Faster than Light

Pentcho Valev

Variable Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)

The animations clearly show that, when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source, the speed of the pulses relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary observer)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving observer)

The following interpretations of the Doppler effect teach the same thing: For any waves, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source, the speed of the waves relative to the observer increases, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf

"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

One of your favourite references is Pound and Rebka's paper, when you make your claim about increase in light speed in gravitational field contrary to Einstein's prediction. I asked you in a previous post if actually you have read the paper but you did not answer. Pay attention to the second to the last paragraph.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

Pound and Rebka are experimentalists so I am not very interested in their interpretations. I am not sure but as far as I remember, there is some dubious text in their paper from which you infer that they have measured DECREASING frequency for falling light. If that is the problem, I think your inference is incorrect - the frequency they have measured is INCREASING. Both relativists and antirelativists claim it is increasing, and a single dubious text written by two experimentalists cannot be a serious counterargument.

Pentcho Valev

Variable Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)

Columbia University: "When an observer is moving away from the transmitter of a wave (light or sound) the wave crests arrive at the observer more slowly than expected."

Correct. Any sane scientist knows that the speed of the wavecrests (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, which is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course. It takes insanity (or extreme dishonesty) to claim that the motion of the observer miraculously changes the distance between wavecrests so that their speed relative to the observer can remain unchanged. Examples of insanity:

"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

"Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)."

"...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. (...) The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)."

Pentcho Valev

Steve Dufourny

Hi,

c'=c+v is not possible.Thephotons bosons cannot pass c .Please it is a postulate of the special relativity.If you said that it is possible with particles of gravitation speeder than c ,ok but there it is not possible you know.

John Cox

You're wasting your breath, Steve,

Pentcho argues against Relativity and rejects the second postulate in favor of Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics. There is a good argument that the only reason Quantum Mechanics can even accept light velocity as a limit is that at inception, Spin subsumed the c+v value of the surface charge on an electron in the Newtonian gravitational atomic model in 'normalizing' the time parameter to '1'. Hence forward, in QM the observer dependent collapse of the wavefunction from a random probability state to a positional state of a zero point particle, does not provide any realistic rationale of a volumetric particle. Essentially, the QM time parameter is existential AT light velocity and is only compatible with SR because mathematically in SR if the particle is already in motion at light speed, time (for that particle) stops, and it only travels through space, not also time. So mathematically in QM, entanglement is a foregone conclusion because any motion of the unphysical QM zero point particle would be a value of c+v. Don't blame me, I think QM needs reconciliation of yet another 'collapse' function which given the 2D complex probability space would be a c^2 proportion quadratically, and be commensurate with a proportionality constant of energy density relative to any specific mass quantity. And that would provide a maximum density bound of a theoretical free rest mass to postulate a general definition of inertia, which in such an inertial reference frame, the Newtonian regime is quite workable in delineating a full field unified particle volume. It's just not in the public domain. ;)

Steve Dufourny

Hello Mr Cox,

I don't blame you :) ,I search to find a rationality at these reasonings.I amasking me if the QFT and the QED can be formalised correctly without this special relativity, the lagrangian and the divergences and Feynman ? c is essential for the correct quantization mass energy , density and forces.The spherical volumes and the S3 and SO3 can be harmonised with particles of gravitation which are them able to pass c.The renormalisation must be simple and elegant.I have difficulties to accept that photons bosons can pass c, that said it is possible in logic with spherons, particles of gravitation.The dark matter is the secret for gavitation.Probably that these particles are produced by our BH.I am asking me how is it possible to renormalise the correct serie of uniqueness encoding these spherons.It is a different energy than our sandard model it seems to me.c is essential for the different steps before this gravitation at quantum scale.Perhaps we can utilise these photons to light the spherons.It will permit to see them if they are black .Now the speed is very important, more than c so ?Have you an idea to light these particles ?

John Cox

Steve,

Perhaps not surprisingly, in a Newtonian regime it is only the lack of a general definition of inertia that results in the computational values of c+v for measurements between two or more individually closed inertial systems in relative motion. Keep in mind that it is the Galilean definition of inertia that Newton had to work with, and that definition is entirely operational between two masses, not general; a mass in motion tends to remain in motion, and a mass at rest tends to remain at rest. The question that the Newtonian regime has not asked of itself is simply this: 'What is it about inertia that is essentially the same for any given mass, regardless of the state of its motion?' It would naturally follow from a concise answer for that, that any motion would have a covariant effect on the parameters of any given mass. Lacking that 'right' question, presumes that light velocity would or could be exceeded in a Newtonian regime, when quite the opposite obtains from a unified field model of a background independent theoretical free rest mass. Nor does gravitation require 'an exchange particle', it is a simply connected interaction of regions of individual inertial field volumes. Also, currently, the lack of a volumetric model of light treats it as a transverse wave rather than a physical waveform that does sustain a constant finite velocity without reference to anything else. So the Doppler effect is simply that the number of waves detected reads as a different frequency when the actual wavelength is unaltered. I think I'll leave it at that. :-) jrc

Steve Dufourny

There is a problem with gravitation at quantum scale, tending to infinity.The spherical volumes answer.Gravitation is a force and needs a causality.The essays of penrose for this gravitation or the loop quantum gravity or thestrings or the geometricalalgebras ....are not really rational considering the link Quant/Cosmol.The gravitation is a natural equilibrium correlated with rotations of sphères.If we want to find what is this weak quantum force ,so we must consider a cause.This cause has nothing to do with the electromagnetism ,heat and thermo and standard model.A kind of quantum dark matter ,with main primordial gravit codes encode spherons above this standard model.It is evident , the relevance is about the spherical volumes and the number.The nuclei have a serie of volumes increasing towards the gravitational singularity, the biggest sphere.This main code encodes the smallest spherons produced in logic by the central universal sphere.See that the BH are less numerous but produce a number more important than photons bosons produced them by stars.The universe is a relative foto of our quantum serie in its uniqueness serie, finite.Probably the primes can help.The fact tohave a centralsphere for both the quantum and the cosmological scales permistto link all by an universal gravitation.The weak rotation of this central sphere is linked withall the others sphères.If the newtonian mechanic is relative, we see this gravitation.The general relativity and the quantum gravitation are unified in fact simply with the sphères.If my second equation is correct about matter energy equivalence, it becomes relevant.E=mc² is a prison, E=mc²+ml² is the door :)Rotations, spherisation, sphères.................

Pentcho Valev

Einstein disfigured space and time in order to keep the speed of light (relative to the observer) constant, no matter how fast the observer is moving (even though this constancy looked nonsense to Einstein):

John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

Yet the speed of light obviously remains variable, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency of the pulses to be f = c/d:

Stationary observer

The observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the measured frequency shifts from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d (Doppler effect):

Moving observer

Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ?

Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer shifts from c to c' = c+v.

Answer 2 (possibly saving Einstein's relativity): Because...

There is no reasonable statement that could become Answer 2.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, the tool by which Einstein killed physics, is worshiped by Einsteinians as "a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order":

Neil deGrasse Tyson, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order."

Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move."

David Tong: "Special relativity is where the famous equation E=mc^2 comes from. The central idea of the theory is that there is a speed limit in our Universe. The laws of physics conspire so that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light."

Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour."

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."

Pentcho Valev

The Obvious Falsehood of Einstein's Relativity

It is extremely easy to show that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

David Tong: "The rocket has height h. It starts from rest, and moves with constant acceleration g. Light emitted from the top of the rocket is received below. By this time, the rocket is travelling at speed v=gt=gh/c. This gives rise to the Doppler effect. (Neglecting relativistic effects). f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2), where f' is received frequency and f is emitted frequency."

Since f=c/λ (λ is the wavelength), we have

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light relative to the receiver (the bottom of the rocket).

Clearly the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Actually any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) proves, explicitly or implicitly, this variation:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer."

Pentcho Valev

Inconstant Speed of Light (End of Einstein) and Crimestop

"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

Discussing the inconstancy of the speed of light without even hinting that this marks the end of Einstein's relativity? George Orwell explains:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

If it hadn't been for crimestop, Einstein's relativity would have been long discarded - the inconstancy of the speed of light has been abundantly proved experimentally:

"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. (...) The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

Pentcho Valev

Hey Sabine Hossenfelder, Please stop talking nonsense about relativity.

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Hey Bill Nye, Please stop talking nonsense about quantum mechanics. (...) Once you can send information faster than the speed of light, you can also send it back in time. If you can send information back in time, you can create inconsistent histories, that is, you can create various different pasts, a problem commonly known as "grandfather paradox:" What happens if you travel back in time and kill your grandpa? Will Marty McFly be born if he doesn't get his mom to dance with his dad? Exactly this problem."

This is much sillier than Bill Nye's wisdoms. Faster-than-light signaling does disprove Einstein's relativity but in a different way. In the example below, if the deactivation device is able to send a faster-than-light signal to the bomb, then special relativity ends up in a contradiction: the bomb explodes in the frame of the train but does not in the frame of the tunnel:

pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"

There is a much easier way to disprove Einstein's relativity. The Doppler effect unequivocally shows that the speed of light is not constant:

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

stationary receiver

moving receiver

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Luboš Motl: "Hey Bill Nye, please stop talking nonsense about quantum mechanics (...) As Einstein figured out in 1905 when he discovered the special theory of relativity, no information can ever propagate faster than the speed of light (in the vacuum) let alone instantaneously. If this were possible, the Lorentz symmetry - the right way to switch to the perspective of a different inertial observer - would allow us to describe the same causation as a sequence of events where the effect has preceded the cause. It's clearly impossible."

In their early education Sabine Hossenfelder and Luboš Motl were forced to repeat wisdoms of this kind until in the end both of them got the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

Bingo (Chris Landreth, 1998)

A clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless zombies: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev

Steve Dufourny

in the works of people, there are thesis, postulates, équations,hypothesis.Lubos Motl is a thinker, an intelligent person.He searchs, he thinks, he tries to find universal links.The gravitation is a different force and so it is not Under the special relativity.The strings and specially the M Theory has several relevances considering the spherical volumes.A photon boson cannot pass c.But the particles of gravitation yes in logic.The special relativity is respected because these particles aren't baryonic and so not Under c.The dark matter needs and explaination, and our gravitation also.Both of them can be harmonised.A photon cannot, a particle of gravitation yes.The relativity is correct but we must imrpove our standard model.It is like a prison this special relativity.We are travellers from stars and the gravitation and particles of gravitation permit to travel more quickly simply.The aether is gravitational,not luminerous.food for thought....

Steve Dufourny

It is logic in fact to analyse this gravitation correlated with the rotation of sphères.The sphères turn naturally due to this central cosmological sphere.We wee that all sphères turn andit is not due to thermodynamical énergies.The BB needs a real imrpovement even.The quantum singularities are connected with thiscosmological singularity.Furthermore this center produces this gravitational aether.We can see that this force is not thermodynamican , it is even not relativistic.

Pentcho Valev

Inconstant-speed-of-light or faster-than-light observations are never discussed in detail and get quickly forgotten. There are countless of them: the explanation is usually mysterious and gives some silly reason why Einstein's relativity is by no means in danger. A few examples:

"Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department. Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500. (...) While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon."

"This is exactly what the EPFL team has demonstrated. Using their Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) method, the group was able to slow a light signal down by a factor of 3.6, creating a sort of temporary "optical memory." They were also able to create extreme conditions in which the light signal travelled faster than 300 million meters a second. And even though this seems to violate all sorts of cherished physical assumptions, Einstein needn't move over - relativity isn't called into question, because only a portion of the signal is affected."

"The technique developed at NIST is called four-wave mixing, and it works by altering some parts of each individual light pulse. This makes the light move forward faster than it normally would when traveling through a vacuum. (...) The physicists explain that the new research does not violate Albert Einstein's theory on general relativity - which states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest achievable in the Universe. They say that a sort of loophole exists in this theory. By careful tuning of the light source and advanced calculations, it is possible to nudge portions of the light pulses so that they arrive at their destination ahead or behind the main pulse. (...) With four-wave mixing, the NIST investigators produced laser pulses that arrived at their destination a full 50 nanoseconds faster than photons traveling through a vacuum."

"A nano-sized bar of glass encased in silver allows visible light to pass through at near infinite speed. The technique may spur advances in optical computing. (...) In a vacuum the refractive index is 1, and the speed of light cannot break Einstein's universal limit of 300,000 kilometres per second. Normal materials have positive indexes, and they transmit at the speed of light in a vacuum divided by their refractive index. Ordinary glass, for instance, has an index of about 1.5, so light moves through it at about 200,000 kilometres per second. The new material contains a nano-scale structure that guides light waves through the metal-coated glass. It is the first with a refractive index below 0.1, which means that light passes through it at almost infinite speed, says Albert Polman at the FOM Institute AMOLF in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. But the speed of light has not, technically, been broken. The wave is moving quickly, but its "group velocity" the speed at which information is travelling is near zero."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Dear Professor JOГѓO MAGUEIJO.

Hello from Shailesh Kadakia, the author of books on Light wave physics and Astronomy and Committee Member Boundless Project Magazine. I am inspired and fascinated by your papers on VSL theory. I did extensive research in the field and summarized in a white paper "Unique concepts of Skylativity". I am interested in your take on the subject matter. Therefore, I am sending you a copy of white paper and text of message that I sent to experts in physics and Cosmology. I look forward to your response.

March 14, 2016

Dear Professors and Editorial staff of journals.

Dr. Gerardo Dominguez, Dr. Michael Burin, Dr. Charles De Leone, and Dr. Ahmad Hadaegh at CSU SM, CA

Editorial Staff

Astronomy

The Planetary Report

Microwave&rf

Spectroscopy

Laser Focus World

Popular Mechanics

Discover

Professors

Dr. Michael Kotlarchyk, RIT Rochester, NY

Dr. William Wieserman, Penn Run, PA

Dr. Munawar Karim, St. John Fisher College, NY

Dr. Francisco Ben, Tabor, Adelaide Australia

Dr. Steven Manly, University of Rochester, NY

Dr. Keith Hipel, Waterloo Engineering, Canada

John O'Reilly, Mathnasium Carlsbad, CA

Hello from Shailesh Kadakia, the author of books about the origin of Radiations and forces of gravity. I am glad to introduce myself as honorary member of International Scientific Committee of Boundless Project Magazine to be published in Italy, managed by team leaders Pierluigi Tombetti and Paolo Latini. Also, I read Astronomy, Discover, Laser Focus World, Spectroscopy, The Planetary Report, Microwaves and rf, and Popular Mechanics journals regularly. The contents of articles within the magazines answered several questions about the origin of the Universe and provided fascinating information on stellar entities Black holes, Neutron stars, and etc. However very little details on internal composition of matter within the black holes was discussed. Therefore, pioneer physicists Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking efforts inspired me to extend the research and investigate the composition of matter in the core of a black hole.

Every one of us have a eureka moment in our lifetime. I wish to share my eureka moment with you. Therefore few weeks ago, I wrote a white paper titled "Unique Concepts of SkylativityВ®" . In the paper, I have discussed details about the unique nature and the origin of all varieties of radiations. Furthermore, I have presented cause for the forces of gravity among objects at a nanoscopic level. In addition, I developed a theory which portrays a sense that singularity does not exist within black holes. I share with you the paper and wish to get your take on the ideas. Therefore, I am e-mailing the white paper in pdf format and a flyer of Boundless Project Magazine. I wish the ideas presented in the paper will be recognized by physics community for the benefit of Astrophysics faculty. Another purpose of sending this message is to provide you an opportunity for peer review.

I look forward to read your comments and suggestions. We wish you (me and my wife Carole) a pleasant summer and happy pi (пЃ°) day.

Sincerely,

Shailesh Kadakia BE (Hon.), MSE(USA)

Founder, MATRIX Writers & Publishers

Math Instructor, Mathnasium

2530 Bear Valley Pkwy, Unit 210

Escondido, CA 92027

Mobile: (760) 421-3958

Website: www.Skylativity.com and E-mail: Shailesh.mwp@gmail.comAttachment #1: Boundless_project_def_flyer.pdf

Steve Agnew

Clogging the blog with replies to yourself should be blocked. The weblords of the cloud can help prevent the disease of unrelenting discourse by immediately blocking of self aggrandizement as selfish blog replies...

« Previous Page Next Page »