Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

doug,

What observation says is that motion does the job. If the nugget is at rest in the QV it has to wait for recycling (over 5bn yrs.) If in motion it propagates builds up an ion shock (pair production) which increases it's mass and interacts (i.e. ionises) it's surface particles.

It will then weigh more as fermions have G mass, as do the protons they spawn. Put a set of scales in front of it's path and you'll see the difference. it's the DFM real physical difference between rest and inertial mass (see my 2010 essay).

Your suggestion is then largely correct; The continuum energy has 'become' part of the inertial system by condensing matter. It's purely a phase transition. unfortunately it's not all gold. The real pot of gold is the theory itself. Unfortunately, like the fermions, it seems it's initially invisible.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter ,

Thank you.

Yes, I agree. But the mass cannot be going to fast because as it travels it loses mass as it becomes Space. The Space collapses to become mass (i.e. virtual particles collapsed from space become massive particles). Everything is attempting to reach equilibrium. Time Equilibrium! MTS

Separately -

Going back a few posts:

In a Quasar Cluster Kill post I said:

The Dark Matter halo surrounding Huge-LQG should be darker than the halo of smaller surrounding galaxies, as the gravitational pullback on light in Huge-LQG slows it down to a greater degree than the smaller galaxies will, and it therefore the newly created space manifests itself as denser "New Heavy Dark Matter Space". Is the technology available to confirm this?

CIG allows for the quasar cluster as it offers a varying cosmological non-constant. These occurrences (i.e. the grouping of large galaxies) are no different than the presence of a large molecule in a sea of hydrogen.

So, I should have said "should be lighter" ?????

Unifying the Ununifiable in Divine Albert's World

The Newtonian conception of time is (implicitly) based on the assumption that the speed of light, as measured by the observer/receiver, varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v), just like the speed of ordinary projectiles. Einstein replaced this assumption with its antithesis, his 1905 second postulate - the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c) - and deduced an absurd conception of time incompatible (even incommensurable) with the Newtonian one:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

Obviously if c'=c+v is true, c'=c is false and vice versa. Accordingly, it would be logically absurd to unify conceptions and theories based on c'=c+v and conceptions and theories based on c'=c. Yet in Divine Albert's world nothing is logically absurd ("anything goes") as long as all those conceptions and theories "do really well in their own domain":

Craig Callender: "Just as you said, Shane, the conception of time that quantum mechanics uses really is mostly classical. You can extend it to special relativity, and even there, you have some problems, but you are using this, essentially, Newtonian conception of time. Of course, that raises the big question, the million dollar question about how to unify quantum theory with relativity, since they both seem to do really well in their own domain." (see the interview in print here).

How can two theories both "do really well in their own domain" if at least one of them is based on a false assumption? The short answer is: At least one of the theories is an inconsistency. Here are more elaborate answers:

W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

Pentcho Valev

Hi Pentcho,

As I understand it,

c = c v = c - v = c

Proton Radius problem:

My current thoughts:

By using the muon, one has approached the proton field within the field customarily seen differently when using the electron.

For instance, the heavier the object (muon versus electron), the denser the field and the tighter it will appear when measuring the proton radius. Therefore, the radius of the proton will appear smaller than when measuring with an electron as your ruler. As an extreme analogy, measure it with a Dark Energy field and the proton radius will be much greater. Now measure it with a Black Hole, and it will be much smaller. The radius of the proton has not changed. The calibration of the tool (ruler) that you used to measure it has changed. The denser (and slower) muon reflects a different measurement since the field it is calibrated to is tighter and reflects the proton at a denser spacetime measurement point.

One's ruler varies with its own spacetime calibration. The tighter the curvature of ones ruler, the smaller will be the proton radius measured.

For correlating ideas please refer to: www.cigtheory.com

THX for trying to understand

doug

Speed of Light Relative to a Moving Observer

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. Pay attention to the velocity of the wave relative to the observer. When an observer moves away from a stationary source, the period of the wave emitted by a source is longer and the observed frequency is lower. Because the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

The variation of the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) with the speed of the observer holds for all kinds of waves and is fatal for special relativity. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the above video concerns only sound waves while for light waves the picture is different. Is it? No, the picture for light waves is exactly the same:

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Note however that Dr Ricardo Eusebi does not see the variation of the speed of the wave with the speed of the observer. Why? Because in Divine Albert's world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is valid and Dr Ricardo Eusebi obeys it:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev

The Fundamental Equation of Special Relativity

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. Pay attention to the velocity of the wave relative to the observer. When an observer moves away from a stationary source, the period of the wave emitted by a source is longer and the observed frequency is lower. Because the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

The observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v. The frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c-v)/d, where d is the distance between the pulses. (If v is small enough, the formula f'=(c-v)/d is virtually exact no matter whether the classical or relativistic Doppler effect is considered.)

The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is:

c' = d*f' = c - v = c

where c - v = c is the fundamental equation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Considering that General relativity also predicts that clocks in different gravitational fields can run at different rates;

And whereas, given the signal retardation by solar gravity, it has been demonstrated that this time dilation predicted by general relativity also applies to light transit time over a given distance and not just the frequency of atomic clocks alone;

May I propose that using the same instrumental set-up that established light velocity value over a distance as 299792458m/s, that the velocity of light be measured in the flatter and freer space-times in space to find out if Einstein's statement is vindicated, page 903, "From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location,...".

Regards,

Akinbo

The Metamorphisis of the Ideal Gas Law into CIG Theory's MTS Equation - a New Interpretation (adulteration!) of the Ideal Gas Law

From Wiki:

The ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation to the behaviour of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations. It was first stated by Émile Clapeyron in 1834 as a combination of Boyle's law and Charles' law. The ideal gas law is often introduced in its common form:

PV=nRT,

where P is the absolute pressure of the gas, V is the volume of the gas, n is the amount of substance of gas (measured in moles), T is the absolute temperature of the gas and R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant.

END Wiki

From CIG Theory:

MTS where: M = matter (and its presence resulting from the curvature of spacetime - the S/T portion of the equation using vector Time), T = forward reverse vector Time and based on %c, and S = Space itself though at various field densities (again, equivalent as M using the equation - with the extreme being pur vacuum energy)

SEE ALL PRIOR POSTS

METAMORPHISIS

Let T (from Ideal Gas Law) = temperature = movement of the particles = % "c" = Time in the MTS equation (recall that T in CIG Theory = %"c"

Let V = Volume (from Ideal Gas Law) = S (in CIG Theory) = Space = the new and various spatial volumes (in their respective field) created as a result of mass traveling at various rates (temperatures)

Let P = Pressure (from the ideal Gas Law) = it disappears in the MTS Cig Theory = because the is no constraint within CIG Theory (no outer boundary that restricts the vessel walls)

Let n = the amount of substance of gas (measured in moles)(from ideal Gas Law) = M = Matter in CIG Theory = the actual mass/matter/substance that has weight (is actually there)

Enter Wiki Again:

The gas constant (also known as the molar, universal, or ideal gas constant, denoted by the symbol R or R) is a physical constant which is featured in many fundamental equations in the physical sciences, such as the ideal gas law and the Nernst equation.

It is equivalent to the Boltzmann constant, but expressed in units of energy (i.e. the pressure-volume product) per temperature increment per mole (rather than energy per temperature increment per particle). The constant is also a combination of the constants from Boyle's law, Charles's law, Avogadro's law, and Gay-Lussac's law.

Physically, the gas constant is the constant of proportionality that happens to relate the energy scale in physics to the temperature scale, when a mole of particles at the stated temperature is being considered. Thus, the value of the gas constant ultimately derives from historical decisions and accidents in the setting of the energy and temperature scales, plus similar historical setting of the value of the molar scale used for the counting of particles. The last factor is not a consideration in the value of the Boltzmann constant, which does a similar job of equating linear energy and temperature scales.

END Wiki: because I didn't really understand what is happening (i.e.the gas constant ultimately derives from historical decisions and accidents in the setting of the energy and temperature scales, plus similar historical setting of the value of the molar scale used for the counting of particles.)

REPEAT of the above:

METAMORPHISIS

Let T (from Ideal Gas Law) = temperature = movement of the particles = % "c" = Time in the MTS equation (recall that T in CIG Theory = %"c"

Let V = Volume (from Ideal Gas Law) = S (in CIG Theory) = Space = the new and various spatial volumes (in their respective field) created as a result of mass traveling at various rates (temperatures)

Let P = Pressure (from the ideal Gas Law) = it disappears in the MTS Cig Theory = because the is no constraint within CIG Theory (no outer boundary that restricts the vessel walls)

Let n = the amount of substance of gas (measured in moles)(from ideal Gas Law) = M = Matter in CIG Theory = the actual mass/matter/substance that has weight (is actually there)

Let R = the ideal, or universal, gas constant (from ideal Gas Law) = some type of historical correction factor = no known counterpart in CIG Theory = IGNORE "R"

SUBSTITUTION:

V = S

n = M

T = T

V = nT (new ideal gas law as morphed by CIG and as explained above)

S = MT CIG Theory)

or, MT = S in the forward (arbitrary direction of time) [in one post, using Biblical from darkness, the world was created stuff, I believe I selected 100 %"c" to zero % "c" as forward vector time]

[Recall that MTS uses both forward and reverse vector time]

cigtheory.com however still uses MT=S

so, nT = V has morphed into MT = S

In both equations, when rate goes up (temperature), volume (space) has been created.

In MTS, since it involves rates of travel from zero to "c", spacetime curvatures become apparent.

and enter CIG's explanation of Dark matter and Dark Energy, Double Slit, etc. and the community should look close at the theory.

FUN Part:

Let Ideal Gas Law = Caterpillar

Let CIG Theory = Butterfly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XWFFTuX5gQ

Thanks for reading & more so for understanding (Peter ???)someone?

And, the gas constant might fit in somewhere if someone wants to take a look.

Enjoy the day.

doug

The below is to supplement the above post regarding the metamorphosis of the Ideal Gas Law into CIG Theory's MTS equation. While the below is a repeat of a post I placed on the "Faster than Light" article, nonetheless it should appear here to be taken in context with the Metamorphosis, and, based on substitution, the Ideal Gas law can now be substituted into Einstein's field equation as follows (Very important - this substitution only to taken within the extent I have correlated CIG Theory to both):

Let A = Einstein's field equation

Let B = Ideal Gas Law

Let C = CIG Theory

The below re-post correlates A = C

My Metamorphosis post this day earlier and above correlates C = B

So, by substitution A = B

Hey, my math isn't that bad after all !

Therefore:

A = Einstein's field equation = B = Ideal Gas Law = C = CIG Theory

The below as re-posted:

OK - I'll save you the trouble of asking, and here are my "ramblings" about the link of CIG to Einstein field equations that I referenced above. I don't understand the field equations, but looked at them closely enough to compare certain variables in the quation. Please focus on those variables. So, what I stated in the above post is that CIG can be found within the Eistein field equation, according to a new INTERPRETATION. I've explained it below as best I can:

From the Wiki - Cosmological Constant site:

The cosmological constant Λ appears in Einstein's modified field equation in the form of

ADD Field Equation Here as it would not "cut and paste" see Wiki

where R and g pertain to the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure), and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement. When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum).

The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context it is commonly defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρvac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant".

A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of empty space. (See dark energy and cosmic inflation for details.)

END Wiki

Enter CIG

OK - Specifically, where it is stated above, "When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum). & remember, " T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure)"

this correlates with CIG as follows:

In CIG, when matter [their T (not mine which states T=Time)] is no longer there, it has transformed into space [MT=S]. It is an interpretation that within the Einstein equation, and where T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure, and where it is also stated that When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum), this all correlates to CIG, whereby it is an active process through which matter manifests itself into the vaccuum. It is stated many times within CIG that this is due to varying rates (% of"c"). Spacetime must be broken.

SEE CONEY ISLAND GREEN THEORY TODAY

The Wiki - Cosmological Constant site stuff did not cut & paste well - please go directly to the site and correlate with my additional comments:

SEE METAMORPHOSIS POST - this post to be taken in context with that post

THX

doug

Off topic slightly, but stay with me:

Watching TV - The Universe:Beyond the Big Band (S1 E4)

OK - enter CIG Theory

In search of Fred Hoyle...

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

While CIG offers that the new matter is NOT continuously created as the universe expands (rather the expansion is at the expense of mass) (in this respect Fred Hoyle was off topic) and that the Universe DOES change its appearance over time :

Nonetheless there is a steady state aspect to CIG Theory as the new Space unfolds steadily [as the mass goes down , the space (expansion) unfolds]

CIG also looks at each traveling mass as its own "Big Bang" - unfolding over time (rate dependent)

So, we can revisit Fred Hoyle in the context in which CIG Theory offers a new interpretation of the Steady State Theory. Steady creation of space at the expense of mass (conservation of energy)

The theory also vindicates Einstein in that it brings back a certain sense of determinism back into the picture.

CIG Theory

The North Star on Christmas eve is creating the Space that surrounds it.

Can someone see my night sky?

(Does it on Hanukkah too)

Happy Holidays to all

doug

Further to my last post above. On the International Bureau of Weights and Measures' definition of a second, and the seeming agenda to foist a fait accompli on the value 299792458m/s as the speed of light in vacuum by using the adjective "exactly". In order for this conspiratorial plan to work there MUST BE a further qualification in the definition of the second by adding "at earth surface". This is because Pound and Rebka in their experiment, further corroborated by the Gravity Probe A have demonstrated that Caesium 133 atom will oscillate at a frequency higher than 9 192 631 770 Hz in the vacuum at higher altitude!

According to results from Gravity Probe A, at 10,000km, general relativity predicts that Caesium 133 will oscillate 4.5 parts in 10-10 faster than one on the Earth.

Indeed, given the General relativity equation

tu = td (1 - GM/rc2),

where the subscripts u and d stand for up and down respectively,

an atomic oscillation that takes 1 second on earth surface will take 0.9999999993 seconds in free space, far from gravity. And since frequency is the inverse of period, Caesium 133 will oscillate at 9 192 631 776 Hz in freer space, instead of 9 192 631 770 Hz. Light velocity in free space and not earth surface would be 299792458.2087m/s.

I therefore broadly agree with John Donoghue that once this hidden agenda is abandoned for good, "It would really change 99.9 per cent of physics research".

What next on the agenda to foist the value 299792458m/s on us, since the definition of a second is now shown here to be incomplete?

Akinbo

I have developed the Spacetime Wave theory in an attempt to set a top level description for the unification of General Relativity and Quantum theory.

The unification of physics

Thinking about how parts of the theory could be verified in practice I have noted your interest in the possibility of conducting entanglement tests between two fast moving satellites.

In the Spacetime Wave theory, light travels through space as a spacetime wave and the existence of a medium for light wave propagation implies a unique frame of reference even though we cannot by current experiment detect this frame. However, entanglement effects appear to act instantaneously and this implies the need to specify a frame of reference for the instantaneous effects.

The proposal is that the entanglement effects propagate instantaneously in the unique frame of reference of the medium of spacetime.

It can be shown that this proposal would not violate the order of cause and effect since an observer passing close to the effect cannot go on to observe the cause since he cannot go back in time.

However, the experiment using two fast moving satellites does have the potential to measure the unique frame of reference of the entanglement effects.

Richard

Eckard,

Being an EE do you mind taking a look at this paper? I submitted it as a summary to the IEEE for an upcoming conference. Out of fear of rejection I removed all talk of light velocity from the paper.

Regards,

AkinboAttachment #1: CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper.pdf

Akinbo,

I am sure that some experts of IEEE, NIST, and other organizations are well aware of Pound and Rebka. Maybe they will nonetheless accept your abstract if there is only a limited number of those who intend participating.

Good luck,

Eckard

Eckard, as an EE who I know believes so much in safety, given Einstein's statement (modified) that: "...we can regard Caesium 133 atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold: Caesium 133 absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. The frequency of Caesium 133 atom situated on the surface of Earth,9 192 631 770 Hz will be somewhat less than the frequency of Caesium 133 which is situated in free space...", p.157 and the BIPM definition of a second, what will you advice astronauts going above 10,000km into space? Remember if you are one of the engineers you can be sued knowing the theory and the corroborating experiments if an accident occurs. Will you say Einstein was responsible for the accident or BIPM? Now that commercial private space trips are coming up, if an instrument on board the spacecraft depends on the definition of a second, will you embark on the trip relying on BIPM definition alone or be a bit careful in case Einstein was right?

Regards,

Akinbo

THE VACUUM

Some thoughts while I have them:

Read (until the math came along) with interest at least part of:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/398/1/cosconstant.pdf

The Quantum Vacuum and the

Cosmological Constant Problem

S.E. Rughﾂヂnd H. Zinkernagely

To appear in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

With regard to, as extracted:

"Following these discussions, Bludman and Ruderman (1977) [9] argue that even

though the vacuum energy density was very large at the time of the symmetry

breaking, it was nevertheless negligible in comparison with the thermal energy density of ultra-relativistic particles present at the time."

END (extracted material)

ENTER CIG THEORY (www.cigtheory.com)

If I am interpreting the above correctly, the notation appears consistent with CIG's interpretation of nature.

Recall that in CIG, and the MTS equation, the "S" or Space side of the equation represents rate at "c" [this correlates to the comment "....it was nevertheless negligible in comparison with the thermal energy density of ultra-relativistic particles present at the time" as noted above]

In CIG, there is a rate dependent Variable Cosmological Non-Constant.

MTS: M is a black hole while S is pure Space (the vacuum)

The vacuum density on the "S" side of the equation is much less per unit area than the right side, this because of the mass to space conversion.

The M energy and the S energy are equivalent.

But, they need to be renormalized as to the area.

[ i.e. is the area of the new spatial equivalence in the MTS conversion (see also CUPI quantification) some 120 orders of magnitude greater in volume than the original volume of the M side of the MTS equation??] If so, the renormalization may equate the Quantum calculation(particle or "M" assumed)of the vacuum to the Observed calculation (Spatial or "S" assumed) , thereby solving the Vacuum Catastrophe]

So, maintaining this thought pattern, perhaps the 120 orders of magnitude problem is the result of the need for an area based renormalization to account for the much greater spatial volume at relativistic speeds. Remember, in CIG, as mass travels faster and faster, it offers itself up as new spatial quantities. Space goes up, mass goes down, energy remains conserved.

In this manner, CIG may explain the Vacuum Catastrophe and Cosmological Non-Constant Problems.

You must understand both CIG Theory and the Vacuum Catastrophe and Cosmological (Non-Constant) Problems and in depth to assess the above.

Perhaps S.E. Rughﾂヂnd H. Zinkernagel could give it a shot in the dark (recall that CIG also offers a solution to the dark matters)

see www.CIGTheory.com

I am only trying to help

doug

Note added to my last post entitled THE VACUUM

For those who may not understand CIG Theory, please recognize that the Cosmological Constant varies (hence my use of the terminology Cosmological Non-Constant) as follows:

As the rate of a traveling massive particle increases, it manifests itself as a greater Volume (at "c" it is pure space)(at zero "c" [zero mph] it is a black hole). This greater Volume (low density)(less spacetime curvature), offers itself up as a large (small??)valued Cosmological Non-Constant.

At slow rates of travel, spacetime curvature is denser, and the Cosmological Non-Constant is therefore smaller (larger??).

Question to the community: Does full a curvature entity (black hole)(zero mph) require the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

The varying cosmological non-constant (CIG Theory) varies Lorentz transformationaly proportional to rate of speed, and from zero mph to "c".

See CIG Theory & try to understand (even if I'm wrong) so that you are aware of the theory. You can always throw rotten tomatoes at the theory. But you can't throw rotten tomatoes at it until you understand what it is that is being proposed.

www.cigtheory.com

THX

doug (don't throw the rotten tomatoes at me, only at the theory)

Clarification/correction:

Where in my last post it read:

Question to the community: Does full a curvature entity (black hole)(zero mph) require the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

IT SHOULD READ:

Question to the community: Does an entity experiencing full space-time curvature (i.e. black hole)(zero mph in CIG Theory) correlate to the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

Thank you

doug (it just plain read wrong)(I think it reads better now)

There should have been a question mark.