the basic aspects of the fabric of space allows for the stable existence of a deformation, an electric charge. Since there are three known stable particle types (neutrino, electron, proton), then during the Universe's long existence, there should have also existed the possibility for the existence of the corresponding particles. (This model fits well for the electron and proton. A neutrino is perhaps a tuned system, where a very small, given deformation (a small fraction of a electric charge) oscillates between positive and negative deformations so fast so as to produce a sum zero charge. If this were the case, then neutrons do the same (except the charge deformations are semi-stable, being the same electric charge value as of a proton and electron), but still the oscillations are so fast that uncertainty allows both charges to "exist" at the same time. Neutrons are unstable because they can disintegrate into a proton and an electron, whereas neutrinos have no such option.)
The fabric of space's energy density has decreased over time, so one would expect the displacement that is an electric charge to have also increased. This does not necessarily mean the strength of an electric charge is increasing as the Universe expands because a thinner fabric of space creates a weaker electric field. If we travel far enough back in time, a proton and electron would find its electric charge displacement volume within the upper realm of uncertainty, where uncreation was not virtually instantaneous. So in the far, far distant past, for a relatively small amount of time, there existed a certain probability for a proton and electron's spontaneous creation (or its anti-particle), and a certain probability for any existing particle to be uncreated. Electrons and positrons, with their much smaller mass as compared to protons, would have been much easier for uncertainty to create. Such a system would have moved towards establishing an equilibrium number of protons, electrons, and positrons, anti-protons per unit volume. Eventually, electric charge volume displacement and associated stabilization energy so exceeded the uncertainty value that the particles effectively lost the ability to be spontaneously created and uncreated. Equal amounts of matter and anti-matter would have been produced, but their opposite electric charges would have resulted in mutual annihilation, and so these particles could not have been the ultimate source for matter.
(The Earth is bombarded by (low temperature) microwaves pretty much equally from all directions, indicating an extragalactic source. The current view is that this microwave radiation originated from the Big Bang. However, the spherical symmetry indicates an outside the Big Bang source. Spherical symmetry could only occur if our Galaxy were now at or near the center of where the Big Bang occurred, which is not very likely. However, during the proton/electron virtual particle phase, mutual annihilation would have created vast numbers of photons with perhaps the same energy we see now in electron / positron annihilation. Back then the fabric of space had a much higher energy density than now, so these photons would have had considerably lower frequencies as compared to the photons produced by present day electron/positron annihilation. Continued expansion of the Universe would further red-shift these photons. Remnants of these photons would fall pretty much symmetrically everywhere in the Universe and be low temperature microwaves.)
A vast amount of time passed until the energy density of the fabric of space approached the present day value. However, in approaching, the third stable particle, the neutrino, would find its displacement (oscillated) volume within the upper realm of uncertainty, where uncreation was not virtually instantaneous. Such a system would have moved towards establishing an equilibrium number of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos per unit volume. As the Universe continued to expand, the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos were slowly trapped and gradually became stable. Entrapment would have occurred because with the fabric of space having less and less energy density over time, the required "volume displacement" that creates a neutrino had to have slowly increased in order to achieve the same stable energy level.
Now we arrive at the ninth paradox, the absence of significant amounts of antimatter in the known Universe. This absence of anti-matter indicates that the Big Bang was an incredibly gigantic collision between two very massive, normal matter "Cosmic Eggs" (created by neutrino condensation). The collision eventually produced protons and electrons that formed hydrogen, which then condensed into stars and galaxies.
There is a major hitch in solving the matter and antimatter paradoxes because kinetic energy, paradoxically, does not allow our known Universe to exist. Something has to be wrong with our perception of kinetic energy since our known Universe does exist!
It is the Theory of Relativity that creates the kinetic energy paradox. The Theory of Relativity requires that all the "trapped" neutrinos had to have had random velocities between zero and the speed of light relative to any other particle, which has all the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos annihilating each other regardless of electric charge. The Theory of Relativity contradicts reality in a second way, the paradoxical Big Bang. If the Theory of Relativity is basically correct, then how could any one frame of reference beat out all other frames of reference for the honor of hosting the Big Bang when an infinity of reference frames are exactly equivalent, with no frame being a master point of reference?
This conflict with the Theory of Relativity arises because the Theory of Relativity grossly violates its own fundamental tenet. The Theory of Relativity has NO absolute frame of reference to judge speed; thus, the Theory of Relativity requires that all non-accelerating objects be considered as NOT actually moving since choosing a master frame of reference to judge velocity is not allowed. Despite what relativistic equations say, the Theory of Relativity does NOT permit an object to actually increase in mass, or shrink in length, due to movement, since any given object cannot be said to be really moving except relative to other objects, and saying an object has an infinite number of relativistic masses depending solely on who or what is viewing the object is a blatant "fit an elephant" math game. The Theory of Relativity's only exception to considering an object stationary is when the object accelerates or is in circular motion. (Appendixes one and two, in part 2, experimentally prove the Theory of Relativity incorrect.)
Separation of matter from antimatter, and the condensation of normal matter into large mass concentrations, require that all of the neutrinos, both matter and antimatter, were created with zero velocity in relation to the same absolute frame of reference (established by the first virtual particle). While the particles would have moved away from each other as the Universe continued to expand, the particles still would have maintained zero velocity with respect to the fabric of space, if not for gravitational influences.
Neutrino creation and uncreation occurred quite late in the Universe's time frame, when the Universe's Expansion Rate Ratio was already extremely small and below a critical limit, a limit dependent on neutrino average density, the strength of gravity, the effectiveness of inelastic collisions at condensing matter, and neutrino - neutrino van der Waals like affinity. Then, over billions or trillions of years, zero relative velocity would have allowed the weak gravitational forces to gradually separate neutrinos from anti-neutrino without mutual destruction, and condense neutrinos into large concentrations. (The Universe's expansion would have assisted in separating matter from antimatter.) This means the Universe could be billions or trillions of times larger than the known Universe, and Big Bang Collisions a common occurrence. At least there is a section of the Universe with an equivalent amount of anti-matter, large mass concentrations that may or may not have already Big Bang Collided.
Now our known Universe is able to exist!
Incidentally, we can also conclude that there can be no parallel universes since a universe can only arise from absolutely nothing, and once our Universe existed, the absolutely nothing required for another universe to form no longer exists.
Astronomers are puzzled over the fact that the Universe is much "flatter" than expected. Such an expectation has come about by mistakenly assuming that the Universe was created by the Big Bang. This observational evidence supports the Absolutely Nothing Origin since the Absolutely Nothing Universe disintegrated many billions or even trillions of years before the Big Bang, thus a much "flatter" Universe is predicted.
Astronomers have estimated the total mass of our Milky Way Galaxy by means of star rotational velocities around the galactic center of mass. Upon analyzing the gravitational interactions between galaxies, it seems the total amount of matter is far too insufficient to explain the sum total gravitational attraction between galaxies. It has been postulated that some sort of mysterious dark matter, undetectable with present day equipment, must be pretty much uniformly distributed throughout the known Universe.
This gravitational anomaly is predicted by the Absolutely Nothing Universe model. The normal matter regions of the Universe must still contain large amounts of gravity producing, rarely interacting with normal matter, neutrinos (dark matter) that have never condensed into large mass concentrations.
Part 2 - Symmetry of Forces
First, why is the solution to the Universe's existence not a blackboard full of differential equations, like String Theory? String Theory is a blatant embarrassment to science because equations are only mathematical descriptions, and if you don't adequately understand the underlying situation, then writing wishful thinking, "shot in the dark" equations is "fit an elephant" foolish.
Second, the sought after, theoretical "equation for everything" does not exist! The laws of nature are defined by means of underlying concepts. Velocity and time exist because of movement and distance. A step higher is acceleration, and higher still is force.
Work w = f x d
Force f = m x a
Acceleration a = Δv / t
Velocity v = d / t
Mass, Distance, movement, Gravity, Electrical Charge, Magnetism
Fabric of Space (which accounts for everything above)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
No unifying equation can possibly theoretically describe the fabric of space because there does not exist the underlying concepts needed for description. One can attempt some mathematics and diagrams, but the fabric of space need not obey higher-level concepts since the fabric of space creates those concepts, NOT is created by those concepts.
In part 1 we found that the only thing in the Universe that actually exists is a cohesive energy fabric of space, all because the only thing that existed in the Absolutely Nothing Universe was an "infinite" energy potential, which arose from any deviation from absolute nothingness. The Absolutely Nothing Universe was stuck in a devoid of time limbo, unable to disintegrate until the "infinite" potential energy found some manner of being expressed. This expression occurred when uncertainty allowed a virtual particle to arise from out of nothing. Now the "infinite" potential energy had a form to take - the essence that created the virtual particle, the fabric of space. Therefore, the fabric of space's form and structure ultimately accounts for "the reason for everything".
In looking for symmetry in the five (or four) forces, we first need to deduce how the fabric of space is ultimately responsible for each of the forces. We will first confront the mysterious short distance forces, nuclear and weak. Both nuclear and weak forces are definitely paradoxical since they appear not to be required for our Universe's existence. They appear only responsible for the existence and behavior of atomic nuclei, and since the Universe can exist without atomic nuclei, it is reasonable to conclude that nuclear and weak forces do not exist as primary (existing for the Universe's existence sake) aspects. Thus, nuclear and weak forces would have to be natural outcomes from the interaction of the underlying, primary aspects.
In ninth grade I remember being positively astounded when I discovered that free neutrons are quite radioactive, disintegrating into a proton and an electron. IMPOSSIBLE was my disbelieving reaction! Do not opposite electric charges always attract! Neither the teacher nor the science textbook even attempted to explain the incredible contradiction! Later, when I heard that the atomic nucleus is quite small and contains only protons and neutrons, I went bananas! Should not the positively charged protons suffer horrendous mutual repulsion, all the while the neutrons just lie around wanting to explosively disintegrate, after all, neutrons are highly radioactive! I realized that these two paradoxes must be related to each other for anything to make any kind of reasonable sense. When I told my science teacher and later my parents that the current scientific explanation for nuclear stability was wrong, and that I have just logically deduced the basic reason for nuclear stability - well, you can imagine my disenchantment at everyone's harsh reaction.
Because the neutron's radioactivity is a more fundamental paradox, the neutron's instability should be an underlying cause for nuclear stability, not visa versa.
N0 ® P+ + E- + ENERGY 4)
We need to find the ENERGY source(s) that binds the nucleus together. If the liberated energy in reaction 4) is not given to the proton and electron in the form of kinetic energy, there should be created a very deep "energy well" that keeps the proton and electron in close proximity. However, Quantum Mechanics does not allow an electron to leisurely stay at a proton's side (1S orbital being the lowest energy level), but QM does not preclude an electron from making figure eights around two or more protons inside a nucleus since Quantum Mechanical limitations arose from wave interference of electrons in atomic orbitals.
Just consider what would really happen if protons and neutrons actually make up an atomic nucleus? Each of the protons with their powerful positive charge would be required to pull electrons from neighboring neutrons, experimentally shown to be equivalent to an unstable proton/electron pair. This means reaction 4) has an extremely powerful catalyst, a neighboring proton's positive charge.
The only logical conclusion is that the atomic nucleus would necessarily contain only protons and electrons. Even more important, the Neutron Supplied electrons would be free to wander throughout the entire nucleus achieving an even lower energy configuration, in somewhat the same manner as orbital bond formation, i.e., Neutron Supplied electrons move in a concerted fashion to maximize the time spent between two protons while staying as far away from each other. The atomic nucleus is held together by nothing more than the lower energy state of reaction 4)'s products, and proton/electron bonding, and since the nuclear distances involved are in the order of a hundred thousand times less than atomic orbital distances, the bond energies involved should also be in the same order of magnitude greater.
One can easily calculate the binding energies from the mass of individual particles. For the simplest system, deuterium, the total binding energy (mass difference) is 2.74 MeV. Since the disintegration energy of a neutron is 0.78 MeV, NS electron bond energy is 1.95 MeV. If the NS electrons form a fixed lattice structure with the nucleons, each interior NS electron of larger atoms would be located between 3 pairs of protons and form 3 bonds, and one would expect each interior electron to contribute about 5.8 MeV. This value is far too low.
Uncertainty appears to be the "nuclear force" responsible for nuclear stability. At any given time, an NS electron "acts" as if it is in more than one place, and thus at any given instant, an NS electron can be considered to be located between more than just 3 pairs of protons. The NS electrons need to move concertedly throughout the entire nucleus so as to avoid wave and electrostatic interference.
The above reason for nuclear stability explains radioactivity, eliminating the need to postulate the existence of a weak force. Unfavorable combinations of Z-number, numbers of (electron supplying) neutrons, and geometry produce a definite probability that the total positive charge will eventually overcome the sum binding forces retaining a "poorly placed" surface proton, causing the atom to be radioactive, ejecting an energy favorable alpha particle. In larger atoms and in smaller atoms with poor geometry, protons on or near the surface need additional electron bond shielding from interior positive charges that the ideal 2 protons to 1 electron ratio cannot provide. If there are too many electrons (neutrons) for the lowest energy structure, an electron can be spit out (beta decay) to get at a lower energy state. Too many "neutrons" causes instability because the more NS electrons there are, the more they electrostatically block and wave-interfere with each other, decreasing the average number of bonds (per NS electron) uncertainty can make.
Light atoms have low average binding energies since a high percentage, if not all of their protons are surface protons with far fewer "electron" bond possibilities. Iron has the highest average binding energy per nucleon since it is at an energy minimum created by these two main, opposing tendencies - large numbers of stable interior protons with multiple electrons to bond with, and surface protons not overly electrostatically stressed.
Having concluded that the nuclear and weak forces do not exist, we are left with only the three "long distance" forces: gravity, electric field, and magnetism. Magnetism stands out since its existence proves the Theory of Relativity incorrect.
Electrons inside a nucleus would move really fast, a lot faster than valence electrons. Since the de Broglie wavelength of electrons decreases the higher the electron's velocity, these intra-nuclear electrons would have very small wavelengths.
What frame of reference does an electron base its velocity in order to create a de Broglie wave? There are two frames of reference an electron could possibly "see": 1) the combined electric fields of surrounding electric charges that the electron "senses", or 2) the absolute frame of reference of the fabric of space. The same frame of reference choice exists for magnetism because the movement of electric charges relative to some frame of reference also creates magnetism. Therefore, the movement of an electric charge creates two "wake effects" that deform the fabric of space, producing both de Broglie waves and magnetism depending on the velocity frame of reference. We just need to deduce which effect is produced by which velocity frame of reference.
If something were to try to slow a stream of electric charges, the magnetic field resists, creating a force opposing the slowdown. Relativity does not allow for the observed, inertia-like effect! The Theory of Relativity categorically states nothing can be actually said to be moving, so according to Relativity, the only way a magnetic field could possibly result is a wake effect from relative movement or particle acceleration. However, the amount of magnetism that a wire current produces does not depend on what the wire is made of (a one amp current produces the same magnetic field regardless of what the wire is made of), so magnetism cannot be a wake effect from movement relative to surrounding matter's electric fields. (Nearby matter, like iron, acts as little bar magnets strengthening and concentrating the magnetic field, but does not create the field since current in the vacuum of space produces a magnetic field.) We can conclude that magnetism is a resultant wake effect from an electric charge's movement relative to the fabric of space's absolute frame of reference, and then de Broglie waves would be produced by relative movement with regards to surrounding electric fields. An isolated stream of electrons traveling with the same velocity in the emptiness of space would have a magnetic field, but no de Broglie wavelength, which is reasonable since an electron beam only produces interference patterns if and when the beam moves in close proximity to "stationary" matter, whose electric fields the beam electrons sense creating de Broglie waves and the resulting interference.
(Equal numbers of oppositely charged particles with the same zero momentum frame of reference would have their magnetic effects cancel out, except unpaired spin, but produce de Broglie wavelengths from relative movement to surrounding electric fields.)
The movement of electric charges produces three types of waves: electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and de Broglie waves. Electromagnetic radiation radiates away from its source, while magnetism and de Broglie waves are stationary waves, always remaining "attached" to the moving particle creating the wave. Electric fields are not a wave effect since there is no required movement.
As for gravity and electric fields, two curious conditions need to be explained. Gravity is incredibly weak in comparison to electric fields, and opposite electric charges attract while matter and antimatter repel. This means gravity is not created in the same manner as electric fields, so there can be no symmetry in the three long distance forces since each is created completely differently.
Like charges repel and opposite charges attract because electric charge "distortions" are bell-shaped with sloping boundaries. The three-dimensional boundary gradients from nearby electric charges merge together, the distortion amplitudes being additive. The tension energy required to stabilize a charge "distortion" depends on "distortion" volume, and is approximated by amplitude to some power. Therefore, the closer two like-charged particles are, the higher the energy level of the two-particle system, producing repulsion because the tension energy is more than the sum of the two isolated, charged particles' energies. Likewise, the closer two oppositely charged particles are, the lower the energy level of the two-particle system, producing attraction.
As for gravity, think of space as bubble wrap from a hardware store. Normal bubble wrap has no tension in the bubbles, so the sheet of bubble wrap is straight. Add tension to a few of the bubbles, the bubble wrap curves. This is the basic way mass (tension energy) curves space producing a gravitational gradient.
We now can solve for why does not normal matter have a positive charged particle the size of an electron, and a negative charged particle the size of a proton. Electric charge, being three dimensional, occupies a given distortion volume for positive charge, and an opposite direction volume for negative charge, and every point would have a corresponding energy tension (mass) value. For protons and electrons to gravitationally attract, the direction of this tension energy has to be the same. Anti-matter would have the same size charge bubbles, but an opposite tension energy direction than normal matter. (This is why matter and anti-matter gravitationally repel.) If an electric charge stabilizes mass, that would explain why neutrons are radioactive. Neutrons would need additional tension energy (mass) to make up for the absence of an actual electric charge.
In the energy diagram below (not to scale), the equal size, dark triangles are electric charge "bubbles" deforming the fabric of space. The thick arrows represent the sum of a particle's tension energy (mass). (Use print layout view to see diagram and 6 1/2 page width.)
Emn non charge stabilized
energy level
Em
anti-mass
charge
- fabric of space stabilized
+ energy
levels
mass
Ea neutron electron proton positron anti-P anti-N
stabilization energy
A proton and electron's one-dimension mass vectors are in the same direction and are relative to their underlying electric charge distortions since their one dimensional mass is an outgrowth of the distortion. The stable energy levels (Em and Ea) allowing for a charged particle's existence are relative to a different frame of reference, the fabric of space. Em and Ea are probably the same, but it is easier to diagram the weird shape of the Universe using two mirror image energy levels, one for matter (Em) and the other for antimatter (Ea). Therefore, a proton, electron, anti-proton, and positron are at the same energy level relative the fabric of space, but their energy content (mass) is vastly different. (Mesons and other high-energy particles are somewhat analogous to hydrogen's 2S, 3S, etc., orbitals, and are unstable because a lower energy state (1S) is available.)
A neutron bases its mass as if both electric charges exist (uncertainty stabilized charge oscillations), and the above diagram shows why a neutron disintegrates into a proton and electron. The energy level for a neutron is higher in energy potential than for a proton and electron because electric charge has a stabilizing effect on mass, so a neutron needs additional mass (cohesive energy) to make up for its lack of a real electric charge. The mass of a neutron equals the mass of a proton, plus the mass of an electron, plus twice the mass stabilizing energy of an electric charge.
Of the basic aspects of the Universe, the only thing left to discover is what causes mass to have inertia. Why do moving bodies resist any change in their velocity? I had always assumed inertia to be an independently existing phenomenon, until Tom Hollings kindly pointed out to me that inertia is only an illusion, and so inertia is just how we perceive the laws of momentum and kinetic energy. What resists the change in velocity is momentum. We still need to deduce what fixes the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, even if inertia is an illusion!
Electric charges, when moving relative to the absolute frame of reference, create a magnetic field. If something were to try to slow or speed up the electric charges, the induced magnetic field resists, creating a force opposing the change in speed. Is this not the very definition of inertia?
The sum of a particle's mass, when moving relative to the absolute frame of reference, also creates a type of wake, but since the elements of mass are one-dimensional, this wake is localized at the particle and is not spread out over distance, and so does not create a field-like effect. The "wake" from mass movement affects only the individual elements of mass creating it, while an electric charge's magnetic wave is three-dimensional and so is detectible (the resultant magnetic field) because other electric charges feel the collective field. So the movement of mass relative the fabric of space also creates a wave effect, the ultimate source for momentum, that resists any change in velocity, which is what we perceive as inertia.
R. Jack Roberts has led me to believe that the original, natural state of "The Universe" was an infinite void of Absolutely Nothing, If so, then "outside" of our "fabric of space" Universe would still exist an infinite void that our Universe has expanded into. In that infinite void, what keeps other fabric of space Universes from arising like champagne bubbles, our last paradox, number 10, as this evidently has not happened. The probability for such a new universe creation may be limit ® 0 because we have an indeterminable situation with only momentum defining movement. We need Kinetic Energy, but we have exhausted our wake possibilities. The conversion of Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy has mv2 as the natural outcome, but we should still need a wake effect or "containment vessel" to "store" KE. This could have created a gigantic "activation energy" for new universe creation since those virtual particles with the "easiest for uncertainty to create" structures have internal contradictions making them unstable (they dissolve back into nothing) or even impossible to exist.
The basic reason for everything is now solved!
Appendix One - Constant Speed of Light Proof
A famous "proof" of the Theory of Relativity's correctness is the experimental results showing that the speed of light is the same whether the emitter (particle) is coming or going relative the target. For the Theory of Relativity to work, on paper, it often needs to contradict itself.
Fig. 1
A
d
Target B
If particles A and B each emit a photon at the same place and time (distance d from the target), the two photons arrive at the target at the same time, seeming to prove the Theory of Relativity correct. It is actually proof that the Theory of Relativity is completely wrong because both A and B are, according to the Theory of Relativity, both motionless since the only frame of reference that a photon could possibly "see" is the frame of reference of the particle that emitted it! The Theory of Relativity requires that we NOT use the frame of reference of the target (fig. 1), which particles A and B have no way of seeing, but to use two different frames of references, the frames of reference of the emitters A and B (fig.2), which have the target, rather than the particles, moving. Particle A "sees" the target receding and particle B "sees" the target approaching.
moving targets stationary A Fig. 2
stationary B
The Theory of Relativity requires that the distance traveled by the A and B photons will be different while the photons' velocities relative its emitting particle are exactly the same, c. The photons did not travel an identical distance, and so the Theory of Relativity actually predicts the measured time required for the two photons to reach the target will be different, which conflicts with experimental observations that detect no difference.
Also, with the speed of light being a constant regardless of the frame of reference, the Doppler effect cannot exist without violating the Theory of Relativity. On emission, a photon's frequency could not change, and since every photon, regardless of the emission frame of reference, hits the target moving at the same speed c, a frequency change also cannot occur on absorption.
An absolute frame of reference has a realistic explanation for the Doppler effect.
V = 0 A
Vs
target fabric of space B
Since the photons emitted by particles A and B both base their velocity solely on the fabric of space (the dotted line), both photons will travel at identical speeds, the speed of light, relative to the fabric of space. They will arrive at the dotted line frame of reference at the same time, but with different wavelengths, and continue on to reach the target at the same time.
Particles A's wavelength will be lengthened and particle's B's wavelength shortened during the photon emission process depending on their relative velocity with respects to the fabric of space. A second Doppler effect will occur when the photons strike the target depending on the target's relative velocity with respect to the fabric of space. In our case this second Doppler effect will produce identical wavelength lengthening for both photons. With two Doppler effects, the fabric of space gets canceled out and the resultant Doppler effect solely depends on the relative velocities between the target and emitter.
Appendix Two - Errors in Theory of Relativity's two key postulates
The first experimental foundation of the Theory of Relativity, the "Ultimate Speed Experiment", shot electrons using a cathode ray tube with different voltages between the plates. The current peaks produced on an oscilloscope indicated the amount of time the electrons took to travel the measured distance. The first current peak demonstrated when the electron beam began, and the second peak showed when the electrons arrived. Dividing the distance between the cathode and anode by the time difference gives the velocity of the electrons at each measured voltage. The plotted velocity versus voltage curve was not a straight line as expected, but curved towards a velocity limit, the speed of light. This amazing velocity limit confounded the scientific community for many, many years.
Assuming those scientists who first examined the startling results of the Ultimate Speed Experiment accounted for the signal return time, which itself give a velocity of c limit, they definitely failed to take into account whether the speed of light limit they obtained was produced by an inherent speed limit for mass, or whether the speed of light limit was produced by some quirk of the apparatus. Could it be that shooting electrons by means of a voltage gradient is analogous to firing a cannon ball from a cannon? A cannon would produce an identically shaped cannon ball speed versus "amount of gunpowder used" curve, the velocity limit depending on cannon design and type explosive used. Since electromagnetic radiation propagates at the speed of light, would it not be perfectly reasonable to suspect that a stationary electric field might be incapable of accelerating a charged particle faster than the field's own propagation speed?
When the first circular cyclotrons were built after WWII, their circular design duplicated the Ultimate Speed Experiment, but they used moving fields for acceleration, and so greater than the speed of light results were obtained. (The circular design also eliminated the signal return time error.) However, the Theory of Relativity was so ingrained as a religion and Einstein virtually like a Science God, many Physicists were psychologically unable to realize that they were proving wrong the notion that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Using "fit an elephant" mathematics, they applied a relativistic formula to shrink the distance the particles traveled so as to limit particle velocities to below the speed of light. (I actually read a published paper from those early days explaining why the faster than speed of light results did not prove the Theory of Relativity wrong. The Author used relativity to make the particles stationary, after all, all frames of reference are relative, which then allows one to mathematically shrink the Earth, which also shrinks the distance the particles traveled.)
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on a second, fatally flawed experiment - Michaelson and Morley's famous ether experiment. The experiment is based on exactly the same principles you would use to measure the speed of a river's current by swimming. There are three basic methods.
1) Swim straight across the river and do NOT correct for drift, letting yourself be carried downstream. There is NO change in the time required to swim across and back with different current speeds as long as you always swim straight for the opposite bank.
- 2) Crab the necessary degrees in the upstream direction to compensate for the downstream drift. You will arrive at the exact opposite bank; however, you will arrive at a time later than if you did not correct for being carried downstream. t=d/(ccos(Φ))
3) Place two buoys in the middle of the river a certain distance apart (d), in the experiment the width of the river. The time required to swim from one buoy to the other, and then back again, is always slower when a current is present, so again the speed of the river (s) can be calculated if you know how fast you swim (v). t = 2dv/(v2 ─ s2)
In creating a mathematical relationship, Michaelson and Morley combined methods two and three. This was a mistake since method two endows light with intelligence to change its direction of travel. The experimental set-up is actually a combination of methods one and three. A time difference should still occur if an absolute frame of reference exists, that is if no other mistakes were made.
A second error was introduced when Michaelson and Morley used the wrong frame of reference to establish the mathematical time relationships. Since the ether (fabric of space) theory assumes light waves (analogous to sound waves) travel at constant speed in relation to the medium of propagation (absolute frame of reference), then if you are trying to prove that a fabric of space, stationary frame of reference actually exists or does not exist, the frame of reference used to derive the equations is required to be the absolute stationary reference (ether) itself. Michaelson and Morley automatically chose their apparatus, i.e. the customary earth, as the frame of reference creating a contradiction, in that the light beam ignores the ether (fabric of space) as the medium of propagation and travels at a constant speed in reference to the fixed position light source and mirror apparatus. This sounds fine and natural, but choosing the Earth as the frame of reference produces incorrect math formulas for the experiment. An analogy is that if a submarine moving 10 mph through the water fires a 40 mph torpedo, it would be similarly incorrect to calculate that the torpedo would travel though the water (ether) at 50 mph (40 + 10), basing its speed on the frame of reference submarine. The torpedo's speed should be referenced to the propagation medium (water), and so the frame of reference to judge the speed of the torpedo has to be the water. For the Michaelson and Morley experiment, the same relationship holds true, so the frame of reference to judge a photon's speed has to be the absolute frame of reference itself.
Some readers may be thinking that there is something wrong in the above analogy since if we substitute light for the torpedo, we have light, like the torpedo, going faster than it should, faster than c, relative another frame of reference, which violates the Theory of Relativity. One cannot use relativistic equations and concepts in proving an absolute frame of reference does not exist! Since relativistic equations and concepts are based on the presumption that an absolute frame of reference does NOT exist, then using Relativity in "proving" an absolute frame of reference does not exist is nonsensical. In other words, the equations representing the situation cannot contain internal contradiction or be in opposition to what is trying to be proved, and so the equations need to be set up so as to mathematically reflect that an absolute frame of reference actually exists and that light travels at speed c only with regards to the absolute frame of reference! Then, if the experimental observations conflict with what is mathematically expected, one can conclude that an absolute frame of reference does not exist or else the expected results would have been obtained.
If both of these errors are taken into account and if an absolute frame of reference inherent in the fabric of space actually exists as this article predicts, the Michaelson and Morley experiment, as performed, could not detect it since there is no time difference whatsoever to detect between the two perpendicular light beams. In the ether experiment, it was the drift downstream that needed to be observed and measured, if possible.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is purely illusionary because one does not need to use any of the relativistic equations to arrive at the correct answer. Paradoxical is it not! By mathematically manipulating velocities to keep everything moving slower than the speed of light, one needs to correspondingly mathematically increase the object's mass to account for too high of kinetic energy, and if the particles are radioactive, make time tick slower to account for less disintegrations than expected from their half-life.
Dean Auger
9703 Winter Gardens Blvd. #211
Lakeside, Ca. 92040 - 3842
(619) 561-5402 deanauger@myway.com
※※※※※※
黄氏时空由光频多普勒红移定义可变时间单位秒t'=tsquart[(C-V)/(C+V)].时间秒的变化导致了可变光速C'=Csquart[(C-V)/(C+V)].光速的变化导致了可变距离单位米l'=lsquart[(C-V)/(C+V)].黄氏自旋衰变相互作用模型:引力=动量变化率，电磁力=角动量变化率.超光速C=2ZM/r