And so, how does this profound new theory work? How can you rewrite special relativity and show the speed 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 in-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, simultanous to its alternative body. See Diagram 1.
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 Kieth Pritchard said to me, somewhat shocked by the revalation: "That would mean we could be born a million years apart, yet still both see the same event together."
Kieth was absolutely right, although failed to see what it really meant. Kieth instantly jumped to an obvious conclusion, like most other academics do, and included a time frame 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 uniuverse, from our own perspective staning 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
Go Forward Go Back More About Special Relativity Go To Original Article From Universe Galaxies And Stars.
Go To Universe Galaxies And Stars Home Page