In numerous rulings of the US Supreme Court, the Court has ruled that the constitution means whatever the the majority of a small group says it means. This is simply the rule of men in black robes, not the rule of law. In no way does it show respect for the Constitution, which every member of government is sworn to uphold and protect. The men and women of the Supreme Court have proven themselves to be oath breakers. They are wholly untrustworthy, as they have broken the most sacred and honored bonds of our nations governance. So why should we pay attention to anything they have to say? And what should we do about this abysmal and depressing state of affairs?
Congress, the Executive, and the Courts all routinely ignore the Constitution, existing laws, and the common law. They also routinely defy common sense, propriety, and decency, but that is to be expected in any governing body.
While both parties are corrupt to their core, the Democrat party is the chief proponent of firm handed anarchy. This is not an oxymoron. They propose law after idiotic, intrusive, counterproductive law, to restrain the majority of decent, law abiding people, while actively encouraging the base instincts of their true constituency - the radicals and malcontents who wish to destroy my beautiful nation and replace it with a country more in tune with international norms. You know, like Venezuela,Angola, or Pakistan.
Why do I mention these simple things that all reasonably well informed men understand, regretfully, to be true? Simply to point out that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is no way to win a war, which is what this is - a war for our hearts, minds, souls, bodies, wealth, and land - by being too virtuous to fight. It may take too to tango, but it only takes one side to start a fight.
As our decent parents instructed us when we were young - You better not start a fight. But if you're in one, you better fight to win.
The time for politeness and decency has passed. It passed when the Democrats started using violence to achieve their political objectives. When was that? I'm not really sure, but I believe it was before I was born, and I'm not a young man anymore. They incite mobs to riot, loot, and burn. They incite violent protest, where the "peaceful counter-demonstrators" bring clubs, knives, Molotov cocktails, and guns to intimidate and silence us. They encourage and support lawless occupiers, shiftless bums who defy law and good order to prevent others from peacefully attending to their lawful trade, and from enjoying supposedly public spaces, while the police do nothing, at the order of their Democrat superiors.
Every political assassination in American history has been committed by a Democrat or a Communist. Of course, any attempt to measure the difference between a Democrat and a Communist results in a division by zero error.
The KKK was formed as the armed wing of the southern Democrat party. The ACLU was founded by the American Communist Party, for the express purpose of undermining the rule of law through the courts, and to attack the people through the devious misuse of the law.
If these tactics are good enough for the Democrat party, then their use is meet and good for all parties and organizations to use. Failure to meet force with equal or greater force always results in losing ground, not gaining or even holding on to what you have. It's high time to fight fire with fire.
Once we are resolved to survive and win, how then are we to accomplish these goals? War is conducted on multiple levels - goals, tactics, operations, and strategy. Your goals must be few and simple, that they may be easily understood by all your supporters and the interested neutrals. In order to be truly successful, your strategy must be to achieve your goals and foil your opponent from reaching his. Your operations must be designed to gain ground, or oppose your opponent so as to not lose ground unnecessarily. Your tactics must be geared to avoid your enemy's strengths, and attack his weaknesses. But always remember that the tactics must suit the operations, and the operations must suit the strategy, and the strategy must be appropriate to the goal.
The traditional order in American politics is as follows - soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. Or opponents have controlled the soap box, ballot box, and jury box for almost a century. We control the cartridge box, in that the gun owners, police, and military are primarily, if not overwhelmingly, composed of traditional, decent Americans. This is why our opponents spend so much time and effort attempting to destroy the credibility, effectiveness, and morale of the police and military, and why they never stop talking about gun control, while opposing all attempts at controlling criminals.
In order to utilize the strength of the cartridge box, without going full SHTF (which I think we may all agree is a less than optimal outcome), we need to gain more control of the soap, ballot, and jury box.
We have made remarkable progress on the ballot box in the past two decades. However, the core of the Republican party allies itself with the Democrats as fellow travelers, or one half of the bi-factional 'ruling power' party. These traitors must be purged, or the Republican party must be replaced. Replacing the party in our two-party system is a remarkably formidable task, so it may be easier and quicker to purge the party of its undesirable quislings. This may be best accomplished through the soap box and jury box, as the movers and shakers behind the party are not truly elected, but a self-appointing oligarchy. They may have money, but we have numbers, and we can move in the light while they must scurry in the shadows.
Progress in retaking the soap box has been made, primarily through the explosion of alternate news sources. Fox News may be slightly right of center, but it is so far to the right of ABCNNBCBS that to them, it appears to be the far right. The internet has allowed and encouraged a proliferation of news aggregators, and even independent news agencies. Talk radio is overwhelmingly on our side (leaving aside PBS, of course, which is wholly funded and staffed by our enemies). We must capitalize on these strengths, and move forward with them. No Democrat lie must be left unexposed, every unfounded accusation countered, every hidden scandal exposed to the cleansing light of day. Give them no peace, give them no rest. The have nothing but lies to spread, as their basic philosophy denies the existence of truth and goodness. Don't let them shut you up. We are a quiet legion, they are a bellowing few. We must not allow them to silence us. Together, our simple speech becomes an overwhelming roar of truth and righteousness.
Control of the jury box comes through control of the ballot box and the soap box. Judicial malfeasance must be exposed, and judges must be impeached, disrobed, and disbarred. Protests may be held outside the courts, and before the homes of judges who replace the constitution and the rule of law with the rule of men in black robes. Judges must become too afraid of the repercussions to make arbitrary and capricious rulings, as they are currently comfortable and encouraged so to do.
It has taken a century for our beloved nation to be brought to this despicable state of being, where truth, light and goodness are all opposed by the ruling parties, and the people who founded, built, and bled for this great nation are ridiculed, where our own government seeks to replace us with numberless hordes of wholly alien invaders. This land, this nation, our people may return to greatness once again. But achieving this worthy goal will be neither quick, painless, cheap, or easy. We must retake our land, our nation, our government from those who seek to destroy us, our culture, our very way of life. This is a worthy goal. We must prove ourselves worthy of it.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
Combination wrench
OK, so I finally found out why I wasn't finding references to the triangular relationship between velocity/gravity, spacetime, and C (speed of light). That's because it's not mentioned in relativity articles - it's obliquely referenced in descriptions of 4-position/velocity/momentum. This seems to be another case of scientists not seeing the forest for the trees. (It's not just scientists - it's really quite common. When I went back to the engineering department of Football State U, I noticed that literally none of the electronics engineering students actually understood what all the waveforms being described so carefully by the complex math actually looked like, or how they acted. But boy, could they do the math.)
Anyway, I recently was pondering on this subject again. (No, I don't have much of a life, thanks for mentioning it.) I now have a greater understanding (hopefully correct) about the relationship between mass, energy, spacetime, and gravity. LEt's start with merging the two graphs - velocity and gravity interacting with spacetime via C. Here's the simple chart.
Velocity and Gravity (red) are measured in fractions of C, and SpaceTime is measured in fraction of the reference frame (or a motionless, gravity-free baseline). Note how the combination of gravity and velocity have a fixed relationship with SpaceTime, as determined by the universal constant, C (here in blue). Relativity really is just this simple.
As far as the causal relationship between mass, energy, SpaceTime, and gravity, I have a fairly simple, elegant solution. (Elegance is not necessarily an indicator of correctness, but correct theories are normally elegant.) Matter is energy - a whole lot of energy (E=mC^2). That energy has to come from somewhere. It is drawn from SpaceTime. This creates an energy imbalance, which is instantly corrected by energy flowing into the area of the matter. This simplifies as a flow of time towards the mass.
Gravity isn't so much a force emanating from a mass, as mass creates a depression in SpaceTime energy levels that is filled by energy pouring into it, resulting in a directional-time force we recognize as gravity. A fine distinction, perhaps, but to my mind, a crucial one. It is the difference between light emanating from a bulb, and water rushing down a drain.
The greater the mass, the greater the energy, the more energy it removes from local SpaceTime, the more energy the surrounding spacetime pours in to try to correct the imbalance. This creates an attractive force that is proportional to the mass, in inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The amount of force per unit mass is tiny, because it has literally the entire universe to pull from to try to rebalance the energy levels, so the local imbalance ends up being very small.
Yes, I know I'm probably not doing a good job explaining this. It's quite clear in my head, but the words just don't seem to work. This is very much case of things seeking a lower energy level.
Anyway, I recently was pondering on this subject again. (No, I don't have much of a life, thanks for mentioning it.) I now have a greater understanding (hopefully correct) about the relationship between mass, energy, spacetime, and gravity. LEt's start with merging the two graphs - velocity and gravity interacting with spacetime via C. Here's the simple chart.
Velocity and Gravity (red) are measured in fractions of C, and SpaceTime is measured in fraction of the reference frame (or a motionless, gravity-free baseline). Note how the combination of gravity and velocity have a fixed relationship with SpaceTime, as determined by the universal constant, C (here in blue). Relativity really is just this simple.
As far as the causal relationship between mass, energy, SpaceTime, and gravity, I have a fairly simple, elegant solution. (Elegance is not necessarily an indicator of correctness, but correct theories are normally elegant.) Matter is energy - a whole lot of energy (E=mC^2). That energy has to come from somewhere. It is drawn from SpaceTime. This creates an energy imbalance, which is instantly corrected by energy flowing into the area of the matter. This simplifies as a flow of time towards the mass.
Gravity isn't so much a force emanating from a mass, as mass creates a depression in SpaceTime energy levels that is filled by energy pouring into it, resulting in a directional-time force we recognize as gravity. A fine distinction, perhaps, but to my mind, a crucial one. It is the difference between light emanating from a bulb, and water rushing down a drain.
The greater the mass, the greater the energy, the more energy it removes from local SpaceTime, the more energy the surrounding spacetime pours in to try to correct the imbalance. This creates an attractive force that is proportional to the mass, in inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The amount of force per unit mass is tiny, because it has literally the entire universe to pull from to try to rebalance the energy levels, so the local imbalance ends up being very small.
Yes, I know I'm probably not doing a good job explaining this. It's quite clear in my head, but the words just don't seem to work. This is very much case of things seeking a lower energy level.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Saturday, February 13, 2016
In which I am correct, but dumb. Is there anybody out there?
A "gravity wave" has finally been detected. Looking at the (rather poor) reporting, I am reminded of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect - all news reporting is bunk. You just don't recognize is as dangerously wrong outside your areas of knowledge. That even goes for the name of the thing. It's not a wave of gravity. That's just silly. It's a ripple in space-time, caused by a gravitic event. It's like tossing a rock in a pond, and calling the resulting waves in the water "stone waves".
Anyways, the first thought I had after hearing about the announcement (well, the second thought really. The first thought was "Cool!") was "Yay! This proves my theory of spacetime liquidity!" And indeed it does. Which led my thoughts back in the direction of my theories on the nature of spacetime, gravity, and motion. Which led to me realizing in a dream this morning that I was on the right track, but for the wrong reasons, because I was stupidly omitting basic truths.
What I have been thinking about is the size of particles of spacetime, and how they shrink in the presence of high gravity and fast (high energy) particles. I've been theorizing that the presence of mass (energy) in a point of spacetime (hereon "point") removed energy from the point, causing it to contract. This comes from over use of the liquid spacetime metaphor. A miss-application, if you will. And then the correct answer hit me. (Yes, in a dream. I have most of my best ideas while dozing or daydreaming.) The mass and energy of the particle isn't removing energy from the point. Spacetime doesn't directly care about such things. What spacetime concerns itself is exactly what its name suggests - space and time. And velocity and gravity are simply time vectors. A form of energy. But they are adding energy to the point, not subtracting from it. Shouldn't adding energy make something bigger?
Doofus! This was the moment of breakthrough. Adding energy to a thing MAKES IT SMALLER! The more energy a wave has, the higher its frequency, the smaller its wavelength. This is why researchers need to create staggeringly stupendous amounts of energy to detect minuscule particles. So, the energy of a point is (at least partially) determined by its time vector content. This solves almost all the problems I've been having with my theory.
The gravity field induces a time vector in points. The higher the gravity, the larger the vector, the greater the energy, the smaller the point becomes. Particles have intrinsic velocity, which is simply a time vector, that works exactly the same way on the points they occupy. This is why gravity doesn't care about the mass of a particle, and affects all particles equally. It isn't working on the mass - it's one time vector adding to another time vector, and producing a resultant unified vector. Gravity decreases the size of a point by adding energy to it. Velocity decreases the size of a point by adding energy to it. This is why both forces (yes, I know, imprecise wording) dilate time ad space.
Spacetime generally acts as a liquid. Individual points move in relation to each other, and have differing diameters in inverse relation to their energy. (Energy is frequency, size is wavelength. they're inverses.) Black holes are where spacetime condenses from a liquid to a solid. (Notionally, the inflationary period of the early universe was when spacetime acted as a gas, and at the moment of creation, spacetime was a plasma, where time and space did not exist, there being only energy.)
So, back to the gravity wave. According to what I've read, the researchers attribute the wave (moving at the speed of light) to the impact of two black holes over a billion light-years away. They estimate that the impact released around three sols of mass/energy. (A sol being the mass of our sun. Yes, I just made that up. But you knew what I meant, didn't you?) Where did this energy come from, and where did it go? The articles I read claimed that the energy was released directly as gravity, causing the wave. To which I snort, and reply 'Bupkis!'
The energy was released as decondensing spacetime. A lot of it. Which immediately shoved the local spacetime rather violently out of its way. Which created a rather strong wave through spacetime, propagating at the maximum possible rate, light speed. The distant ripples of which we detected here on Earth as a quarter-second long series of stretches and contractions of spacetime. Which means that spacetime is fluid, and if it is fluid, that means that at a sufficiently small scale it is granular and mobile. And if it is granular and mobile, that means that spacetime is a thing in and of itself. (If you can deform something, there must be something there to deform, nicht war?) QED
So, to summarize this and previous posts -
Mass (energy) creates a gravitic field. This field propagates infinitely quickly.
Gravity is directional time. The gravitic field strength at any point of spacetime creates a time vector at that point. The vector point in the direction of higher field strength, with a length proportional to the local strength of the gravitic field.
Velocity is directional time. Each particle has a velocity vector, which adds itself to the local point of spacetime to determine its energy, which influences its size. This velocity vector is, in turn, modified by the point's gravity vector to produce a resultant vector by simple summation, with an upper limit on velocity defined by the speed of light.
Any left over energy beyond the light speed limit on a particle adds to the particle's energy in other ways - particularly its spin or frequency. There doesn't seem to be any speed limit to a particle's spin rate, as it's not actually going anywhere.
The relationship between time vectors and perceived time, which is to say the size of a point of spacetime, is defined by the simple equation: velocity squared plus size squared equals the speed of light squared.
The size of a point determines the distance to the next point of spacetime. The greater the distance, the larger space is, and the faster time flows. The less the distance, the more space and time contract.
Particles translate from one point to the next by filling the energy requirement with their time vectors (velocity). The higher the velocity, the more quickly they reach the necessary energy threshold to leave one point and translate to the next. This energy requirement is defined as C, the speed of light. Thus, nothing can move faster than one unit of space per one unit of time.
Points of spacetime are mobile. They have to be, because they shrink and grow based on their energy levels (which is defined by time vectors, plus a baseline energy level that seems to require a universal constant). These points of spacetime interact as a fluid, with larger points pushing against their neighbors more strongly. The odd property of spacetime is that it reacts in a negative way to energy - the more energy a point has, the smaller it becomes. This is because of its fundamental wave nature - higher energy equals smaller wavelength.
The event horizon of a black hole is the point at which liquid spacetime condenses into a solid. We have no experimental data with which to extrapolate the laws of physics from a liquid spacetyime into a solid, so the laws of physics generally break down it this point due to a lack of knowledge. However, since the Pythagorean-like relationship between time energy and the size of space still holds, the interior of a black hole is the domain of complex (imaginary) spacetime. The higher the mass of a black hole, the higher its gravity, the larger the i-component spacetime gets. Thus, a black hole can easily be larger on the inside than it is on the outside, albeit along the imaginary axis of the complex scale.
Things I don't know -
What is the method whereby mass influences the gravitic field? The Higgs particle and field seems to be the best, or at least most popular, answer we currently have. I have no evidence whatsoever, but my intuition is that particle spin creates gravity. And yes, the gravitic field is not limited to the speed of light. Nothing actually moves, after all.
What is the baseline energy of a point of spacetime in the absence of gravity and particles? Does this energy level remain constant over time? What determines this baseline energy?
If the universe is expanding, is it because the points of spacetime are still moving away from each other, or is more spacetime being added at the edges? The continual creation of new points implies that the total energy level of the universe is not fixed. Points moving away from each other implies that they are getting larger, which means that their energy levels are dropping, which means that the total energy level of the universe is not fixed (and that a universal constant is constantly changing). Not to mention that the fundamental constant would be changing everywhere at the same rate, which requires some method of faster-than-light information flow. Which requires some new, arbitrary field just for this purpose. Unless the gravitic field itself doesn't have a baseline strength of zero in the absence of all mass. You know, that just might work. The gravititc field could have a total baseline strength, and this strength at any given point would decrease over time as the universe increases in size, spreading the energy more thinly over a larger area. But what would cause the field to increase in size? Especially as changes in gravity travel infinitely quickly across the field, while the field itself appears to be expanding at the speed of light. Or maybe it's something completely different.
Does anybody ever actually read any of this? I feel that this is an important simplification of previously complex concepts, and I'm trying to put the ideas out in the most clear manner I can. Which, admittedly, probably isn't all that clear. I guess the problem is that I'm not a physicist, and I do this on my own. I'm not at any college or university, and I don't really know any professional physicists. Could one of the half dozen or so people who eventually reads my posts please pass these ideas on the a real physicist, so I could maybe get some feedback? I haven't had a single comment yet. I know it's not everybody's thing, but I can dream that I'm right, and that maybe these ideas will someday help someone understand what seems at first to be a complicated subject.
A good introductory book I can recommend is "How to Teach Relativity to You Dog", by Chad Orzel.
Anyways, the first thought I had after hearing about the announcement (well, the second thought really. The first thought was "Cool!") was "Yay! This proves my theory of spacetime liquidity!" And indeed it does. Which led my thoughts back in the direction of my theories on the nature of spacetime, gravity, and motion. Which led to me realizing in a dream this morning that I was on the right track, but for the wrong reasons, because I was stupidly omitting basic truths.
What I have been thinking about is the size of particles of spacetime, and how they shrink in the presence of high gravity and fast (high energy) particles. I've been theorizing that the presence of mass (energy) in a point of spacetime (hereon "point") removed energy from the point, causing it to contract. This comes from over use of the liquid spacetime metaphor. A miss-application, if you will. And then the correct answer hit me. (Yes, in a dream. I have most of my best ideas while dozing or daydreaming.) The mass and energy of the particle isn't removing energy from the point. Spacetime doesn't directly care about such things. What spacetime concerns itself is exactly what its name suggests - space and time. And velocity and gravity are simply time vectors. A form of energy. But they are adding energy to the point, not subtracting from it. Shouldn't adding energy make something bigger?
Doofus! This was the moment of breakthrough. Adding energy to a thing MAKES IT SMALLER! The more energy a wave has, the higher its frequency, the smaller its wavelength. This is why researchers need to create staggeringly stupendous amounts of energy to detect minuscule particles. So, the energy of a point is (at least partially) determined by its time vector content. This solves almost all the problems I've been having with my theory.
The gravity field induces a time vector in points. The higher the gravity, the larger the vector, the greater the energy, the smaller the point becomes. Particles have intrinsic velocity, which is simply a time vector, that works exactly the same way on the points they occupy. This is why gravity doesn't care about the mass of a particle, and affects all particles equally. It isn't working on the mass - it's one time vector adding to another time vector, and producing a resultant unified vector. Gravity decreases the size of a point by adding energy to it. Velocity decreases the size of a point by adding energy to it. This is why both forces (yes, I know, imprecise wording) dilate time ad space.
Spacetime generally acts as a liquid. Individual points move in relation to each other, and have differing diameters in inverse relation to their energy. (Energy is frequency, size is wavelength. they're inverses.) Black holes are where spacetime condenses from a liquid to a solid. (Notionally, the inflationary period of the early universe was when spacetime acted as a gas, and at the moment of creation, spacetime was a plasma, where time and space did not exist, there being only energy.)
So, back to the gravity wave. According to what I've read, the researchers attribute the wave (moving at the speed of light) to the impact of two black holes over a billion light-years away. They estimate that the impact released around three sols of mass/energy. (A sol being the mass of our sun. Yes, I just made that up. But you knew what I meant, didn't you?) Where did this energy come from, and where did it go? The articles I read claimed that the energy was released directly as gravity, causing the wave. To which I snort, and reply 'Bupkis!'
The energy was released as decondensing spacetime. A lot of it. Which immediately shoved the local spacetime rather violently out of its way. Which created a rather strong wave through spacetime, propagating at the maximum possible rate, light speed. The distant ripples of which we detected here on Earth as a quarter-second long series of stretches and contractions of spacetime. Which means that spacetime is fluid, and if it is fluid, that means that at a sufficiently small scale it is granular and mobile. And if it is granular and mobile, that means that spacetime is a thing in and of itself. (If you can deform something, there must be something there to deform, nicht war?) QED
So, to summarize this and previous posts -
Mass (energy) creates a gravitic field. This field propagates infinitely quickly.
Gravity is directional time. The gravitic field strength at any point of spacetime creates a time vector at that point. The vector point in the direction of higher field strength, with a length proportional to the local strength of the gravitic field.
Velocity is directional time. Each particle has a velocity vector, which adds itself to the local point of spacetime to determine its energy, which influences its size. This velocity vector is, in turn, modified by the point's gravity vector to produce a resultant vector by simple summation, with an upper limit on velocity defined by the speed of light.
Any left over energy beyond the light speed limit on a particle adds to the particle's energy in other ways - particularly its spin or frequency. There doesn't seem to be any speed limit to a particle's spin rate, as it's not actually going anywhere.
The relationship between time vectors and perceived time, which is to say the size of a point of spacetime, is defined by the simple equation: velocity squared plus size squared equals the speed of light squared.
The size of a point determines the distance to the next point of spacetime. The greater the distance, the larger space is, and the faster time flows. The less the distance, the more space and time contract.
Particles translate from one point to the next by filling the energy requirement with their time vectors (velocity). The higher the velocity, the more quickly they reach the necessary energy threshold to leave one point and translate to the next. This energy requirement is defined as C, the speed of light. Thus, nothing can move faster than one unit of space per one unit of time.
Points of spacetime are mobile. They have to be, because they shrink and grow based on their energy levels (which is defined by time vectors, plus a baseline energy level that seems to require a universal constant). These points of spacetime interact as a fluid, with larger points pushing against their neighbors more strongly. The odd property of spacetime is that it reacts in a negative way to energy - the more energy a point has, the smaller it becomes. This is because of its fundamental wave nature - higher energy equals smaller wavelength.
The event horizon of a black hole is the point at which liquid spacetime condenses into a solid. We have no experimental data with which to extrapolate the laws of physics from a liquid spacetyime into a solid, so the laws of physics generally break down it this point due to a lack of knowledge. However, since the Pythagorean-like relationship between time energy and the size of space still holds, the interior of a black hole is the domain of complex (imaginary) spacetime. The higher the mass of a black hole, the higher its gravity, the larger the i-component spacetime gets. Thus, a black hole can easily be larger on the inside than it is on the outside, albeit along the imaginary axis of the complex scale.
Things I don't know -
What is the method whereby mass influences the gravitic field? The Higgs particle and field seems to be the best, or at least most popular, answer we currently have. I have no evidence whatsoever, but my intuition is that particle spin creates gravity. And yes, the gravitic field is not limited to the speed of light. Nothing actually moves, after all.
What is the baseline energy of a point of spacetime in the absence of gravity and particles? Does this energy level remain constant over time? What determines this baseline energy?
If the universe is expanding, is it because the points of spacetime are still moving away from each other, or is more spacetime being added at the edges? The continual creation of new points implies that the total energy level of the universe is not fixed. Points moving away from each other implies that they are getting larger, which means that their energy levels are dropping, which means that the total energy level of the universe is not fixed (and that a universal constant is constantly changing). Not to mention that the fundamental constant would be changing everywhere at the same rate, which requires some method of faster-than-light information flow. Which requires some new, arbitrary field just for this purpose. Unless the gravitic field itself doesn't have a baseline strength of zero in the absence of all mass. You know, that just might work. The gravititc field could have a total baseline strength, and this strength at any given point would decrease over time as the universe increases in size, spreading the energy more thinly over a larger area. But what would cause the field to increase in size? Especially as changes in gravity travel infinitely quickly across the field, while the field itself appears to be expanding at the speed of light. Or maybe it's something completely different.
Does anybody ever actually read any of this? I feel that this is an important simplification of previously complex concepts, and I'm trying to put the ideas out in the most clear manner I can. Which, admittedly, probably isn't all that clear. I guess the problem is that I'm not a physicist, and I do this on my own. I'm not at any college or university, and I don't really know any professional physicists. Could one of the half dozen or so people who eventually reads my posts please pass these ideas on the a real physicist, so I could maybe get some feedback? I haven't had a single comment yet. I know it's not everybody's thing, but I can dream that I'm right, and that maybe these ideas will someday help someone understand what seems at first to be a complicated subject.
A good introductory book I can recommend is "How to Teach Relativity to You Dog", by Chad Orzel.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
AM / FM
Happy New Year!
I had this thought the other day. How does gravity influence spacetime? Gravity seems to be essentially analog, while spacetime seems to act as if it is digital. Then it hit me - gravity acts like an AM signal, which is rectified into FM spacetime.
The gravitic field varies continuously. It may be digital at a fine enough scale, but that matters very little for the purposes of the present discussion. What matters most is that gravity is expressed at every point as an amplitude. (There is also a directional component, but I'm ignoring that for now - it isn't relevant to the current topic.)
Spacetime varies in density, as if it were composed of spheres - or a frequency modulated signal, where each null (the center line between peaks and troughs) is a different point. If you think of spacetime as a field of waves, the frequency (inverse wavelength) corresponds to the density.
Gravity obviously affects spacetime - the higher the gravity, the more dense the spacetime. How is this accomplished? Gravity can be considered a form of energy. The higher the gravity, the more energy any given point of spacetime has to have. How does this happen? By increasing the local energy, spacetime reacts by incresing frequency. This shortens the wavelength, and forces individual points closer together - increasing the density of spacetime.
To summarize, the AM gravity signal is expressed as an FM signal in spacetime.
Which again raises the more fundamental question - what is the resting wavelength (frequency) of spacetime? Why is it that? It is obviously not 0 or 1, as the first increase in energy doesn't dramatically increase the density at that point. So it must be some relatively large number. But what is that number? And why is it that? What does it consist of?
This vacuum energy must exist. All behavior seems to depend upon it. If it is constant with time, then it means that the energy of the universe is not constant - as the universe grows, the amount of energy contained in it must grow in proportion. If it is even meaningful to talk about the expansion of the universe.
What does an expanding universe mean? If we speak only of matter, then it does seem to be expanding. If we speak of the furthest extent of the first photons, that is very similar, albeit a somewhat larger sphere. But gravity is essentially infinitely fast. (It is most certainly faster than light.) There is no gravitic expansion of the universe, because the gravity is already there.
I had this thought the other day. How does gravity influence spacetime? Gravity seems to be essentially analog, while spacetime seems to act as if it is digital. Then it hit me - gravity acts like an AM signal, which is rectified into FM spacetime.
The gravitic field varies continuously. It may be digital at a fine enough scale, but that matters very little for the purposes of the present discussion. What matters most is that gravity is expressed at every point as an amplitude. (There is also a directional component, but I'm ignoring that for now - it isn't relevant to the current topic.)
Spacetime varies in density, as if it were composed of spheres - or a frequency modulated signal, where each null (the center line between peaks and troughs) is a different point. If you think of spacetime as a field of waves, the frequency (inverse wavelength) corresponds to the density.
Gravity obviously affects spacetime - the higher the gravity, the more dense the spacetime. How is this accomplished? Gravity can be considered a form of energy. The higher the gravity, the more energy any given point of spacetime has to have. How does this happen? By increasing the local energy, spacetime reacts by incresing frequency. This shortens the wavelength, and forces individual points closer together - increasing the density of spacetime.
To summarize, the AM gravity signal is expressed as an FM signal in spacetime.
Which again raises the more fundamental question - what is the resting wavelength (frequency) of spacetime? Why is it that? It is obviously not 0 or 1, as the first increase in energy doesn't dramatically increase the density at that point. So it must be some relatively large number. But what is that number? And why is it that? What does it consist of?
This vacuum energy must exist. All behavior seems to depend upon it. If it is constant with time, then it means that the energy of the universe is not constant - as the universe grows, the amount of energy contained in it must grow in proportion. If it is even meaningful to talk about the expansion of the universe.
What does an expanding universe mean? If we speak only of matter, then it does seem to be expanding. If we speak of the furthest extent of the first photons, that is very similar, albeit a somewhat larger sphere. But gravity is essentially infinitely fast. (It is most certainly faster than light.) There is no gravitic expansion of the universe, because the gravity is already there.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
No, we aren't all just the same.
"We're all the same," lectures the Kindergarten teacher to her captive brood.
What a contemptible lie. We're obviously all different, as a cursory look at even just a few people will show. There are only two reasons to push this lie on small children.
1. To teach empathy. If the other kids is just like me, he won't like it when I bite him and take his toy truck.
2. To teach Marxism. We are all the same, equal, interchangeable - everyone everywhere. Where we are not the same, there is disharmony and strife, and the disharmonious counterrevolutionaries must be eliminated.
2a. To teach Marxist nihilism. We are all interchangeable. We are merely cogs in the great machine of society. If any one is out of alignment, it must be repaired removed from the machine. We, each one of us, are replaceable. It is required for the more perfect functioning of the machine. After all, you must be JUST LIKE ME. The architects and mechanics who service the machine and teach us of its ways say so.
2b. To teach Marxist internationalism. We are all the same - you me, that guy over there. Even those people on the other side of the world who don't look like us, talk like us, pray like us, or live like us. Despite the obvious superficial differences, we are truly all the same. Even if they say they are nothing like us - they are just mistaken. They are really just like us. When they say they want to kill us all, that's just talk. They really want to come over here and give us all hugs. After all, we're all the same, so they must be JUST LIKE ME.
2c. To teach Marxist critical theory. We're all the same, really. Those people over there - the ones who wallow in their own filth, rut like animals, and kill and enslave each other as a hobby? I wouldn't do that, and they're JUST LIKE ME. So somebody else must be forcing them to do that. Some evil force must be causing all that misery. Aha! Dead white, western, Christian, probably Anglo men invaded their lands long ago, perverting their beautiful native cultures into this parody of human existence. Why would they do that? They must all have been evil, causing all that death and misery for their own amusement! "Death to the white man!" said the white man. This is taught in our schools, and in our universities. Young people are taught not to believe their lying eyes, that 2+2=5, that facts and logic are deeply racist and sexist. They are taught to conform and agree with authority. "Death to the White Man! Death to Western Imperialism! Death to Christianity! Death to Free Market Capitalism! Death to America! Death!"
2d. To teach Marxist feminism. Women and men are equals, therefore they are the same. I am a woman, so you must behave in all ways like me. But we have all these men not behaving like women. Gay men do, to a degree, and that's why we like them so much. Transvestites behave like us even more. (Some of them are more like a woman than I am, those bitches.) Men must be defective women, because they are terrible at being JUST LIKE ME. That's bad. Men have to be adjusted and corrected. Then again, do we really need the men? I have all these other women around to keep me company, and to share my bed at night. Men are icky. Sex is icky. Sex is rape, because although we're all equal and the same, and I am a powerful woman, men have all the power, and I can't make decisions or stand up for myself, poor, poor, helpless, powerful me.
So, the next time you hear someone comparing two different groups of people on the same terms, remember what they're trying to sell you.
Men are not the same as women. Blacks are not the same as whites. Mexicans are not the same as Haitians are not the same as Americans. Muslims are not the same as Christians. New Guinean tribal headhunters are not the same as the Amish. We are not all just the same.
Marxists (progressives, liberals, communists, socialists, Fabians, social democrats, whatever they're calling themselves this week) do not have our best interests at heart. They believe in a wicked religion (Marxism is a religion, not a method of economics), which like Islam, must spread to encompass the whole world. Their god commands them to. All unbelievers will be offered a choice of conversion or death. Some unbelievers, more useful and compliant than others, will be kept as slaves or highly regulated serfs.
This is why Marxism and Islam get along so well. They share similar goals and methods, and their belief systems are somewhat compatible. Naturally, when they have jointly conquered the world, each will struggle to overthrow the other, but that is a concern for the far future. For now, they both chant "Death to America! Death!"
"We can forgive [them] for killing our children. We cannot forgive them from forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with [them] when they love their children more than they hate us." - Golda Meir.
What a contemptible lie. We're obviously all different, as a cursory look at even just a few people will show. There are only two reasons to push this lie on small children.
1. To teach empathy. If the other kids is just like me, he won't like it when I bite him and take his toy truck.
2. To teach Marxism. We are all the same, equal, interchangeable - everyone everywhere. Where we are not the same, there is disharmony and strife, and the disharmonious counterrevolutionaries must be eliminated.
2a. To teach Marxist nihilism. We are all interchangeable. We are merely cogs in the great machine of society. If any one is out of alignment, it must be repaired removed from the machine. We, each one of us, are replaceable. It is required for the more perfect functioning of the machine. After all, you must be JUST LIKE ME. The architects and mechanics who service the machine and teach us of its ways say so.
2b. To teach Marxist internationalism. We are all the same - you me, that guy over there. Even those people on the other side of the world who don't look like us, talk like us, pray like us, or live like us. Despite the obvious superficial differences, we are truly all the same. Even if they say they are nothing like us - they are just mistaken. They are really just like us. When they say they want to kill us all, that's just talk. They really want to come over here and give us all hugs. After all, we're all the same, so they must be JUST LIKE ME.
2c. To teach Marxist critical theory. We're all the same, really. Those people over there - the ones who wallow in their own filth, rut like animals, and kill and enslave each other as a hobby? I wouldn't do that, and they're JUST LIKE ME. So somebody else must be forcing them to do that. Some evil force must be causing all that misery. Aha! Dead white, western, Christian, probably Anglo men invaded their lands long ago, perverting their beautiful native cultures into this parody of human existence. Why would they do that? They must all have been evil, causing all that death and misery for their own amusement! "Death to the white man!" said the white man. This is taught in our schools, and in our universities. Young people are taught not to believe their lying eyes, that 2+2=5, that facts and logic are deeply racist and sexist. They are taught to conform and agree with authority. "Death to the White Man! Death to Western Imperialism! Death to Christianity! Death to Free Market Capitalism! Death to America! Death!"
2d. To teach Marxist feminism. Women and men are equals, therefore they are the same. I am a woman, so you must behave in all ways like me. But we have all these men not behaving like women. Gay men do, to a degree, and that's why we like them so much. Transvestites behave like us even more. (Some of them are more like a woman than I am, those bitches.) Men must be defective women, because they are terrible at being JUST LIKE ME. That's bad. Men have to be adjusted and corrected. Then again, do we really need the men? I have all these other women around to keep me company, and to share my bed at night. Men are icky. Sex is icky. Sex is rape, because although we're all equal and the same, and I am a powerful woman, men have all the power, and I can't make decisions or stand up for myself, poor, poor, helpless, powerful me.
So, the next time you hear someone comparing two different groups of people on the same terms, remember what they're trying to sell you.
Men are not the same as women. Blacks are not the same as whites. Mexicans are not the same as Haitians are not the same as Americans. Muslims are not the same as Christians. New Guinean tribal headhunters are not the same as the Amish. We are not all just the same.
Marxists (progressives, liberals, communists, socialists, Fabians, social democrats, whatever they're calling themselves this week) do not have our best interests at heart. They believe in a wicked religion (Marxism is a religion, not a method of economics), which like Islam, must spread to encompass the whole world. Their god commands them to. All unbelievers will be offered a choice of conversion or death. Some unbelievers, more useful and compliant than others, will be kept as slaves or highly regulated serfs.
This is why Marxism and Islam get along so well. They share similar goals and methods, and their belief systems are somewhat compatible. Naturally, when they have jointly conquered the world, each will struggle to overthrow the other, but that is a concern for the far future. For now, they both chant "Death to America! Death!"
"We can forgive [them] for killing our children. We cannot forgive them from forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with [them] when they love their children more than they hate us." - Golda Meir.
I can't make it work
FTL -Faster than light travel. I can't make it work. I thought I had an idea, but the math doesn't work out. Walk with me. The thought structure went like this.
Outside a black hole, space-time uses real number for the proximity of one bit of space-time to another. This is limited by the speed of light (C, defined in units equating it to 1) to being a number between C (theoretical, requires the complete absence of all gravity) and 0. 0 is what you get at the event horizon of a black hole - space and time appear to come to a halt. Inside a black hole, the proximity is measured using imaginary numbers. As the gravity increases, the imaginary number gets larger arbitrarily, eventually making the inside of a black hole larger than the outside.
Review - The controlling equation is gravity squared plus space-time proximity equals C.
As G exceeds 1, t drops below zero and takes on imaginary values. As G surpasses the square root of two, t must surpass 1i to balance the equation. The speed of light remains constant, but the nature of space-time constantly changes. What does this really look like? No way to tell without experimentation - and I'm not planning on volunteering.
So, I pondered, if we can use imaginary numbers to represent space-time inside a black hole, might there be some way to use that principle outside the black hole? You can't exceed the speed of light, but could you, just possibly, change the apparent speed of light by altering the properties of local space-time?
I started down this road of thought, imagining how time would accelerate for the traveler in relation to those left behind, and how this could be carefully compensated for by increasing the traveler's speed to slow down their rate of time to match. That's when I started reviewing the math, and encountered the error in the system.
Complex numbers would be required. That doesn't seem to work in normal space. And anyways, when you square a complex number, you get another complex number. It doesn't simplify into a real like an imaginary number does.
Even if you could balance the equation by using complex gravity (I'm not certain this is mathematically possible), what the heck would that even look like? Where would it come from? It's entirely too much handwavium. Even inside a supermassive black hole, gravity is still measured in real numbers, not imaginary, much less complex.
This realization burst the bubble of my glorious dream of fast interstellar travel. Stupid, unforgiving math.
Outside a black hole, space-time uses real number for the proximity of one bit of space-time to another. This is limited by the speed of light (C, defined in units equating it to 1) to being a number between C (theoretical, requires the complete absence of all gravity) and 0. 0 is what you get at the event horizon of a black hole - space and time appear to come to a halt. Inside a black hole, the proximity is measured using imaginary numbers. As the gravity increases, the imaginary number gets larger arbitrarily, eventually making the inside of a black hole larger than the outside.
Review - The controlling equation is gravity squared plus space-time proximity equals C.
As G exceeds 1, t drops below zero and takes on imaginary values. As G surpasses the square root of two, t must surpass 1i to balance the equation. The speed of light remains constant, but the nature of space-time constantly changes. What does this really look like? No way to tell without experimentation - and I'm not planning on volunteering.
So, I pondered, if we can use imaginary numbers to represent space-time inside a black hole, might there be some way to use that principle outside the black hole? You can't exceed the speed of light, but could you, just possibly, change the apparent speed of light by altering the properties of local space-time?
I started down this road of thought, imagining how time would accelerate for the traveler in relation to those left behind, and how this could be carefully compensated for by increasing the traveler's speed to slow down their rate of time to match. That's when I started reviewing the math, and encountered the error in the system.
Complex numbers would be required. That doesn't seem to work in normal space. And anyways, when you square a complex number, you get another complex number. It doesn't simplify into a real like an imaginary number does.
Even if you could balance the equation by using complex gravity (I'm not certain this is mathematically possible), what the heck would that even look like? Where would it come from? It's entirely too much handwavium. Even inside a supermassive black hole, gravity is still measured in real numbers, not imaginary, much less complex.
This realization burst the bubble of my glorious dream of fast interstellar travel. Stupid, unforgiving math.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
http://madgeniusclub.com/2016/03/28/a-bumkins-view/
A couple friends of mine drove up into the mountains of southern Arizona one fine Saturday morning, to see what they could see. A couple of miles after the trail they were following petered out, they saw a lone javelina in front of a line of brush. One friend got out of the truck with his camera to get a closer picture of the creature, when it scrambled back into the brush. He was about to follow it into the brush when the other stopped him, and told him to get back into the truck. They waited about five minutes, and the little porker came back out.
They both took a couple of pictures from inside the truck, then friend number one got out of the truck again. Once again, the javelina ambled back into the brush. This time, both men had the sense to not follow it. Instead, they went carefully and quietly around the brush line.
Once they got around one end of the brush line (it was about 50 yards across, 5 yards deep, and roughly ‘U’ shaped), they stopped and stared. There were at least thirty javalina there, quietly watching the front of the brush line, where the men would have come out had they followed the smaller pig. After a minute, a couple of the larger ones prodded the photogenic little javelina back into the brush, to go try to lure lunch back to them again.
My friends quietly returned to the truck, turned around, and never went out on foot that far into the mountains again.