|
--- A THEORY OF ABSOLUTE SPACE/TIME --- "These both to know: To constantly examine further into all solutions. To know to constantly examine into all solutions." Paraphrased from Chapter 65 of the writings of LAO TZU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The real problem seems to be that we probably can never be sure of the completeness and/or correctness of any answer which we as fallible beings should happen to make. In human undertakings, it is first a belief system and then a prejudice when you simply accept without question any one answer. We become bias. It is truly a preference, rather than a belief system and/or a prejudice, only if you study all available systems before picking one. And since preference does not mean or imply completeness and/or correctness, we must remember that even if all the puzzles seem to be solved, we must always be willing to continue the search for corrections to apply to our earlier answers in order to achieve greater completeness. We need to be constantly studying all new information and thinking about our previous answers in order to be able to find new insights which would continue to improve our understanding. Otherwise, we become believers rather than thinkers. With this in mind, Absolute S/T is offered as a single step in our quest for knowledge. Just maybe, with this hypothesis I have found part of the answer. And even if it should prove to be incomplete and/or incorrect, I feel that Absolute S/T is an idea worth looking at closely. I also assume that Absolute S/T is incomplete and needs further work. But if it should also prove to be incorrect, then Relativity will have been enhanced by the failed effort. The problem of proof is similar to the current problem in high-energy quantum particle physics, where it is impossible to see inside any quantum particle. There is no way to examine how a quantum particle's internals work or even to discover its exact composition. We have to smash them into each other and deduce their workings and composition from the resulting pieces. And it may not even matter what really happens in their interiors. Maybe all that matters is the physical aspects which we can measure on the outside. This problem in high-energy quantum particle physics can be compared to smashing integrated circuits (or IC's) into walls, then studying the pieces in order to be able to see how and why they work as IC's. Or maybe just to see that they were once IC's at all. These would be nearly impossible tasks. The task of proving the logical correctness of Absolute S/T to you may be as difficult. Especially because Relativity has been accepted as correct since [probably] before your birth. Relativity claimed it impossible to measure absolute motion and claimed the speed of light to be a constant under all circumstances. From these two Relativity showed S/T to be curved through a relative speed-dependent decrease in the physical length, a relative speed-dependent decrease in the rate of time flow and a relative speed-dependent increase in the amount of mass/e all in the direction of travel. Then Relativity postulated that gravity was the result of this curved S/T. These are mistakes based on the current misinterpretation of the MMX and the mis-measurement of the speed of light. Flaws have been found in the previous thinking on these subjects. Fatal flaws that make Relativity unnecessarily complex. A new solution to the MMX has been combined with a new realization of the error in our measurement of the speed of light that shows why the absolute speed of light is always measured as a constant even though it most certainly is not. This uncurves S/T by eliminating the decrease in the physical length, the decrease in the rate of time flow and the increase in the amount of mass/e. This hypothesis shows the physical length, the rate of time flow and the amount of mass/e to be the constants they appear to be - linear, finite and absolute S/T. And it postulates a solution to the previous problems to a quantum particle theory of gravity. In Relativity, the speed of light is an unvarying constant called "C". In Absolute S/T, there are two possible values for the actual velocity of photons. The first is the currently "measured" rate of travel of photons and will be called the "light speed constant" (LSC). This has the same apparent value as Relativity's constant speed of light, but there are possible differences which will be discussed later. Secondly, in Absolute S/T the absolute speed of a given quantum particle of energy/m (or photon) is not the constant speed of light (C) nor is it the light speed constant (LSC). The absolute speed of a photon (or gauge boson) will be given here as "the absolute velocity of a photon (or a gauge boson)". In order to in some cases convey the proper sense, it may be called "the absolute velocity of energy/m" and in all equations will be called "VE". Its name is to denote that it is to be measured on an absolute scale, that it is a vectored quantity and that it is a quantum particle. This actual absolute velocity of energy/m is a given photon's absolute velocity through the absolute S/T of our universe with the absolute and additive velocity of its source atom already added. [Source atom is used here but as far as I know there is no reason why photons and other quantum particles of energy/m cannot actually be released under the correct circumstances by any quantum particle as well as atoms.] The absolute and additive velocity of the source atom is the velocity of the source atom as measured relative to the point of origin of the big bang. Absolute S/T will show that the value of the absolute velocity of quantum particles of energy/m can be anything. [This will be explained more thoroughly in the following sections.] - LIGHT - QUANTUM PARTICLES OF ENERGY/M WITH A WAVELIKE BEHAVIOR - The place to start a new solution to the MMX seems to be with a new description of the quantum particles of energy/m we call photons. We need to rethink some things about all quantum particles of energy/m, but photons because of their high visibility [pun intended] will be used in Absolute S/T. We need to think about how a different description of the photon might then produce the effect we perceive as the electromagnetic spectrum. And we need to rethink how we measure the absolute velocity of energy/m (VE). Then to see how these would affect all aspects of the MMX. When the complete electromagnetic spectrum is studied, it is found to consist of many different frequencies. In the visible light portion of the spectrum, what we perceive of as different colors is really different frequencies. A photon's frequency is said to be the result we see because light is believed to have some kind of a wave component to it. However, Absolute S/T will use a description of light's frequency as being due to some kind of a rate of internal spin (or vibration) or better yet, a "frequency (of integral oscillation)". This is not necessary to prove Absolute S/T, but temporarily embracing the idea that a photon has a frequency (of integral oscillation) and that this frequency (of integral oscillation) causes the wavelike behavior we have been calling the frequency of the wave component of light does make some of the ideas in Absolute S/T easier to understand. Also, if a photon is a tiny quantum particle of energy/m, when from Equation 01, it must be equally true that it is also a quantum particle of mass/e. And also since all detectable quantum particles of mass/e have a frequency (of integral oscillation), the photon as a quantum particle of mass/e certainly must also have a frequency (of integral oscillation). Because of the individual photon's tiny size, the photon's frequency (of integral oscillation) is simply impossible to measure directly and appears to us as its wavelike frequency. When light is studied, some of light's characteristics seem to be the results we could only see if light had a wave action (or a wavelike behavior). That is, they seem as if they could only have been produced if light were the result of some wavelike behavior rather than only the result of the actions of a quantum particle of energy/m with a frequency (of integral oscillation). The currently accepted view of light as both a quantum particle of energy/m and a wave has light expressed as a duality. That is, it is generally accepted that light is both -- the so called, wave-particle duality of light. However, there need not be any wave action associated with something in order for it to look like it is the results of a wave action. An example of this is a small stream of vertically falling water, which is composed of molecules (or if you like, pieces of matter), striking a rough and level surface. This will produce a random and fractal-like pattern which is very similar to and looks much like a wave pattern produced by the action of some wave component. That is, it is composed of curved lines and looks like it is the results which we would see if there were some kind of "field of force"; but of course, there is not. The effect is produced by the tiniest pieces of water striking tiny random obstacles and each other. [To see this effect, the reader might like to try an experiment. Simply view the spreading fractal-like pattern created by a stream from a non-aerated water faucet on to a fairly level and well used (or the molded kind) carving board. Adjust the flow of the water until you can see the pattern. If you still have difficulty seeing the pattern, move your light source around a bit.] We can only see a wavelike behavior when those supposed waves interact with matter. If light is only quantum particles of energy/m and not waves, then maybe the wavelike behavior which we see is the interaction of photons with the random quantum particles of mass/e with which it interacts in absolute S/T. [According to quantum theory and the science of quantum electrodynamics (QED), this is the method that light utilizes to move from one place to another. That is, the photons move in a path from atom to atom.] It would seem that this could produce the same overall effect as the water experiment. Additionally, the various frequencies (of integral oscillation) of photons would only add to the effect, and in fact, they could be responsible for most of the effect that appears as a "field of force". [This would seem to be something like what we see with magnetism's apparent "field of force". All atoms are magnetic. They each have a north and a south magnetic pole. This seems to be due to the orientation of the rapid rotation of the electrons with their negative electrical charges around a nucleus of protons and neutrons which has a net positive charge. However, in most forms of matter the atoms are unaligned or aligned randomly and there is no effect of magnetism or the effect is simply canceled out. In naturally magnetic substances many more of the atoms are aligned in the same general direction. This alignment is what creates the appearance at our level of the "field of force" we call natural magnetism.] The usual reason for light to be thought of as waves is due to the results obtained in what is called twin slit experiments. When light is sent through two adjacent slits in any material, it produces what looks like the results we would expect from a wave component of light. However, no matter how thin a substance is used for the material, the slits still have sides. Don't you think that it is possible that the fractal-like pattern of light's wavelike behavior might be produced by the action of oscillating photons bouncing randomly off the sides of the slit rather then the results of a wave action operating through the opening itself? Moreover, the slit experiment only shows wavelike behavior when the slits are very narrow and narrow slits have a greater slit thickness to width ratio. This simply means there is a lot of side for photons to bounce off of during their trip through the slit. There is an additional point to be made about a photon's frequency (of integral oscillation) as its frequency. At the apparent size of a photon any differences in these two descriptions of the photon would probably be impossible to detect anyhow. For purposes of Absolute S/T, we will think of the photon's apparent frequency as a frequency (of integral oscillation). The photon will be referred to as a quantum particle of energy/m with a frequency (of integral oscillation). A frequency which is suppose to be produced by some wave component of light but may only be light's wavelike behavior. From all of the above, it would appear that a photon could appear as a quantum particle of mass/e that behaves just like a projectile (or bullet). Currently, we have been using the example of motorboats trying to move parallel-to-the-current and across-the-current for an analogy of the MMX. A new analogy using rifles firing bullets will help with the new explanation. [In the MMX, the rifles become the atoms which make up the experiment itself and the bullets become the photons.] Bullets come from rifles and then impact on targets. For a complete analogy of the MMX, we also need mirrors for the bullets. In the actual experiment with photons, the bullet-mirrors would be additional atoms. All rifles, bullet-mirrors and targets used to eject and impact the bullets will be assumed to be 100% efficient. Since in the actual experiment this interaction is at the quantum level, we would have some difficulty accurately measure the actual efficiency of individual interactions. Furthermore, in order to eliminate any unnecessary interactions, there is assumed to be a perfect vacuum for purposes of this thought experiment. A target is the final destination of each bullet. However, in the case of the photon, we can easily see that each atom with which a photon interacts on its flight to the intended target becomes yet another target atom. And also in turn, possibly yet another rifle atom. As quantum theory and QED teach, photons move from atom to atom. [However, it is not necessarily the same photon. In fact, I doubt there exists a mechanism which would allow it to be the same photon except by some random and unmeasurable chance.] First, some given atom ejects a photon because the atom has reached a high enough state of energy/m. [It reaches a high enough state by interacting (or ingesting) some other gauge boson.] The photon is then absorbed by another atom in its path and then, if there is a sufficiently high enough state of energy/m within that atom, a new photon is ejected by that same atom. So we can see how each atom in the path of the photon must be interacted with in turn. [However, this may only happen when the photon is at the correct frequency. Or possibly, only when the frequency (of integral oscillation) is at the correct orientation.] According to QED, the photons are absorbed and ejected by the electrons, not the atom as a whole. If this is always true, it would seem to pose a problem for Absolute S/T's theory of absolute and additive velocities of the source atom. This is because an electron in an atom's orbit would seem to be moving nearly circularly at a high velocity and that velocity would then need to be added to the photon's velocity. Since this would completely invalidate Absolute S/T, I have to think that this indicates that photons are ejected at right angles to an electron's orbit. [This might explain how Maxwell saw light as being the result of an electric field traveling at right angles to a magnetic field.] This would allow the frequency (of the integral oscillation) to be a consequence of the orbital frequency of the electron. This ties well with quantum theory that the higher the energy/m state (or quantum level) of the photon emitting electron, the higher the measured frequency of the ejected photon. Then the absolute and additive velocity would come from the directional vectors of the atom as a whole. For purposes of this thesis, the only velocities we will call absolute are those velocities that are measured relative to the grid established with an absolute zero point [X = 0, Y = 0, Z = 0, T = 0] which is used as the center of the absolute S/T grid. That zero point is the point of origin of our universe started by the big bang. Any velocity measured relative to any reference point other than the point of origin of our universe will be called a relative velocity. By definition, all projectiles have only one absolute velocity. However, they may have any number of relative velocities. Bullets have a muzzle velocity which is relative only to the rifle itself. In the case of the photon, the muzzle velocity is the "LSC'". To the rifle's muzzle velocity, you could add the vectored components of the velocity of a moving firing platform to obtain another set of velocities relative to the earth. Certainly, you could add the vectored components of the velocity of the earth around the sun to this and obtain the bullet's velocity relative to the sun. In fact, it is possible to obtain the velocity of the bullet relative to any celestial body. In fact, if we knew the absolute velocity of a celestial body on which a rifle is fired, we could easily calculate its bullet's absolute velocity. In a way similar to how we mathematically obtain the absolute velocity of a photon, we need to add the absolute velocity of the bullet-mirrors and the targets to the velocity of the impacting bullets. This is so we can obtain a bullet's absolute impact velocity which changes the actual frequency (of integral oscillation). [This is explained more fully in the chapter called "The Doppler Effect".] Bullets also have a spin which we will also call their "frequency (of integral oscillation)". This is imparted by the rifling of the rifle. If we try to measure that frequency (of integral oscillation) by measuring the impact of the bullets, we then have a situation very similar to the problem of attempting to measure a photon's frequency. By substituting atoms for rifles, bullet-mirrors and targets and by substituting photons for bullets, we will see how thinking of the photon as a projectile makes a solution to the MMX using absolute and additive velocities possible. The way we have been thinking of photons is as a quantum particle of energy/m and as a wave. We can [for purposes of this thought experiment] think of a photon as a quantum particle of energy/m which has a frequency (of integral oscillation) that through its interaction with matter results in the appearance of a wavelike behavior. If photons have a frequency (of integral oscillation) then they must age because the frequency (of integral oscillation) must be expressed as a function of the passage of time. This aging of photons does not seem to be possible to measure directly because any attempt to measure a photon will change, in fact, destroy that photon. However, aging of photons is obvious since photons move forward in time right along with us. That is, a photon starts at its source and arrives at its destination at different times. [A photon's rate of aging, or rather, its loss of absolute energy/m appears to be very slow. A photon's travel in a vacuum would seem to be nearly 100% efficient.] Always an additional argument against light as waves is that waves need a medium. The MMX proved and Einstein agreed that there is no ether or any other medium. Moreover, wave velocity in a medium is a constant varying only with the density of the medium. Sound which is a compression wave goes fastest if the medium is denser - light goes slower. The best medium for a compression wave like sound waves, whether in gas, liquid or solid, is many atoms and/or molecules. The densest medium is best for wave propagation. Compression waves do not move in a vacuum; they move fairly fast in gases, faster in liquids and still faster in solids. However, the fewest atoms and/or molecules is the fastest medium for any piece of matter (or any quantum particles of mass/e or energy/m) like a bullet (or a photon). Projectiles travel fastest with the least number of obstacles. They travel fastest in a vacuum; they move a little slower in gases, slower still in liquids and slowest yet in solids. Therefore, light must consist of quantum particles, since light goes fastest in a vacuum and slowest in solids, if at all. [Just what you would expect of any kind of quantum particles interacting with matter on any level.] This is exactly the opposite of waves, but correct for pieces of matter like bullets and quantum particles like photons. The relative [or absolute] velocity of true waves is not established by the relative [or absolute velocity] of the source and/or the receiving device, but rather by the density of the medium. The relative [or absolute] velocity of bullets and photons is established by the muzzle velocity plus the relative [or absolute] velocity of the source device. And its apparent relative [or absolute] velocity at the receiver is affected by the relative [or absolute] velocity of the receiver. Another point to consider is the idea that the LSC of photons has been proven to be a constant of fixed value. It can be shown that this is not proven. Wave velocity in a medium is a constant only when temperature, and therefore density of the medium is a constant. Photons are not waves. Absolute S/T proposes that a photon's LSC, like a bullet's muzzle velocity, is most likely a slightly variable constant plus the absolute vectored velocity components of the source atom (the rifle). The light speed constant (LSC) seems to be the velocity at which photons are ejected from a quantum particle or an atom. This is similar to a bullet's muzzle velocity. However, there is the possibility that the LSC, like a rifle's muzzle velocity, might not actually be a constant. It may vary slightly as to the absolute energy/m level and/or composition of the source atom. In other words, different frequencies of photons, indeed the same frequency from different types of atom may travel at slightly different muzzle velocities. This needs testing and may help to prove some of Absolute S/T's other premises. One good reason to think this way is because a near constant plus the vectored velocity components of the source atom makes possible a solution to the problems of the MMX and of unification. Simplicity itself -- a return to a Newtonian universe. A photon (or any gluon) is a quantum particle of energy/m traveling with a muzzle velocity of the LSC relative to the source atom. Because of the "absolute and additive velocity" vector component of the launching quantum particle's absolute velocity through our universe relative to the X/Y/Z/T grid established by the point of origin of the big bang (the Zero-Point), a photon's actual absolute velocity can be greater or less than LSC. The absolute Velocity of energy/m (VE) is the quantum particle of energy's absolute velocity through our universe relative to the Zero-Point. The equation for "VE" in its simplest form is: Equation 10 VE= LSC + AV "LSC" is the measured Light Speed Constant and its value [for our purposes] is given as 300,000 km/sec. "AV" is the vector component of the absolute and additive velocity of the source atom (or quantum particle) which is in the direction of the ejected photon. There is nothing that says a mass/e cannot be standing still in our universe relative to the point of origin of the big bang. However, this does not seem to happen very often if at all. In fact, such a condition has never been observed. If it did happen then any photons ejected by that mass/e would be traveling at the LSC, since AV would be zero. Real interest starts when the source mass/e is moving [absolute]. The maximum absolute and additive velocity of mass/e is determined by the absolute velocity of the fastest mass/e. So just how fast can mass/e travel? It would seem Relativity is incorrect in that mass/e cannot exceed the light speed constant. Equation 08 has been refuted. I think a mass's velocity must be measured on an absolute scale. This is because there is no mechanism except magic/k which would allow each piece of matter to know its own velocity relative to every other piece of matter in our universe as required by Relativity. [This leads once again to the question of how a quantum particle of mass/e knows that it is approaching the LSC. Though experimental work in particle accelerators shows mass/e increasing when accelerated, I believe this is due to the fact of pumping up of the mass/e with applied energy/m. This is because each interaction of each quantum particle of energy/m being absorbed into the quantum particle of mass/e in order to make it go faster acts as a booster to the velocity, but also increases the mass/e of the quantum particle. It keeps becoming larger and thereby more and more difficult to accelerate. This phenomena would probably not be observed if the mass/e was push from behind as in the case of a spaceship.] However, I doubt that the big bang produced any mass/e traveling faster than the LSC. Therefore, the fastest moving naturally occurring photons in our universe are being ejected outward by the fast outward moving mass/e. These photons would still only be traveling at the LSC relative to the source mass/e, but they are probably moving outward from the big bang traveling at a little less than almost twice the 2LSC within the absolute grid. [More on this in the section titled "AN ASTRONOMICAL PROOF".] This leads us to, photons sent backwards towards the point of origin of the big bang from the fastest possible naturally occurring mass/e would travel almost stopped. Stopped, that is, on an absolute scale. However, those photons would still be traveling at the LSC relative to the source mass/e. Received photons cannot impact any slower than almost stopped. [Anything not moving, or moving at a minus velocity, relative to a target, simply does not get to the target.] The theory of absolute and additive velocities leads to a new and exciting solution to the MMX. However, the idea of additive velocities was tried in the last century and it failed. The problem was the measurement of a constant speed of light. This is what has been shown by all speed of light experiments and indirectly by the MMX. This problem lead Relativity to its mistaken interpretation of the MMX and will lead us to the crux of Absolute S/T's arguments. If simple absolute and additive velocities are all that are needed to solve the MMX, then we can dispense with complex curved S/T right now. However, there are still some problems to be solved before this explanation is complete. The problem to this solution would seem to be Relativity's limit of C, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, relative velocities faster than C and within a local and closed system are possible and easy to demonstrate. A flashlight produces energy/m at the light speed constant (LSC). When we turn on back-to-back flashlights, measurement of each light front still gives a value of LSC. This clearly shows a relative velocity of the two light fronts of more than LSC. In fact, this shows LSC + LSC or 2LSC for either light front relative to the other light front. [There is no known way to measure this directly.] 2LSC is certainly greater than C. We have up until now simply ignored this and put it down to curved S/T. If we can drop the idea of curved S/T, then we can see that this is what is actually happening. Also, from the earth, actual local and closed system velocities greater than the speed of light are observable. When we look into outer space, we see, in almost exactly opposite directions from earth, galaxies ( or rather, distant objects ) that are each moving at relative velocities away from the earth at more than eighty percent of the light speed constant (0.80LSC ). [Relative velocities higher than 0.80LSC have been observed in virtually all directions.] Therefore, relative to each other, two distant objects on opposite side of the earth, obviously must be moving apart at greater than the speed of light as represented by C. Again if we can drop the idea of curved S/T, then we can see that this is what is actually happening. The problem with all of this is that the absolute velocity of energy/m is always measured as a constant or at least very close to a constant. Our mistaken belief in Relativity starts with the error generated by our always seeming to measure the speed of light as a constant. The proposed solution to this problem is the crux of this thesis. If the theory of absolute and additive velocities is the answer, then it would seem that light does not actually jump from a start to a finish atom, but rather encounters and interacts with several intermediary atoms. [It is the number of interactions which cause photons to slow down when they encounter matter. In other words, this explains why light goes fastest in a vacuum where there are no interactions with matter. As I understand it, this is also a contention and the direct consequence of the teachings of quantum electrodynamics (QED).] It is a major contention of Absolute S/T that a photon leaps from the first atom to the second with an relative velocity of LSC plus the absolute and additive velocity of the first atom. And that, as it is absorbed by the second atom, the photon's velocity becomes zero relative to the second atom. And that, if there is a high enough energy/m level in the second atom, then another similar photon is ejected by that atom and in the original or same direction. [This is only true of matter which transmits light. And maybe only in nearly the same direction, as we see with the bending of light when it travels through glass of water. And since some matter does reflect light, in that case, the newly ejected photon is ejected back randomly in the direction from which it came. None of this is yet clear to me, but it seems to be the result of there being different types of atoms.] The new photon's absolute velocity is now LSC plus the absolute and additive velocity of the second atom. A photon's path is from atom to atom. This fractured pathway is what produces to our eyes and instruments the fractal-like pattern that we then see and call the results of a wave component. It would seem that with our current methods C [and LSC] can only be measured as a constant or near constant. The light speed constant appears as a constant, but if the theory of absolute and additive velocities is the more complete description of nature, only a constant for the absolute velocity of energy/m (or in this case - speed of light) could have been measured up until now. If a quantum particle of energy's absolute velocity is the result of absolute and additive velocities and that photon must enter our speed of light experiment, then we can measure the velocity of the photon only after it has first encountered the measuring device. At least that is what we have been doing up until now. That is because the photon who's velocity is being measured in all current speed of light experiments is a photon that has been ejected by an atom in the entryway during the entry of the original photon into the measuring device. In other words, all our efforts to measure the absolute velocity of quantum particles of energy/m have been in closed measuring devices or devices whose openings are covered with a piece of glass (or a lens). This allows the photons to interact with the device and thereby have any trace of their external absolute velocity disappear. Additionally, all of the devices have had the interference of the atmosphere when measuring the velocity of photons from distant objects. Never have we attempted to measure the absolute velocity of energy/m received from a distant moving source with an experiment designed to detect the presence or non-presence of absolute and additive velocities. From this it would appear that currently, we can only measure the relative velocity of photons when they are within our speed of light measuring devices, This measured velocity is certainly not an accurate measure of their absolute velocity prior to encountering any current speed of light measuring device. One of the problems in attempting to prove this, is that since our science does not currently believe in absolute and additive velocities, it does not even try to eliminate or find any absolute and additive velocities in its speed of light experiments. This certainly does not prove the theory of absolute and additive velocities, but it does raise questions about our measurement of the speed of light. [Different substances used in the building of the different speed of light experiments may explain why the different experiments always get slightly different answers. This would be the results we would expect if each different element's atoms have slightly different photon muzzle velocities. Their muzzle velocities might also vary as to the energy/m state of the individual atoms.] Maybe all attempts to measure the absolute velocity of energy/m will always produce only the light speed constant. We may never be able to measure absolute and additive velocities. If the theory of absolute and additive velocities is the answer, then certainly all current attempts to measure the absolute velocity of energy/m are really attempts to measure the light speed constant and not the absolute velocity of quantum particles of energy/m. Once a photon has a given absolute velocity, its absolute velocity does appear to remain constant, or nearly constant, at least until it encounters another atom or quantum particle. But maybe not, though any lose of velocity or frequency seems to be slight, if it exists at all. The absolute and additive velocities of the light speed measuring device cannot be measured or eliminated as shown by the MMX. Since a photon's actual absolute velocity cannot be measured without the photon interacting with the measuring device, we measure all photons as having nearly the same apparent absolute velocity, regardless of their true absolute velocity. As the MMX shows, we clearly cannot detect and/or measure whether there is an absolute velocity to the measuring device, which we would need to do in order to eliminate it or measure it. There is one important additional point about the existence or non-existence of a wave component of light. If light does consist of both a quantum particle and a real wave, then remember that nothing in physics precludes the idea that a wave traveling without a medium cannot travel at various velocities. Only a wave in a medium is measured as traveling at a fixed velocity within a local and closed system because that is the only kind of wave we know or understand. There seems to be no detectable medium for light. Therefore, even if it is truly some kind of wave, there is no reason that it could not move at various absolute and additive velocities. Now, just like with Relativity's way of thinking about photons, we must see if this new way of thinking about light will allow us a solution to the MMX. Let's look at the problem in this new light [another pun] and see if we can find another explanation of the MMX which has no magic/k and will also allow unification. Since we have shown there is no ether (or medium), light cannot consist of waves as we know them. Absolute S/T will consider all gauge bosons as being quantum particles of energy/m with a frequency (of integral oscillation) which produces a wavelike behavior. We can now perform our analogy of the MMX with the photons for bullets, atoms for rifles, bullet-mirrors and targets, a perfect vacuum and the theory of absolute and additive velocities. When the MMX is moving through S/T, using vectored velocity components added to the measured light speed constant solves the MMX in a new, easier and more elegant way. Once we realize that photons can and do move at various absolute speeds the solution is obvious. [The reader can easily solve the math as it requires only the simplest algebra and geometry.] The photons moving in the supposed across-the-current direction have an additional sideways (or parallel-to-the-current) absolute and additive velocity which allows the photons to arrive at the across-the-current mirror and return correctly and in the time expected and without any steering. Those photons which are traveling parallel-to-the-current and back are moving at absolute velocities greater in the parallel-to-the-current direction than in the counter-to-current direction. These different absolute velocities all add up to the same time for both the across-the-current-and-back direction and the parallel-to-the-current-and-back direction. None of the parts of the MMX or the photons need to know their speeds; the additive velocities are simply added by nature just as with the bullets. That is, by using an absolute set of X/Y/Z and T coordinates for absolute S/T and adding the absolute velocities of all the parts of the MMX, we get a new and elegant solution to that experiment. [Relative [not absolute] space and time coordinates are all that is actually needed. - ABSOLUTE S/T'S "FACTS" - The two primary "facts" of Absolute S/T are titled quite similar to the titles of Relativity's "irrefutable facts". They are regarding measurable absolute motion and regarding a variable velocity of photons - well, some small changes. Moreover, there are soon to be some even more radical changes from Relativity, as we continue on our search for our reality. Changes that is, in the way that until now, we have viewed this universe. - POSTULATE #1 - MEASURABLE ABSOLUTE MOTION - The earth moves through our universe -- it is not stationary. Let's at least assume the earth moves and is not stationary. Relativity certainly assumes that there is no movement of the earth or at least the earth's movement is of no consequence. Everything is measured relative to the earth. This sounds very much like the earth-centered (or Ptolemaic system) that was first stated by Ptolemy [100 (?) - 170 (?) A.D.]. [The Ptolemaic system had a geocentric solar system with the earth as the center of the solar system and our universe.] This system was a case of a nearly mathematically correct solution which did not necessarily completely or correctly describe our reality. Just as we will see that even if Relativity is mathematically correct, it does not mean that it is a complete and correct description of our reality. Just because the MMX failed to detect the absolute motion of the earth through our universe does not mean it is truly impossible to measure the absolute motion of the earth. If the theory behind Absolute S/T is correct, there is at least one experiment introduced later in the chapter titled "AN ASTRONOMICAL PROOF" which might be used to find the velocity of the earth relative to the point of origin of the big bang. From this and possibly other experiments, a celestial body's velocity relative to the big bang could be calculated. This then leads us to a celestial body's absolute motion through our universe from the point of origin of the big bang. This leads to a rather different rendering of Relativity's first "irrefutable fact". Absolute S/T's first "fact": "It is possible to detect the absolute motion of any celestial body relative to the point of origin of the big bang. Consequently, it is possible to know if any celestial body is truly standing still or moving in our universe." This is very much the opposite of what Relativity says and shows some the dangers of "irrefutable facts". - POSTULATE #2 - A VARIABLE ABSOLUTE VELOCITY OF PHOTONS - The measured velocity of a wave is a constant within a medium of set density. The density of our universe within any relatively short time period is certainly a constant. Therefore, if light were the result of some wave action [as we know wave action], the speed of light would indeed appear as a constant. But if light were a wave, as we know waves, there would need to be a medium (or ether). Ether cannot be detected as was proven by the MMX. Additionally, photons appear to be quantum particles of energy/m which do not need a medium. Therefore, from "Ockham's razor", if ether is not needed in the explanation, then ether probably does not exist. If there is no medium, then light cannot consist of waves, at least not as we generally think of waves. We need a method of measuring the absolute velocity of energy/m. A method which treats light as photons (or quantum particles of energy/m) with absolute and additive velocities. The problem with all current attempts to measure light's velocity is that the attempt to measure the absolute velocity of energy/m must always be done by timing the movement of the photons within a measuring device. If absolute and additive velocities as a theory is correct, then any measuring device is a local and closed system and would always measure the value of the absolute velocity of energy/m as the light speed constant (LSC), just as happens now. This is because any movement (or velocity) of the experiment itself would be immediately added to or subtracted from the photon's velocity by the entry of the photon into the experiment. In other words, a photon enters the experiment and is absorbed by at least one atom in the entryway. Then a new photon is ejected with the absolute and additive velocity of the entryway added to it. Therefore, the velocity of the experiment is always lost. This is one of Absolute S/T's main points and much of the argument rests on the correct realization of what is happening in atom-photon-atom interactions. The true absolute velocity of a photon from outside the atmosphere of the earth will most likely be impossible to measure on earth because it is almost certain to have interacted with at least one quantum particle or atom or molecule in the atmosphere. Since only a photon's velocity within a closed and local system is currently measurable, we may be forced to consider the Milky Way as our smallest natural closed and local system. This is because of the large number of free quantum particles, atoms and molecules of gas and dust within the galaxy. This would mean that all attempts to measure a naturally occurring absolute velocity of energy/m within the Milky Way may always obtain the same or nearly the same results of LSC. This is with no regard to a photon's actual velocity prior to entering any measuring device within the Milky Way which may simply be too "dirty". One problem is that the measurement of a photon's true absolute velocity prior to entering a measuring device is certainly impossible with current methodology. This is because in order to measure the velocity of a photon, you would need to measure the velocity of that photon completely independent of its entering any measuring device and independent of the velocity of that measuring device. In other words, all measurements need to be independent of the possibility of absolute and additive velocities. Any photon from a distant object, whose absolute velocity you would attempt to measure, must always enter the measuring device by interacting with the device. That is to say, the photon must come into the device through a window or lens. The photon which is measured is not the original photon, but rather a photon ejected by the window of the measuring device by the impact of the original photon on the window, or rather on the atoms of the window. When the photon interacts with the atoms of the window/lens, its velocity will be LSC plus the absolute and additive velocity of the window/lens as given by Equation 10 for absolute and additive velocities. These absolute and additive velocities are the absolute and additive velocities of the window of the measuring device through absolute S/T. Therefore, relative to itself, this can only produce the internal measurement of the light speed constant as LSC. If absolute and additive velocities are how the absolute velocity of photons is established, then the absolute velocity of photons will always seem to be LSC by any measuring device science now built. The actual value of the LSC, as far as we know, might even vary depending on the absolute energy/m of the source and receiving quantum particles and/or atoms. The particular makeup of the quantum particles and/or atoms may also cause variances in LSC. This is strongly suggested by the variety of answers obtained in speed of light experiments. These effects, if they exist, are most likely slight, but are the main reasons to call the light speed constant "LSC" rather than "C". Therefore, a restatement of Relativity's "irrefutable fact" number two is this "fact" from Absolute S/T. Absolute S/T's second "fact": "Even though all attempts to directly measure the absolute velocity of quantum particles of energy/m seems to yield the light speed constant (LSC), the actual, rather than measured, absolute velocity of each gluon varies as to whether that gluon's source quantum particle or atom is moving [absolute] or not. The actual absolute velocity of a gluon through our universe is the light speed constant (LSC) plus the absolute and additive velocity of the source quantum particle or atom. Additionally, the light speed constant (LSC) may not actually be a constant, but might instead be a variable with slight variations which could be based on such factors as the absolute energy/m state and/or composition of the photon's source quantum particle or atom. The naturally occurring absolute velocity of quantum particles of energy/m ejected by any mass/e can vary at any absolute velocity. The maximum absolute velocity of quantum particles of energy/m ejected by other quantum particles of energy/m or mass/e might reach any absolute velocity. Any experiment to test the validity of the theory of absolute and additive velocities can only be done in a complete vacuum. The interaction of the photons with even the random quantum particles, atoms and molecules throughout absolute S/T could destroy the validity of any experiment. It would seem that real world photon velocities greater than or less than LSC are only possible in complete vacuums, such as intergalactic S/T is thought to be. One possible experiment to test for absolute and additive velocities is the following. In a true vacuum, some of the photons from a fast moving, pulsing light source could be intercepted by a photon detector. [Possibly, we could use a quasar for the light source.] Not all of the photons of each pulse would be intercepted by the first detector and some of the remaining photons would then be intercepted by the second detector. These two detectors would be separated by some measured distance. From the difference in the time of the detection of each pulse, the true velocity of the photons could be calculated by this experiment. However, any or even very thinly dispersed quantum particles in the total distance of the path of the photons would change the results and could even make the absolute velocity of energy/m appear once again to be LSC. This might mean that this experiment would need to be done out beyond the Milky Way's influence. Or even further. If for a moment you can suspend belief in Relativity, then the proof of absolute and additive velocities is that the absolute velocity of energy/m is always measured as LSC, even if the source is moving and/or the receiver is moving. This would require that the curvature of Relativity's S/T be constantly changing. Curved S/T which is constantly adjusting to all the movements of the planets and stars is magic/k. The theory of absolute and additive velocities has no magic/k; but instead is what we encounter in every day life. It is just like what we encounter in the gun explanation of absolute and additive velocities. Both of these next two experiments have not had any calculations done. Both arms of the MMX have not been taken into account even in these non-calculations. Both experiments are offered as conjecture and may have little or no validity. The first of these possible experiments which would test for absolute and additive velocities is to run the MMX while it is being accelerated. It would be built similar to the original and one arm would be aligned in the direction of acceleration. If there is a true vacuum within the experiment, it seems to me that the photons moving across-the-current would lag behind the aiming point on the across-the-current mirror because of the acceleration. This would mean that the across-the-current beam could not return to its starting point. It would appear to be pushed downstream, as it were. The second possible experiment would be to try the MMX aboard a space shuttle which would be placed in a circular orbit. The experiment should be aligned so that one arm is in the direction of flight (or parallel-to-the-current) and the other arm is pointed away from the center of the earth (or across-the-current). Because of the nearly circular orbit, the mirror which is across-the-current moves further than the beam splitter. This might produce an answer, but might not since the effect would be minute. Unfortunately, I have not done the calculations, but think a large enough MMX might produce the desired effect. - ABSOLUTE S/T'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT S/T & MASS/E IN OUR UNIVERSE - The following is a list of the conclusions of Absolute S/T. There are some startling changes from Relativity. The list for Absolute S/T is - no relativistic decrease in the physical length of S/T, no relativistic decrease in the rate of time flow in S/T, no relativistic increase in the amount of mass/e, no speed of light limit, absolute energy/m, no need for simultaneity, absolute or relative measurements of S/T, no infinities & no black holes, no massless photons & no infinitesimal particles, the solution to the "Twin Paradox" and quantum particle gravity. - NO RELATIVISTIC DECREASE IN THE PHYSICAL LENGTH OF S/T - There is no mathematical need for the physical length to decrease once a photon's absolute velocity is shown to be the result of LSC plus the absolute and additive velocities of the source quantum particle or atom. Whether we use bullets or photons, the absolute and additive velocities are a full explanation of what actually happens in the MMX. When the absolute and additive velocities of the MMX itself are added to the vectored velocity components of the photon ejecting atoms, the amount of time in each direction always adds up to be the same without any decrease in the physical length. Therefore from "Ockham's razor", since a decrease in the physical length is not necessary, there is probably no decrease in the physical length. In the terminology of Lorentz's equation [Equation 04], in Absolute S/T the equation for physical Length as calculated (LC) becomes: Equation 11 LC= LM "LM" is Physical length as measured in any and all directions. In Absolute S/T, it makes no difference whether a length measurement is made with reference to a relative or an absolute scale (or grid) because the length will not and does not decrease. Both relative and absolute measurements of length are the same and therefore equal. - NO RELATIVISTIC DECREASE IN THE RATE OF TIME FLOW IN S/T - If there is no decrease in the physical length (or Distance), then there is no need for a decrease in the rate of time flow (or Time) to make the velocity (or Speed) appear as a constant. [As we have already seen, whenever we try to measure the absolute velocity of energy/m using the MMX or any other current methodology, we can only measure Relativity's speed of light constant (C) or Absolute S/T's light speed constant (LSC). This is because within any small local and closed system the absolute and additive velocities will be impossible to detect and light (or photons) will always appear to move at a constant or near constant velocity. And even though it has been shown that the light speed constant (LSC) may not actually be a true constant, we can still treat it as a constant for this example because it is so close to a constant in any case.] So as was shown by Equation 03, if Distance does not decrease, then Time need not decrease. That is, Time can not decrease if Speed is to remain a constant. If in Relativity, Distance and Time must shorten at the same rate; then in Absolute S/T, they both must remain unchanged at any absolute velocity. Once again applying "Ockham's razor", if there is no apparent need for a decrease in the rate of time flow, then it most likely does not happen. From this comes Absolute S/T's equation for the Time as computed (TC) which replaces Lorentz's equation [Equation 07]: Equation 12 TC= TM "TM" is the Time as measured. If a high-energy quantum particle physics experiment seems to indicate a decrease in the rate of time flow, that is because of the increase in the amount of mass/e. [There is an explanation of the increase in mass/e in the next section.] It is that from the increase in the amount of mass/e comes the appearance of a greater lifetime for certain high-energy quantum particles of mass/e. That is, at a higher velocity there is more of the quantum particle, therefore it takes longer to decay and thereby appears to have a longer lifetime. If a faster moving [absolute] clock seems to run slower then a slower moving [absolute] clock, this can also be easily explained by the greater mass/e of the faster moving clock. In Absolute S/T, it makes no difference whether a measurement of the rate of time flow is made relatively or absolutely because the rate of time flow will not and does not decrease under any conditions. - NO RELATIVISTIC INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF MASS/E - A velocity dependent increase in the amount of mass/e seems to happen. In high energy/m quantum particle experiments when we study two identical quantum particles of mass/e where one is moving at a greater velocity then the other one, don't we say the faster one has more energy/m? And wouldn't it therefore have more mass/e? [This leads once again to the question of how a quantum particle of mass/e knows that it is approaching the LSC. Though experimental work in particle accelerators shows mass/e increasing when accelerated, I think this is due to the fact of pumping up of the mass/e with applied energy/m. This is because each interaction of each quantum particle of energy/m being absorbed into the quantum particle of mass/e in order to make it go faster acts as a booster to the velocity, but also increases the mass/e of the quantum particle being accelerated. It keeps becoming larger and thereby more and more difficult to accelerate. This phenomena probably would not be observed if the mass/e was pushed from behind as in the case of a spaceship. This is different because the spaceship would not be limited by electromagnetic action and limited to the LSC.] In order to make any quantum particle of mass/e go faster in an accelerator [relative or absolute], it must be bombarded with additional energy/m. This additional energy/m then appears as an additional amount of mass/e. This is because the individual photons have slowed from their absolute velocities as quantum particles of energy/m to a zero [relative] velocity as they are absorbed by the quantum particle of mass/e which is being accelerated. Simply stated - A quantum particle of mass/e which is being accelerated [in an accelerator] has more mass/e then at rest (or slower moving) because it has more energy/m. [Equation 08] However, in Absolute S/T we are only concerned with real life situations not quantum particle accelerators. The following is my answer to equation 08 where the Mass/e as calculated (MC) is: Equation 13 MC= MM "MM" is the amount of Mass/e that there would be if the subject quantum particle of mass/e was measured at rest [absolute]. Equation 13 is definitely not true in accelerators where equation 08 must be used. The amount of mass/e of a quantum particle of mass/e in an accelerator will increase with any increase in its relative [or absolute] velocity. In other words, the absorbed energy/m used to accelerate the subject quantum particle of mass/e becomes mass/e as it is absorbed. The reason that it is not a straight line rate of increase is because the faster relative [or absolute] any quantum particle of mass/e is made to accelerate, the greater the amount of energy/m that must be absorbed in affecting further changes in the relative [or absolute] velocity. Faster moving relative [or absolute] mass/e simply always has more absolute mass/e which then must be made to accelerate. Thus always taking the addition of more and more energy/m to effect less and less change in the absolute velocity of a given quantum particle of mass/e. Again, all of this would only seem to happen only during acceleration in an accelerator. After the final velocity was reached and acceleration stops, the object could cool by radiating excess energy/m while maintaining its relative [or absolute] straight line velocity. This is all well and good, but it does not necessarily follow that a spaceship being pushed by some form of thrust would act the same way. The spaceship is not taking in energy/m, but rather expelling energy/m. - NO SPEED OF LIGHT LIMIT - The mass/e of a spaceship stays constant except for the loss of propellant. Since the effect of increased mass/e does not happen to a spaceship, its physical mass/e stays constant. Think of it this way, how would the spaceship itself know how fast it was going. Therefore, I see no further barrier to travel at plus light speed. No barriers, except of course for the need for an incredible amount of energy/m for propulsion and the development of technology that would make this all possible. Future generations could quite possibly make this possible. - ABSOLUTE ENERGY/M - If the amount of mass/e is measured on an absolute scale, then, since it is really the same thing, the amount of energy/m must also be measured on an absolute scale. As was explained in the section on "RELATIVE AND SPEED-DEPENDENT ENERGY/M", the "M" of Equation 09 is for a mass/e at rest [relative]. [Relativity assumes this is true.] For all practical purposes, no known mass/e in our universe is at rest [absolute]. Of course, it is possible to imagine such a case, but it certainly would not be possible at present to measure it. Absolute S/T's equation for Energy/m (E) is [so far] similar to Equation 01: Equation 14 E = MM ( LSC )² "MM" is mass/e as measured. In Relativity, there is the situation where the "MC" and the "MM" of Equation 08 are considered the same thing because there is considered to be no relative [or absolute] motion. Absolute S/T also considers the "MM" of Equation 13 the same when velocity is measured on any scale. Equation 14 is a shorthand version of the equation for absolute energy/m. Even though this is unsteady ground, let's now try a little tweak of Equation 14. This equation always seemed arbitrary and was of course derived from Relativistic formulas. One electron = 9.109 * 10 -28 grams So if Relativity is correct with E = MC2 then: E = ( 9.109 * 10 -28 grams ) * ( 29,979,245,800 centimeter / second ) 2 E = 8.1867 * 10 -7 erg However: One positron (or anti-electron) = 9.109 * 10 -28 grams When an electron and a positron meet, they are both annihilated producing two gamma rays. So one electron (or one positron) can be said to equal one gamma ray. Gamma rays are the most powerful photons known. Gamma rays have energy/m equal to about 10 9 electron volts (eV). eV = 1.60207 * 10 -12 erg 10 9 eV = 1.60207 * 10 -3 erg One electron is therefore equal to 1.60207 * 10 -3 erg The obvious problem is that Relativity says one electron is equal to 8.1867 * 10 -7 erg Equation 14A E = MM ( LSC )² * tweak tweak = E = 1.60207 * 10 -3 erg = 1956.9 MM ( LSC ) 2 9.1867 * 10 -7 erg But wait, a photon's energy/m is also said to be equal to Planck's constant times its frequency. Planck's constant = 6.626 * 10 -27 erg-seconds Frequency of a gamma ray = 10 18 Hz (cycles/second) E = 6.626 * 10 -9 erg tweak = E = 6.626 * 10 -9 erg = 0.0072126 MM ( LSC ) 2 9.1867 * 10 -7erg I must have an error in my math. Can someone help? Is this important? I don't know. I leave it up to you! - NO NEED FOR SIMULTANEITY - Simultaneity has become unnecessary. Since physical length, rate of time flow and mass/e are absolutes and they do not change, there is nothing which needs to be simultaneous. Simultaneity is thereby simply eliminated by a lack of a need for it. ["Ockham's razor" strikes again.] - ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE MEASUREMENTS OF S/T - Physical length, rate of time flow and mass/e can be measured relatively or absolutely because either method will produce equal and identical results. Motion can be measured on a relative scale or an absolute scale depending only on the problem at hand, since both methods will produce equal and identical results. [It would seem that all earth related problems can most easily be solved with all measurements made relative to our solar system and/or the sun, but could with equal accuracy use any zero point. I am thinking that the center may have no influence as being the center.] - NO INFINITIES & NO BLACK HOLES - Relativity teaches us that there are infinities and infinitesimals in our universe. Relativity is incorrect. Space and time are linear. All measurements are finite. Also, in what we measure as a black hole of, we will say, hundred solar masses, obviously there can be no infinity of any kind. If there were, then we would measure its mass/e as infinite instead of as the hundred solar masses we do measure. I would go so far as to say - Most likely, there is no such thing as a physical infinity within our universe. There are undoubtedly what I would call "Gray Holes", stellar bodies with great mass/e. However, I doubt that any stellar body can reach a mass/e of such great proportions as to be called "Black Holes". This would require a certain amount of magic/k. - NO MASSLESS PHOTONS & NO INFINITESIMAL PARTICLES - I feel certain that a photon has some tiny mass/e because it has energy/m. Of course, a photon is a very tiny quantum particle of mass/e. In fact, up until now the photon has been thought of as having no mass/e. However, because it has energy/m, a photon must have some mass/e. Furthermore, I will state that there are no infinitesimal quantum particles since they all have energy/m and therefore mass/e. - THE SOLUTION TO THE "TWIN PARADOX" - The "Twin Paradox" does not exist because it is based on a mistaken assumption. Time does not decrease its rate of flow based on the measurement of the velocity of the mass/e or for any other reason. The rate of time flow is fixed. The twins, Stayed and Went, will actually age at exactly the same rates, regardless of their relative or absolute velocities. The reason that quantum particles of mass/e at higher velocities seem to have a slower rate of time flow is because they have an increase in their amount of mass/e. That is an increase in mass/e compared to a stationary quantum particle of mass/e of the same type and starting size and it only happens in accelerators. There is simply more of the quantum particle of mass/e at higher velocity. And because of this increased mass/e, it takes longer for a faster moving [absolute] quantum particle of mass/e to disintegrate into other quantum particles in high-energy quantum particle experiments. [The results of the disintegration can be quantum particles of either mass/e or energy/m.] This is the reason that the rate of time flow of faster moving quantum particles of mass/e seems to have been extended. If Went's mass/e is allowed to increase in this manner, he would burn up. Any living being would need to be cooled and isolated from their accelerating starship as they approached some undetermined but maybe not too high a percentage of the light speed constant. Therefore, even the apparent effect of decrease in the rate of time flow which occurs in quantum particle physics experiments would not (or could not) occur to a living being without serious damage to that living being, as they would simply burn-up. - QUANTUM PARTICLE GRAVITY - Once the realization of what was evolving in my studies became apparent, the primary objective of these studies became the elimination of the need for any kind of decrease in S/T (or special geometry) in the explanation of the MMX. Since the special geometry used by Relativity to explain the MMX has been eliminated, gravity can no longer be considered the result of some form of special geometry. Now there is no curvature of absolute S/T to be used as the explanation of the force of gravitation. If gravity is not the result of a curvature of S/T and therefore not explained by some kind of special geometry, the way is then open for a new explanation. For a starting point, how about this - The amount of light transmitted over a distance varies inversely as to the square of the distance and the force of gravity measured over a distance varies inversely as to the square of the distance. Why the same equation for both gluons and gravity? Don't you think this points to their similarity? Since Absolute S/T allows the use of ordinary geometry, the force of gravitation can be explained by the exchange of quantum particles of energy/m. This is very much like quantum theory has always seemed to indicate -- quantum particle gravity. Absolute S/T proposes that the force of gravitation is the force which results from the almost constant exchange of discrete and very tiny quantum particles of energy/m between quantum particles of mass/e. The force of gravity's quantum particles of energy/m are a kind of very tiny gluon we will call "gravitons" as proposed by quantum gravity theory. Every quantum particle of mass/e is constantly giving off a steady stream in every direction of these gravitons. Gravity feels like a force [as does magnetism] and even looks like curved S/T, but it is actually the exchange of quantum particles of energy/m (or gravitons) between quantum particles of mass/e. [This is a similar effect to the one produced by the electromagnetic gluon (or photon) in creating magnetism.] Relative to their source atom or quantum particle of mass/e, gravitons seem to travel at LSC, the same as other gluons. These gravitons are traveling at absolute velocities of zero to 2LSC. It is the exchange of these tiny and probably undetectable [individually] and immeasurable [individually] gravitons which causes the appearance of the force of gravitation. [Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle" would seem to make detection and measurement of an individual graviton impossible. They are simply to small to measure.] Indirectly Relativity showed that the exchange of gluons could take place between gluons. If absolute S/T is not curved, then how else could gravity bend light except by the exchange of gravitons with photons? The bending of light's path from distant stars by the sun has been demonstrated many times. However, it seems likely that gravitons can and do interact with photons and thereby cause this phenomenon. In any amount (or piece) of mass/e, the number of gravitons which gets out must be proportional to the actual amount of mass/e and possibly the surface area of the subject mass/e. [This may explain the new proposed fifth and sixth forces.] Most of the gravitons which are emitted by any piece of mass/e seem to be absorbed by other parts of that same mass/e. This is what makes every piece of mass/e stick together. It would seem that it is mostly those gravitons emitted near enough to the surface to escape which end up creating the appearance of gravity to other pieces of mass/e. [A good analogy of this is any hot piece of mass/e such as an ingot of pig iron being allowed to return to room temperature. The molecules at the surface cool the fastest and the molecules at the center take longest to cool. All of the molecules in the ingot of pig iron start out radiating their energy/m (or photons) at the same rate. However, the molecules at the center are being bombarded by other molecule's photons from all directions while the molecules at the surface are only bombarded from inside the hot body. Half of the surface molecule's radiated photons escape from the hot body. Therefore, the surface cools first. This is the same process by which the earth has cooled. I think gravitons escape from every individual piece of mass/e in a similar manner.] If Absolute S/T is correct, there seems to be some more changes in the way which we will think about gravity. An isolated piece of mass/e should lose some of its mass/e as gravity. The amount of isolation is an unknown factor. Unreplaced gravitons, which are quantum particles of energy/m, are constantly being ejected out as gravity. Since by being isolated it would give off the normal number of gravitons but would receive very few, there should be some amount of mass/e loss. [Open absolute S/T must be full of gravitons. This might explain why galaxies seem to have greater internal gravity than expected by previous theories.] None of this seems possible at this time to test or measure. Also, if Absolute S/T is correct, it would seem there might be some change in the force of gravity with an increase in temperature. The greater energy/m of the object might cause more gravitons per unit of time to be thrown off. This effect, if present at all, must be very small. There seems to be no experimental method to test the difference between Relativity's curved S/T and Absolute S/T's gravitons. We cannot measure either curved S/T or individual gravitons. However, the ideas about gravitons closely match quantum theory's thinking and have less magic/k than curved S/T. ※※※※※※ 换只角度看世界,世界更精彩! |