I believe your organization, (UFO Digest), and community that would find what I've discovered very interesting, which is why I'm sharing my work with you. My intent is to make you aware of some interesting findings, spark intrigue and gain support for a new radical theory. The linked paper is a hypothetical study into the relativistic symmetry between celestial and quantum objects strongly alluding to the Universe being fractal in nature. It gives some unexpected mathematical coincidences directly linking mass to charge which as you would suspect is of significant interest to all of science. There are two coincidences in fact which are further compounded by circular reference to my paper's hypothesis. These are coincidences which I strongly believe cannot be ignored.
Many professionals I've shared this with are blown away to put it mildly. They include many scientists and engineers. Many of these individuals call it the missing piece to the unification of physics and it comes from the misconception of Einstein's theories. These misconceptions pertain to relativistic time and mass along with the application of scale and that the speed of light is a limit. It currently states that time of the traveling observer slows down and that mass increases compared to the stationary observer. This is flat out incorrect.
There is absolutely no evidence that any particles accelerated to near the speed of light in particle accelerators have their mass increase at all or that time slows down for these particles from our frame of reference. The one experiment boasted by quantum physicists to prove time dilation on quantum particles is riddled with interference from the experimenting apparatus and erroneous misinterpretation in order to fit Einstein's theories as they are currently understood. I will elaborate on this experiment later on.
To understand how Einstein's equations can be interpreted differently, the misconception that the speed of light is limit must be addressed.
This is a hotly debated topic and one which I love to argue over giving different perspectives to consider. Based on my own theoretical research and some very interesting mathematical observations, the speed of light is not a speed limit but remains a constant only because the source of all light is constant. The source of all light are excited atoms. Even the concept of the atom is also a constant as is the concept of stars. Einstein assumed that light was the universal speed limit and he openly stated that this was an assumption. Only by falsification of this claim should it have been accepted by the scientific community but it wasn't. It was accepted as fact based on limited observational data. Accepting anything as fact is not scientific method. An obvious counter argument to the speed of light has always been staring everyone in the face. That argument is that space itself travels faster than light. What is considered the fabric of space (the substance of space-time) is everywhere instantly and this theoretical model was derived from Einstein's own work on relativity and the concept of inertial frames of reference.
Space itself is a point of reference at both points of transition, so it can be mathematically derived that space traveled between both points instantly at an infinite velocity. As hard as that is to conceptualize in physical actuality, my own point is that popularized theories and assumptions must be deconstructed from all conceivable and inconceivable angles and only by doing so will we ever advance our understanding of the Universe. For example, the concept of inertial frames of reference in Einstein's relativity makes several assumptions of which the greatest is that the Universe itself has no frame of reference for everything within it including multiple observers at varying velocities all in reference to the stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters which we all know exist where they are (granted with observable delay of the speed of light by our current observational instrumentation). This is a big assumption in current relativistic physics. That fact is that a universal frame of reference does exist only because it's that obvious; the Universe is all around us.
I call this frame of reference the universal static frame of reference. Essentially Einstein's equations are not wrong but how they were conceptually derived lead them to be interpreted incorrect. Time increases by the Einstein's equation which doesn't mean it slows down for the traveling observer, as seen by the stationary observer, but instead means that the passage of time increases by a factor given in the equation for the traveling observer as seen by the stationary observer. Now what baffles me is that with the advent of the concept of inertial frames of reference, or velocity frames of reference as I prefer to call them, that not all angles and possibilities were analyzed from the many possible reference points and frames (of perception). I will not point fingers at Einstein because he solely introduced several very important concepts, of which relativity is one, into a mathematical framework with his theories of Special and General Relativity. His contribution to science is staggering even if all he did was just have critical thinkers actually think outside the box of conservatism.
| Click on the 'NEXT' arrow for page 2 |  |
Today:
Printer
friendly version
