PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > EM Theory > c as Unity?
2024-11-28, 07:51:33
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: c as Unity?  (Read 27229 times)
Topic Options img
img  BEP
c as Unity? « on: 2010-05-08, 16:03:12 »
Group: Guest
Einstein's revelations are based upon the fact that one of the variables of relativity must be unity(1). c, or the speed of light in a vacuum, was chosen.

Why c?

Energy, mass (not matter) and c. Where is space in the equation?

Isn't it equally plausible that the expansion/contraction of space should be a non-unity factor included in the formula?

If so, then there may be better explanations of things like black holes with no escaping light. In this case, the compression of space would constitute a much longer path for escaping light to travel. Since escaping light would then take longer to travel, the energy of that light would appear to us as a much lower wavelength. To put it simply, the amount of energy doesn't change but something must so frequency does.

Isn't it just as plausible to say space has expanded or compressed and the speed of light is only unity in the view of the observer located in the same frame?

If space dilation/compression is a factor then there is no unity variable except the observer's reference frame and gravity may just be a result of mass and space.

Got Redshift anyone?

 :D

P.S.

This is becoming a question for me due to results I see from experiments with pulse compression and 7 minute traverse times for laser pulses in crystal latices.
It could also explain watch speeds/light&temperature shifts while contained in certain controlled fields.

« Last Edit: 2010-05-08, 23:16:28 by WaveWatcher »
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #1 on: 2010-05-08, 16:13:56 »
Group: Guest
Just one more thought, while the coffee is working.....

The laws of the Universe override the laws of physics(observations of scientists).

The first Universal law is: Nothing can, has or will happen until it does happen.

The second law is: See the first law.

THERE! My coffee is now failing me. :'(


>>Edit:

Been thinking of this idea in mathematical terms today. Even if space and time are added to the formula (not assumed to be integrated with E, m or c as they are now), the rest would not change, just the understanding of the rest.

Space and Time are said to be two sides of the same coin. I think this is correct but one side can warp and take the other with it.
« Last Edit: 2010-05-08, 23:22:13 by WaveWatcher »
   
img  the_big_m_in_ok
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #2 on: 2010-05-09, 00:34:09 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010-05-08, 16:03:12
Einstein's revelations are based upon the fact that one of the variables of relativity must be unity(1). c, or the speed of light in a vacuum, was chosen.
Why c?
Energy, mass (not matter) and c. Where is space in the equation?
A thought experiment?
Space in the equation comes as a velocity of light (c) moving through space, right?  No one can go from point 'A' to point 'B' with no transpired time (instantly).  To do this may imply exceeding the speed of light, but that can't be done by any means I know of.
Quote
Isn't it equally plausible that the expansion/contraction of space should be a non-unity factor included in the formula?
Space is black at night because light leaves the universe and doesn't reflect off anything out there, right?  Infinity can't 'expand' or 'contract', yes?  It's infinite.  Does this hypothesis change your question(s) above?
Quote

If so, then there may be better explanations of things like black holes with no escaping light. In this case, the compression of space would constitute a much longer path for escaping light to travel. Since escaping light would then take longer to travel, the energy of that light would appear to us as a much lower wavelength. To put it simply, the amount of energy doesn't change but something must so frequency does.
Galaxies and black holes at the edge of the universe appear red and infrared---Redshift, obviously---because at that distance frequency does change to a lower value.  Light is forced to change by the action of traveling through space and time to get here.  Space is still infinite, but light isn't.
Quote
 
Isn't it just as plausible to say space has expanded or compressed and the speed of light is only unity in the view of the observer located in the same frame?
Space in nonphysical, so, assuming it's nothing but empty volume, especially---theoretically and arguably---at the edge (if there is an 'edge' to infinity), it itself can't change, right?  Finite things in space change.  'C' is a constant, but that also makes it non-infinite.  So, then, 'c' might be view by the observer as a finite constant, but that's all?
Quote

If space dilation/compression is a factor then there is no unity variable except the observer's reference frame and gravity may just be a result of mass and space.
Dilation is a function of time and velocity is as well, and they're not constant the faster you move.  'C' is a constant and not a variable.  All else, other than 'c', isn't unity in this thought experiment.  Gravity isn't acting on the object moving, is it?  Other than acceleration?

I had to think my way through this as I went along in real time.  That being so, I may not be able to experimentally prove any of this, so take it for what it's worth:  an informal opinion.

--Lee
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #3 on: 2010-05-09, 05:37:21 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2010-05-09, 00:34:09
A thought experiment?
Space in the equation comes as a velocity of light (c) moving through space, right?  No one can go from point 'A' to point 'B' with no transpired time (instantly).  To do this may imply exceeding the speed of light, but that can't be done by any means I know of.Space is black at night because light leaves the universe and doesn't reflect off anything out there, right?  Infinity can't 'expand' or 'contract', yes?  It's infinite.  Does this hypothesis change your question(s) above?Galaxies and black holes at the edge of the universe appear red and infrared---Redshift, obviously---because at that distance frequency does change to a lower value.  Light is forced to change by the action of traveling through space and time to get here.  Space is still infinite, but light isn't.Space in nonphysical, so, assuming it's nothing but empty volume, especially---theoretically and arguably---at the edge (if there is an 'edge' to infinity), it itself can't change, right?  Finite things in space change.  'C' is a constant, but that also makes it non-infinite.  So, then, 'c' might be view by the observer as a finite constant, but that's all?Dilation is a function of time and velocity is as well, and they're not constant the faster you move.  'C' is a constant and not a variable.  All else, other than 'c', isn't unity in this thought experiment.  Gravity isn't acting on the object moving, is it?  Other than acceleration?

I had to think my way through this as I went along in real time.  That being so, I may not be able to experimentally prove any of this, so take it for what it's worth:  an informal opinion.

--Lee


Perhaps I used the term 'variable' to match my belief where it is common to call 'c' a constant.

I use Ken's answer most frequently (it's all relative'). This is incorrect by the books but I consider it correct. 'c' is theoretical. I doubt it can be proven as there is no total vacuum. Tests indicate it is probably correct because we can test within an almost complete vacuum.

No. I don't believe 'c' can be called a constant. "C", certainly can't be called a constant.
My replications of Dollard's analog transmission line computer concurs with his results. Wave travel speed can be as high as c x 1.65.
Regardless, there must be a constant or everything is willy-nilly. As a thought experiment I chose space-time. That forced me to separate space and time, otherwise any measurement of speed becomes a problem. Still, the two are hopelessly bound together almost as one.

Space and distance are two facets of the same thing. Lets consider space as volume, for my thought experiment, and distance then length of any path through space.

Lets give space a 1 for what may be called normal space. Call space 's'.

So now it is E=smC2.

The result is ... no change. No change unless s slides outside the normal range  ;)
How can peiople believe in the first few nanoseconds the universe expanded at the same rate it expands now?

Space is space? No, space is all areas occupied by anything or everything. Beyond existing space there is only null existance( for material things or measurable forces).

What it all boils down to is 'it doesn't matter'. That won't change until I can deform space (I suppose I already do that. My mass has gravity. I know that is true because of all the things falling out of me)
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #4 on: 2010-05-09, 17:02:12 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi
When thinking on  time theres space with movement to take into consideration. If you send light from a point source then the shifts are relative to the differing  of the source and observed locations if they are travelling in differing directions then the doppler effect is understandable. As the space between changes the timing  also changes. The question is if we were to travel near to the speed of light with an identical  distant observer in the exact trajectory would there be any shift ? As you approach c if the medium in which light travels is stationary  then as with sound would there be a developing bow wave? At c with respect to the medium it travels in if fixed this may occur. If so then wouldnt you expect more red shifts in one direction when viewing the cosmos as we are moving?
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #5 on: 2010-05-09, 19:30:50 »
Group: Guest
Interesting thoughts from all, thanks.

I fear things fit the elastic tape measure idea.

Variations of an experiment were performed in a university in Mexico, Denmark and other not so noteworthy places.

The basic construction was a set of air coils containing a mechanical watch with a second identical control watch outside the influence of the coils. They were synchronized. While the coils were running the contained watch showed a visible lag in time keeping, as well as visible distortion of space and color. As soon as power was removed the contained watch was again in sync with the control watch (without operator intervention).

The Mexican paper disappeared from the website the same day it was posted. The folks in Denmark were laughed out of the University and their reports were removed from the web magazine. One, not so noteworthy, stopped discussing it due to everything from insults to threats from religious zealots.

If the results were true, this would indicate any flexing of space would include flexing of time, from the outside observer's point of view. Not only that but any flexing always snaps back. Einstein would then be wrong about the person returning from the near-light speed flight. He would turn to dust as soon as he applied the brakes -or- he would snap back to his own time.

Wouldn't it be interesting if that base formula also  had to include separate factors for variations in time and space?
Then folks could spend all their time trying to create anti-gravity, overunity and time travel. Oops, we are already doing that.  ???
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #6 on: 2010-05-09, 20:52:42 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi
Well observed Ken, two assumed facts but one or the other could be correct.
On Naudins site he has a time energy pump and details given here re time dilation reminded of it. If the elasticity of the ether does affect time then he may be onto something.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #7 on: 2010-05-09, 21:46:04 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Ken on 2010-05-09, 20:45:14
So was it a hoax?

I doubt the Mexicans or the Danes had time or the interest in pressing their results as fact. As I recall, both shoved those results aside as part of the reported data. One was trying to prove a rotating charge field, the other was trying to measure group velocity of light packets. Both had trouble with questionable results and reported it was due to space\time dilation with calculations to show the reasoning.

The math was above me but I could follow the reports. When I went back to make copies of the procedures the info was gone.

I do recall posting the Mexican report on OU in coversation with a long-gone user.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #8 on: 2010-05-09, 21:48:45 »
Group: Guest
Ken,

You have my interest.
Do you know of any expriment to prove Time is the one true constant or one of the constants?

The argument that 'c' is THE constant implies space and time are both constants.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #9 on: 2010-05-10, 00:58:21 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Ken on 2010-05-09, 23:29:23
Time is the mechanism that allows 2 objects to occupy the same point in space.

 8)

Very ingenious!

And now the definition of space:

Space is the medium which forces an existance into more than one point in time.


Where's the schematic? I want to build this thing!   :)
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #10 on: 2010-05-10, 03:33:05 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Ken on 2010-05-10, 01:54:41
Before the creation of the universe, there was time.

Hmmm.... I think you are leaving me at that statement.

I've been told I'm so old I fart dust from the first debris of the big-bang. Are you older?

I'm afraid you'll never convince me that time is a constant for any combination of universes.

Since there is no chance of anyone proving/disproving the existence of time before and after this universe, I am content in trying to stretch or compress it.

At least there are a few folks thinking they have already done it. 7 minutes for a laser pulse to traverse a crystal lattice? This crystal was a bit shorter than the radius of the Venusian orbit, one was around 60 inches long. There was no attenuation or frequency change of the pulse. It just came out 'late'. ( I think that was a show on PBS hosted by Alan Alda).



My experiments?

I'll stick with pulse compression and delay lines, for now. Maybe some watches later.  ;)

I do appreciate the mental exercise!

My freedom ends soon. Off to bed so I can accept the whip tomorrow.
 
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #11 on: 2010-05-10, 20:03:21 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi Guys,
 Theres an interesting study of the sagnac effect Ive recently read on saying that the doppler effect doesnt apply, its time relative to position which is based on angular velocity re orbits of satellites and this HAS to be taken into consideration or things like satnav would never work. It also applies to linear trajectories.
Im still reading on the effect of shifts based on this theory and if it  applies I can see where they are coming from saying c is a constant.
Ive not got to the point of satisfaction over travelling near c as the above would give rise to compression IMHO but as to what this would be and its relative effects to a stationary observer above the shifts is still not answered.
I was on my mobile/cell phone researching and the link isnt available. It wasnt from wiki.
   
img  the_big_m_in_ok
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #12 on: 2010-05-10, 23:49:35 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: WaveWatcher
[quote
The basic construction was a set of air coils containing a mechanical watch with a second identical control watch outside the influence of the coils. They were synchronized. While the coils were running the contained watch showed a visible lag in time keeping, as well as visible distortion of space and color. As soon as power was removed the contained watch was again in sync with the control watch (without operator intervention).
While I was getting ready to wrote this sentence, the thought occurred to me that the "set of air coils" may have been a Caduceus coil.

Take a look at these:

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_1746.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBlK9TrlmU
http://www.angelfire.com/un/weirdlabs.com/cad.html
www.stealthskater.com/Documents/TIME/Caduceus.doc
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/index.htm

That's enough of those.  There were 11,600 GOOGLE hits for "caduceus coil time" when I looked.

So, then, it appears that time is affected when counter-wound caduceus coils are electrified with pulsating DC.  That could be why the clocks ran at different speeds when the coils were charged.
Quote
The Mexican paper disappeared from the website the same day it was posted. The folks in Denmark were laughed out of the University and their reports were removed from the web magazine. One, not so noteworthy, stopped discussing it due to everything from insults to threats from religious zealots.
Criticism from others smacks of an unstated agenda and a desire to withhold accurate information.
Quote
If the results were true, this would indicate any flexing of space would include flexing of time, from the outside observer's point of view. Not only that but any flexing always snaps back. Einstein would then be wrong about the person returning from the near-light speed flight. He would turn to dust as soon as he applied the brakes -or- he would snap back to his own time.
Well, that would be hard to prove, IMHO, but, without personal experience, I can't say for sure.  I don't know.
Quote
Wouldn't it be interesting if that base formula also  had to include separate factors for variations in time and space?
Then folks could spend all their time trying to create anti-gravity, overunity and time travel. Oops, we are already doing that.  ???
That's what we're here for, yes?   ;)

--Lee
« Last Edit: 2010-07-14, 21:19:38 by the_big_m_in_ok »
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #13 on: 2010-05-11, 01:03:38 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi All,
Thinking on an experiment..
Utilising a laser with a beam splitter sending 2 identical amplitude (or as near as) in a parallel line somewhat apart across a short distance then reflect the beams so as to cause an interference pattern.
This layout sounding familiar?
Then with a high speed motor coupled to a disc with magnets arranged so that when spun the edges of the magnets align with the beams above at a tangent...
The effect we are looking for is a changing interference pattern.
A while ago (forgot the names....)  an experiment involving startup times with the motor arrangement above changed.. first time say 2 mins to full speed, if then stopped the next period for full speed was much less....an inertia effect.
If this IS down to the ether then spinning it would affect c as its this medium we assume that light travels in.
We may need to apply an electronic 'spinner' working at a somewhat higher angular velocity but incremental and a VCO would suffice.
I dont have the motor believe it or not but the rest mmmmmmmm.
@WW if it changes we may be on to something if not then this proves the idea needs a little more thought.
 
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #14 on: 2010-05-11, 02:41:30 »
Group: Guest
szaxx,

Make sure you try radial polarization of the very high-speed electronic magnets, something like the stator of a very small three-phase motor with 6 or 9 poles perhaps? It should be better to shoot only one of the beams through the motor mod before the interferometer.

I would think the three phases should be fired sequentially with overlap and 30/60 deg. between adjacent peaks of alternating sine. The stator of a hard disk motor works well if you secure the shape of the metal form and through-notch between the poles at the inside diameter.

I consider light as the result of compression due to the travel of something else exceeding the maximum expansion speed of current space. I hope this doesn't make your suggested experiment fail.
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #15 on: 2010-05-13, 01:15:06 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi,
Another six pack required. The link is typed and works on my cell. There is a lot of reading and this has made me think a little more about that suggested experiment.

http://Http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page1/index.html

@WW This is the spanner in the works.
 Its a lot of info but seemingly Consistent, not technical, just informative and easy to read.
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #16 on: 2010-05-13, 16:29:05 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi
Archimedes principle the object needs to float its the upthrust that the weight equals as it is this that causes the displacement of water. What I was reading is that c travels at c even if you are travelling near c yourself. Which is a little confusing it explains the shifts in principle referring to doppler then says theres no doppler effect with it.
The mick morley e experiment is dismissed as its time frame is not changing but doesnt give any follow up for any other related experiment. My suggested idea is based on stirring the ether and sending light through the vortex edge to see if any difference exists.
Ill read more from links first as it may have been already performed.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #17 on: 2010-05-13, 20:06:16 »
Group: Guest
Szaxx,

My suggested mods for your experiment relate to some magneto-optic methods used in modern harddisks.
The magnetic polarization of a bit is controlled by circular polarization of the laser during read.
I don't know if we ever made the write function work the inverse but all things are reciprocal in one way or another.
.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #18 on: 2010-05-13, 21:21:14 »
Group: Guest
I had read and write backwards in my previous post. Sorry. I'm killing time and keeping my mind busy in an ER waiting room with my phone.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #19 on: 2010-05-13, 23:21:59 »
Group: Guest
You must mean 'slicksdexic'.

Still waiting....

   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #20 on: 2010-05-14, 00:05:11 »
Group: Guest
Ah! Our wonderful insurance company controller medical system.... Why would anyone wish to change it?

Wound up paying cash just to get it over with. Glad it is over.
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #21 on: 2010-05-14, 00:53:22 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi ken
The principle is based weight and anything that sinks aint gonna do it. If you can float 60000 tonnes of steel on the ocean 1 gold coin isnt that much of a problem. Lol.
@ WW ok on that, its the length of the light in the  active area, there may only be a tiny change and it will require the fringe pattern to be large and bright, as my gas laser is 5 mW at 450nM I hope it will be enough. The other is injection and burns so may use this if not enough light output. It will be spread by 10000000 times or so to see the pattern clearly. I had a sneaky thought as to an electronic Stirrer in using a tetrahedron arrangement for the exiter.
Comments welcome and eventually may make a good unit for any related experiments.
   
img  szaxx
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #22 on: 2010-05-14, 19:36:04 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi
@ken  I agree this guy isnt saying the truth. As I was remembering from the mid 70s, archimedes principle is based on upthrust or if it floats the weight of it is equal to the weight of the water displaced. Something in that order lol.
Coins on the other hand were always an item of mistrust. The size can be measured in water as said for volume but the exact composition could be done by size and weight combined but Id rather use plastic if things are going to get this bad again lol.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #23 on: 2010-05-16, 13:41:06 »
Group: Guest
In much earlier years, during a longterm isolation (required for my duties), I think my best friend was my imagination.

I had been dabbling with the math to bind the magnetic and gravity fields. At some point things snapped and I heard a repeating song in the whirring and clicking of all the machinery in the station. My mind translated the stanza to "All is one and one is all".

Shortly after that I started to spend more time with the bottle and things became normal again. I've shaken the bottle since then  :) So here I am. Back asking silly questions.

I have seen work that suggests there is only one particle (spin) and it exists everywhere at the same time.

Normally, I don't find the need to include aether in my travels. My opinion is it is more likely we have tagged all the fields and forces but don't understand them completely.

Take magnetic (not electromagnetic) for example. Magnetic is the source of electric and electric the source of magnetic? I doubt it.

There are points where they begin to separate and both ends of the EM spectrum are the first two I can think of.
   
img  BEP
Re: c as Unity? « Reply #24 on: 2010-05-16, 19:07:50 »
Group: Guest
Ah!

An example of what happens when a force exceeds terminal velocity of space. Conversion from unidirectional longitudinal motion to transverse energy. Wave-particle duality. And getting the hell outta Dodge  :D
   
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 07:51:33