Einstein's Starting Point

Hi Michiel,

Thanks for being understanding. I don't mind the jokes as long as you can bracket them into a continuing dialogue so that we can both be on the same page, then I won't feel offended.

Check out my posts in "Antigravity Research," I have a collection of pictures, cited research, and video that you might find interesting.

I think you are right, the NASA proposal for creating a shield is for warding off radiation that could pose a health hazard for the crew. The cryogenic tanks is kind of a passive method much like a faraday cage, and the use of an FTL electrostatic charged field is an active system which I think would be better and provide greater protection.

Hmmm, rooftop prism maybe it is to check out spectrum to see if there is a difference between a photon sample that is superluminal as compared to a control sample that is not superluminal? I'm not sure on that one. Population inversions, they did mention that the field inverted to a parelectric negative charge with potential for levitation which could create a repulsive barrier also similar to the NASA electrostatic shield idea. So, not sure on that one but maybe they are referring to a packet of photons and field inversions?

I also looked for the video. You are right, it was not there.

Good questions, I will try to do some more research and maybe some one can comment and come up with some ideas on how this experiment is put together.

Take a look at this java applet:

www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/betha/qm/3bfr.html

When you set mass to 2300 and energy to 2 (for example) you can see patterns shifting very fast, to and fro.
Are these patterns signals? I don't think so. The graph only shows the probability the 'particle' can be found in that region.

I found this applet on:

www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html

A lot of applets reside here and some of them are very nice for visualising. I couldn't help thinking: "Where were these tools when I was young?"

Hi Michiel,

I enjoyed the applets. The 2d models showed how waves regenerate exact phase conjugation similar to matter antimatter relationships at sub atomic levels. At larger planetary scales we are getting a huge south swell here in the islands that is suppose to reach 18 feet tomorrow. Why do atoms maintain there balanced wave patterns, whereas when wave patterns generated under the forces of gravity caused by our planets weather machine eventually dissipates?

Kind of a trick question because as seen in the 3d modeling we can create electrostatic forces that are repulsive allowing light to travel faster and reduce the collision friction due to gravitational forces. So, if you can eliminate or reduce the effects of gravity then a wave can keep on rolling set after set. Is zero loss of inertia possible? Maybe not, and maybe yes if you have a phase conjugation mirror that regenerates the bouncing wave that is maintained by the reverse repulsion of time domain phases of matter; then, Electromagnetism may have a direct relationship to Gravity. Locked phase conjugations of masses are gyroscopically in sync, allowing for shared gravity fields.

To unlock the high frequency graviton incoming flux forces that are FTL, then the only other force that is FTL would be the electrostatic force. The picture is so much more complicated since I think we have a fourth dimensional duality that interacts in two separate time domains that are represented by matter and antimatter waveforms within atomic nuclei.

Say Cosmicsurfer, phase conjugation is a fascinating phenomenon. In the light of this discussion it's not for the fainthearted!
The way I see a PCM (phase conjugating mirror): It's a highly non-linear medium. Once an incoming wave has penetrated the medium deep enough, the wave forces the medium into being a mirror for the wave itself. The wave is then sent back to the direction it came from. (I'm not sure if this works for single photons)

Which brings me to the much more basic question (I like small steps):
How linear is the light carrying medium in the vacuum of deep space?

___

My father -a musician- once told me that the reverberation of a loud orchestra chord has a lower frequency then the initial chord. At first I thought he meant that high frequencies decay faster. Then I realized that the propagation speed of sound is dependant on air pressure, where sound itself can be modeled as fluctuations of air pressure... a non-linear medium.
(An analogy with cosmological redshift seems a bit easy here, but hey, you never know)

Hi Michiel, I agree PCM is "a brave new world of thinking about the quantum universe and may have huge theoretical implications" which may describe just how atomic nuclei regenerate their signals with in the shell of the matter and antimatter wave reversal fluctuations. I was reading somewhere how a light wave does not disperse on a return wave pattern during PCM. Does that make the return wave linear? I will do some more research on the subject when I have the time and we can compare notes. Maybe there are also mass fluctuations in the light carrying medium of deep space so that the aether is also non-linear causing modulated dispersal of light waves. A laser travels in a linear path, but the issues of Gravity and other field geometries that we are only now becoming aware of could certainly have an effect on the curvature of light. Your analogy accepted about cosmological red shifts.

Regarding Gravity, I think we are making progress thanks to TVF regarding the speed of gravity having to be faster then light in order to maintain coherence of existing orbits. Otherwise the orbital balance of the universe even at the farthest reaches of space would fly apart if it were not for the accelerations of gravitational forces at 20 billion times the speed of light. Present understandings are still just a first approximation since I think the scales and levels of energies may be much larger then we think.

However, we only see one half of the picture regarding gravity. This is the "brave new world part" that gravity is produced by a huge flux field from our sister universe which is a reverse time antimatter universe. I also think that our universe has a rotation and a center and that at both macro and micro levels we see a common model of how the universe works. These flat rotations are in synchronous orbits around each other and travel in opposite directions. There may be an axis and a center to our universe, if that is the case then this disk would certainly maintain an extremely high state of flux energies that would encompass the entire universe mass. Therefore, it is possible that there could be an antimatter universe that is in concert with this universe that would also maintain a high potential flux in motion as the source of Gravitons that would bombard and resonate within the nuclei of all forward motion matter (matter would then generate antigravitons). This is new territory, but when you look at the latest information on the proton that I posted in "Antigravity Research" about the HERA collider experiments, you can see clearly that the proton upon high impact releases chains of quarks gluons and antiquarks that may represent a model of universe at both micro and macro levels.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rodschmidt</i>
<br />Einstein's starting point was to ask: What if you could follow a light wave at its speed? What would you see?

His answer was that you would see a dipole hanging motionless in space, which is a violation of Maxwell's laws. He therefore concluded that you cannot follow a light wave at its speed, and begat SR.

If SR is wrong and LR is right, then where in this chain of reasoning did Einstein go wrong?

Or to put it another way: what is LR's answer to Einstein's starting question?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Warren writes:
I feel the starting point your are asking for is the Time Frame itself. Space and Time keep in mind. Anything outside that time frame
(considered static or not moving - being observed from point) will be undergoing dilation of both space and time. This is a fact and not theory. This is also why I feel there is so much confusion about Heisenberg Uncertainty. You may ask how I define Time Frame. Time frame is where the point you are doing the observation is the constant for the speed of light and the dilated time frame being observed is the distance of the speed of light. If you were to ride the photon as the idea goes then that point will once again be just the speed of light. This is the starting point you are looking for. Warren

The only option if man is going to reach the Stars in a lifetime is to master both Space and Time. Warp Technology today!