|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Beyond the Speed of Light.
Could Albert Einstein the famous German physicist really have been so drastically wrong about special relativity, the laws of physics, C the constant and the velocity of light, when he suggested all motion is relative, and the velocity of light has a constant speed, measured at 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum and represented mathematically as a (c)? And if Einstein did have it wrong, could special relativity, and the laws of physics as we understand them be a monumental mistake?
Could Einstein's work really have lead us up a blind alley for nearly a hundred years? Personally, I believe it could well have done. I truly think we can conclusively show special relativity to be wrong, on universal terms, if we change the initial point where light first originates.
Rather than say light emits from a star, we say it emits from a point of force central to any two stars and travels to both stars equally and proportionately in the same amount of time. Thus it would make it impossible for any two observers around the two stars to identify a time any different from the other, regardless of their distance of position in space.
Simply by changing the point where light first originates, I soon realised we could remove universal time, space time, space-time curvature, forth dimensional space-time - and of course, the Hubble constant.
At first the claim seemed outrageous, heresy even, to even suggest that the velocity of light might be broken, that the great man, Einstein might have it wrong and the velocity of light may reach any accelerated speed imaginable and alloy us to one day cross the universe to distant worlds as those who inhabit such worlds surely cross the trackless voids of space the other way to visit us. Those who come here to survey our beautiful world. But then, as disbelief turned to intrigue, my mind filled with highly original thought. I was desperate to move our limited thinking forwards, to push at the boundaries of reason and see if I couldn't confound the critics and show definitive proof that special relativity, on universal terms, to be no more than hokum.
I couldn't help but wonder if there was more to the boast than met the eye? Maybe it would be possible to breech the velocity of light after all and make travelling to the stars beyond the speed of light a real possibility, rather than just science-fiction fantasy elegantly displayed on our TV and our movie screens. But first things first.
No one can fail to comprehend the axioms of Einsteinian physics, special relativity in particular, and not be amazed by the finite nature of Einstein's theory of relativity.
Ever since special relativity's inception in 1905, and its acceptance into the realm of modern cosmology, science has marvelled at the sheer beauty of such a profound piece of postulation. Perhaps some have marvelled too much. Perhaps like a man looking at a beautiful woman they have failed to see the flaws, recognise the obvious and put aside their doubts. When you get passed the hype, the fact certain academics like to associate with Einsteinian physics, in a kind of reaching out to touch the king scenario, in the vein hope some of the glory might rub off on them, we're left with some pretty dubious work. Fundamental among this is the fact special relativity is measured from here on earth, and fails to take account of any universal arbitration. Like the proverbial beautiful woman, it doesn't look quite so attractive without make-up. However , with little or nothing to replace or challenge special relativity, the flirtation has somewhat continued, unchallenged, unabated.
Then along comes this. A new theoretical piece of physics based exclusively around a new set of beliefs, which, even if I do say so myself, are about to rock the establishment to its very foundations.
Already two of the UKs top universities are locked in bitter dispute over the substance of such a remarkable breakthrough, arguments are breaking out all over the place, and the fur is up.
At one extremely heated London meeting, two senior, very eminent, very respectable gentlemen even indulged a shoving match, and were eventually separated by security. To say this intriguing piece of postulation is about to throw the whole of academia in a flat tail spin, is an understatement.
Howls of condemnation are heard along the hallowed halls, and in one case, a student was threatened with expulsion if they speak further about the mechanics driving this debate, even though the university involved hasn't had the courtesy to forensically examine the theory. Yet, even with the to and froing, there is one inescapable fact academia must comprehend: this is not just a theoretical hypothesis built on a fanciful idea - but it is a carefully crafted hypothesis which comes complete with measurable prediction.
An ambit of prediction is included with in the finer content of the model, and the inclusion of such an impartial measurement quite simply means the idea must at least be treated with the generosity it deserves.
Science needs to measure, analytically what is proposed here for the sake of humanity if nothing else, or forfeit any right to challenge the said idea. The reason is easily explained: if this piece of theoretical physics is proven right, it will not only explain former ice ages, but show the next ice age is no more than a stone's throwaway.
Quite simply mankind might be on the cusp of a cataclysmic death, his world wasted into feebleness, perpetual darkness, and the extinction of his species. Be warned, what follows is not for the weak minded or those easily scared.
So what is this newly found piece of science which could resign everything we know about special relativity to the bin, and herald humanity's demise? For decades, the Michleson - Morley experiment has given every indication of light being a constant, measured at approximately 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum just as Einstein predicted.
However, it's this very experiment which might have led the human race to its greatest failing, and not grasp the real magnificence of the laws of physics. The imponderable with the 19th century test being, the experiment itself was measured from a body of mass: planet earth.
It has a fatal flaw. In my belief, it's this astounding irregularity that has somewhat led to a false evaluation of light's true velocity. These guys screwed up big time, and by doing so, humanity has neglected its duty to the wider population of our planet, failed to see why we don't currently detect other Planets via a Doppler registration, and undermined our whole evaluation of the universe itself.
To preoccupied with its own overblown status, academia may have conducted the gravest dereliction of duty ever witnessed, and resigned humanities future to the waste bin of existence.
As the respected American philosopher and theoretical physicist, Keith Pritchard said at a seminar in London not so long ago: "My God, if this is shown to be accurate, then what lies in store for us is so frightening, it doesn't bear thinking about."
What I decided to do, after years of diligent searching for a credible alternative to Einsteinian special relativity, was to change the place at where light first originates.
Although it might seem obvious that light emits from a star, as Einstein himself believed, it doesn't seem very logical.
Why would light travel to us if it first emits from a star, and not simply escape and be lost to the ether of space?
With the thought eating away at me, I decided to look for a theory which appeared more logical, and eventually decided to choose an arbitrary point for light to first appear. A point of light equivalent to any two bodies of mass, and determine a point of force between both bodies.
Initially, it seemed absurd, laughable even. But then again, any new postulation always does, especially when the results of such theory turns everything we already understand about the laws of physics and the mechanics which drive them, on their head.
But it needed to be done, regardless of the hostility it would encounter when first made public.
This idea was too big to be ignored or left alone, especially when mankind's future depended so heavily on it.
And so, how does this profound new theory work? How can you rewrite special relativity and show the velocity of light not to be a constant in a vacuum?
As previously mentioned, I decided to select a point of force for light to first appear, the point always being central to any two stars: (bodies of mass.)
As a thought experiment, and to facilitate the narrative, you might like to imagine it like a game of tug-of-war down here on Earth where two teams take up the rope and pull.
The strongest point of force is always central to the rope, if both teams are of an equivalent force, and naturally, both teams experience the force simultaneous as it travels along the rope to meet them. Can you see those two teams, see the rope? Now, rather than have a picture of two teams of tug-of-war in your mind, exchange both teams for stars, and the rope itself for light. Can you see it? From a central position in between both black stars a pin-prick of light appears, and races two directions to light each said star.
This would mean, what we see as stars in the night sky, are not actually stars at all, but are in fact, points of light where the strongest force is exerted between both reciprocal bodies of mass. Thus the point of light we witness in the night sky would contain no mass.
It is merely a point where the force is at its most powerful position in conjunction with an opposite body of mass, and thus from it, light must naturally move two ways, in alternative directions, simultaneous to its alternative body. See Diagram 1 (left).
If we argue two bodies of mass (stars) are equally proportioned, say 1 mass each, then light must naturally move towards each reciprocal body, from a central location at 1 acceleration. Therefore, two observers, one around each star will witness the event equally, both at the same time, without any room for disparity, meaning neither could determine a time any different from the other.
For both observers, time ceases to exist, or stands still. As Keith Pritchard said to me, somewhat shocked by the revelation: "That would mean we could be born a million years apart, yet still both see the same event together."
Keith was absolutely right, although failed to see what it really meant. Keith instantly jumped to an obvious conclusion, like most other academics do, and included a timeframe is his analogy, but didn't realise, time itself has no meaning on the postulate.
Unlike Einstein, who perceived time as a driving force, I hadn't, I wasn't inevitably moving the velocity of light, I was moving the velocity of gravity, and aiming to build a paradox, which would run a time non- time parallel with each other. Which meant we could have time, and no time simultaneous? A contradiction if you like which initially seems to make a mockery of everything we understand about the universe, the laws of physics, space, time, mathematics and cosmology.
It was purely based on how we wished to visualise the universe, from our own perspective standing on a body of mass moving through space, or from the perspective of the universe where discrimination collapses and allows an ambit of impartiality.
Einstein chose the body of mass, I chose the universe.
Sometimes it is hard to detach ourselves from what relates to us, but I knew it had to be done.
I had to stand away from the planet and view the greater picture, not show fear or favour to any individual body, and strike arbitrary points equivalent to all universal bodies.
Somewhat captivated by the prospect of such an interesting thought, and painfully aware of the trouble I was about to unleash, I decided to expand the idea and see how it would work in practice, assuming all bodies of mass must differ in some respect. No two bodies of mass are identical, and so the initial theoretical stages of the hypothesis must be much more professional and show any deviation from the main postulate, assuming the point of force I permitted light to first originate from.
Light needed to be measured as an X (unknown quantity) - factor in the equation, not a constant. For me light couldn't possibly be measured as a constant if it fluctuated due to the gravitational influence of an opposite number. See Diagram 2 (right).
Purely for the purpose of the experiment I chose to use two bodies of mass, (stars) with one at 1 mass, the other at 2 mass, although the size and dimension of any individual body of mass (star) could be anything we want. The density is irrelevant, it merely shows the delicate nature of how to build a prediction and validate the theory, and thus, the fundamental change of the postulations construction is neither altered nor diminished.
The physics which drive the argument would always remain exactly the same application when played out on a universal stage. Making one body 2 mass and its alternative body 1 mass, I assumed the point at where light breaks must shift position.
Unlike the first experiment with each body of mass at 1 mass, and the initial point of force breaking central to both bodies, I now had a totally different scenario. With one of the bodies at 2 mass, the point of light would first originate two thirds from the body of 1 mass, but only one third from the body of 2 mass.
So what happens to the passage of light at this juncture? Well naturally, light must compensate for the irregular nature of the increase in mass density, and produce a higher accelerated speed if it is to retain parity. light therefore moves at 2 acceleration towards the body of 1 mass, but only 1 acceleration towards the body of 2 mass.
From the aforementioned you see light cannot theoretically remain as a constant in speed, and thus the velocity of light itself must break the (constant) barrier and hasten towards its opposite number at a rate determined by the mass volume level.
But like any good theoretical observation which contests an established piece of science I had to prove it. It's no good just taking along some half baked idea that can't be measured with accurate measuring equipment.
Therefore, the only difficulty I now faced was how to prove such a claim, and show the validity of the work in a practical way - to sequestrate any ambiguity or ambivalence, and convert an original idea into a valuable postulate we could accurately measure. It wasn't going to be easy, but then again, anything worth its salt never is. I persevered.
They say the proof of a pudding's in the eating, and if that's the case, then the proof of any good piece of postulation is in the prediction.
If you can't measure any new idea, it quite simply isn't much of an idea. And so, what - I decided to do, was look for a way to produce an ambit where the volume of mass is increased on either body. And although I don't really want to blow my own trumpet too loudly, what I arrived at was a rather unique solution. I'd use an eclipse, either solar or lunar, in another Solar System to develops the prediction and show, where possible, the theory practical.
This is what I said: if a solar eclipse takes place in a different, more distant solar system, the mass of the star must increase slightly when the star condenses. If this happens, and the level of mass does indeed increase, as the prediction says it must, then the point of force we witness as a star, must logically conpensate for any alteration in the volume of mass - and simply relocate its position for the duration of the eclipse.
Theoretically, we should observe light fractionally rise, until the solar eclipse transpires. Starlight would then return to its former locality as the star itself relinquishes its hold on the higher level mass.
Alternatively, a lunar eclipse will produce the opposite effect on the starlight we observe as a star in the night sky. If a lunar eclipse occurs in a distant solar system, the the gravitational force of the said star should naturally loosen its gravitational force, the volume of mass weaken, and starlight fall to a lower locality.
Once the eclipse passes, starlight should return to its original position. We term these events: 1: (The rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler.) 2: (The fall and rise of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler.) Either would validate the postulation so far and show light cannot be a constant in a vacuum as Einstein predicted.
But how can we be sure, that what I say here has any credibility whatsoever? Some academics, including my good friend Keith Pritchard, pointed this out to me, and warned against going public to soon, although Keith himself had to raise his eyebrows when I explained, rather passionately how the theory came about. I told Keith as we stood in the corner of a packed auditorium, our fellow academics cluster in cellular groups around us, standing with the obligatory plate of nibbles and cups of tea, the idea first struck me when looking at images of the astronauts of the Space Shuttle on one of their many, dangerous space walks.
Almost bored by the countless images of astronauts extended on mechanical arms from the shuttle itself, I began to wonder about the lack of stars behind them.
The huge, almost hypnotic image of the planet lost in an infinite sea of blackness got me thinking. Of course, we all know science has for year's postulated theory on the "mineshaft" belief. Because of the huge force of gravity from Earth behind the astronaut, it's equivalent to venturing deep down a mineshaft.
The further down the mineshaft you go, the more light narrows. But watching the televised images, a thought provoked me: how could the mineshaft theory apply if the Astronaut was falling under a principle of equivalence: (in weightless environment)?
Surely, there would be less gravity, not more, and as the Astronaut fell through space without the earth's gravitational pull affecting his body, it wouldn't affect his eyesight either. We must assume the astronaut's eyes are stuck in his head, the head is glued to his body, and the lot of them are inextricably linked. I concluded the mineshaft theory wrong. It had to be less gravity which caused the absence of light, not more gravity. If this was the case, then I knew we had some very serious thinking to do.
If light was produced, on demand by an influential body of matter, then a single repository and receptor was not enough to motivate the current theoretical observations we utilise today. I decided to seek an arbitrary point for light to manifest, and was shocked at what I discovered: the fact light could move two directions simultaneous, and fluctuating bodies of mass could push the arbitrary light position along different lengths of the scale. But was there any supporting evidence. I would have settled at that juncture in time, for even anecdotal evidence.
Then I remembered, light through water moves at a much slower velocity than through a vacuum. Of course it does. And as there's less gravity in water, I knew the hypothesis was more than just an outlandish proposal. I knew it was something big.
But just how big would only become apparent when the full evaluation, and prediction was built. By including a prediction based on the mass - volume level, and showing how we might measure the said prediction by increasing the volume of mass on the star, I also understood the reason why we don't currently detect Planets via a Doppler registration. I reasoned, that if we do only ever measure a point of force between two stars, then the sum-total of the equation must always be calculated. Even if there was planetary movement in another solar system, the glitch of the plate's movement around the star would not alter the frequency, as they move as mirrored ellipses of each other. It was then I included the anomaly of eclipse within the equation. I termed this for easy recognition: a secondary equation to the Doppler, bearing in mind, the primary equation (the Planets motion and movement around the star) had already calculated itself in conjunction with a reciprocal body.
But moreover than this, the thought
Which leapt out at me was, there must be Planets around every star we see in the night sky, and the only stars not to have Planets around them, must be too dense to produce a point of force between the two bodies. These I termed black stars, rather than black holes.
It might be nice to think there is this strange universal phenomena known as a black hole, tearing into the fabric of space, but personally I consider these places to be a point where a star will later form when it eventually explodes, showers its surround Solar System with material and then collapses back on itself as a fused vortices, and generates an initial pulsar. The gravitational pull has weaken slightly, but is still not in a stable enough position to generate a determined point in space for us to see it as a simple star.
Yet, with the belief that every star has contributory Planets within the make-up of its own remit, I also had to consider the possibility of life around each of these, and unsuspectingly got sucked into the Ufological debate. Something people like myself usually find, at best, tedious, and at worse, damn right unconvincing. But if evidence does exist, regardless of how remote, we have a fundamental obligation to investigate, even if this is just to close the debate down.
Little did I know what was about to emerge. With the old argument in physics building a head of steam about Extraterrestrial life not being able to get to Earth because light is a constant, and the gravitational force on any Spacecraft would turn the travellers to pulp, I knew I had circumvented the first part of the row. The velocity of light had bitten the dust, but the problem of G-force still remained. It was then I decided to play about a bit, have some fun and not take the idea of Spacecraft moving beyond light speed too seriously.
But as with anything in life that's suddenly relegated to a lower level, the ideas produced from it accelerated it straight to the top of the tree. I thought if I used the idea of moving light two ways simultaneous to cancel time, then as time equates to a volume of mass, why not cancel the G-force inside the craft by constructing the vehicle in separate stages.
Einstein once said of relativity: if you observe a clock racing towards you through space at the velocity of light, you would naturally see time shrink. I changed Einstein's theory - by moving the emission and transmission point of light, and moved in two directions at once. This allowed me to paraphrase Einstein's quote and strip time from the equation.
What I said was: if you observe a clock race towards you through space at the velocity of light, but the hands of the clock turn equally, and proportionately backwards to its forwards motion, time will always stand still.
The problem of G-force for any extraterrestrial crew was solved. If we built a craft in three stages, an outer shell moving clockwise, an inner shell moving anti-clockwise and a central capsule, the capsule would be offset by the other two entities and thus sit within them in a weightless environment. Surprisingly, I could even use the theory to build a propulsion system to drive the said vessel.
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||