Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

Peter,

Then, if it matters, I gather that you are saying that Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter, which does make some sense in the context that you are offering it.

So, my first post was then the more correct (always go with the first choice- I believe they taught us this in school).

Is this the agreement then amongst cosmologists?

Peter's call.

[ ] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

[ ] Dark matter is darker than Dark Energy

THX always for responding

doug

doug,

'Agreement' and 'cosmologists' don't correspond. 'Seeing' is in the brain of the beholder, judged only against pre-doctrinated expectations.

On a scale of "what effects what we see most easily", we may superficially say that if we shine light on both and move them, then we can perceive effects fro dark MATTER more easily.

BUT. That may only be because we've not been told that without dark energy we may be able to 'see' anything AT ALL! It may be needed for the transmission of light period!!

In that case it would be far easier to detect it's presence; We can 'see things!

So as Popper pointed out, our deepest foundations are still founded on muddy hidden assumptions.

(And it's too dark down there to see them!)

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for responding. Very reliable you are.

[x] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

As regards the black hole, perhaps this too is darker than Dark Matter. This would balance the MTS equation. Black hole on one side (very dark indeed). Then, all the particles, standard model, then dark matter. Then on the extreme "S" side of the equation, the dark side of Dark Energy. MTS

THX

doug

Article States:

General relativity also introduced the world to the notion of spacetime, a smooth fabric that pervades the universe and gives rise to gravity as it warps and bends around heavy objects.

End Excerpt

NOTE: The spacetime when fully warped becomes the matter. MTS

www.CIGTheory.com (in need of a rewrite) (P.O.Box down)

THX

doug

doug,

From the poles black holes are more luminous than any emitter in the universe. That is where gamma ray bursts come from! But best not to stray into the accretion disc.

Look at the NASA (blue) shot of the Cartwheel Galaxy. You can make out the accretion streams pulling in the last of the matter from the disc into the toroidal AGN ('SMBH' in old money). It should start jetting in earnest on the perpendicular axis any moment now (the next Bn yrs). We may find x-ray emissions any time. Don't stand anywhere near the axis, it's hot! The new open spiral galaxy is formed on the new axis (that's the unique DFM prediction).

The shear hypersurfaces of the collimations finish the job not done in the torus body. That's what observation, Rees et al and the DFM suggest anyway. The DFM further suggest the process as simply scaled up for the universe recycling ("Big Blast") at rather longer intervals.

If you'd like to escape it pop out into the halo for a while. But no worries for a few (maybe about 6) Bn years yet.

Best wishes.

Peter

Peter,

The NASA (blue) shot of the Cartwheel Galaxy was beautiful (at least on GOOGLE images). Thank you.

I agree that the horizon and poles emit, but that portion of the Black Hole which does not emit, that which is still fully curved spacetime (Blackest Part of the Black Hole) does have similarities with that with no curvature (full vacuum Dark Energy), both being singularities. Both Dark. So, I still see some balance in the MTS equation.

Anyhow, I appear to be going in circles so I'm going to quit for awhile.

THX

doug

OK

I think we've digressed from the intent of the article.

So, here is my experiment:

Drop off in the Dark Energy vacuum of space various massive objects. (i.e. tennis ball size of gold, lead, carbon, etc.)But, distinctly far from one another.

First, weigh the object to as many decimals places as possible.

Then, allow to sit in space for as long as feasible.

Then, re-weigh.

In this manner, we are seeding Space with a massive object and it is my contention that the object will gain weight as the space itself will provide it's mass-energy equivalent (Cupi energy) to the plant seed, to find an equilibrium between the fields.

Note, millions (billions?)of years may be required for there to be noticeable weight change.

Only thinking theoretically here.

Your thoughts on my seeding Space in this manner.

THHX

doug

Regarding this picture:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2005/11/16/16nov_gpb_resources/vortex1_crop.jpg

It is CIG Theory's interpretation of nature that the spacetime fabric has become the matter. The two are manifestations of one another, the same thing essentially. MTS

In this manner, the CIG equation MTS combines space, time, and matter.

It is offered that rate of motion (percentages of "c") is the means by which matter offers itself up as space.

Simply look at the picture. The earth is not only warping the spacetime, IT IS THE SPACETIME

doug - off topic again

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

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures says:

"The METRE is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a SECOND.[link:www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/metre.html]It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299 792 458 metres per second, CO = 299 792 458 m/s[/link] ".

And,

"The SECOND is the duration of 9 192 631 770 PERIODS of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. It follows that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is exactly 9 192 631 770 hertz".

IF gravity slows time AND PROLONGS PERIODS, clocks run faster in outer space (higher frequency) and thus the period of Caesium 133 is shorter (shorter SECOND), it will be of interest to Test Reality In Space and verify this prediction of Einstein in the International Space Station or in other Satellites, subsequently leaving us with the choice of either redefining the second or the metre and their domain of validity, or agreeing with Einstein that "the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity",page 89.

Akinbo