Monday, March 21, 2011
Something for Physics to chew on
Fizeau's experiment needs to be re-visited, but not in regard to "Aether" theory. Instead it should be considered with relativistic time. That is, the progression of time itself should be considered as non-uniform throughout space.
Think about it this way... Velocity is distance over time. The speed of light is a velocity. Now if the time part itself is not a constant, what does that say about the speed of light? C'mon, do the math.
As an observer in typical instances, you're not going to see the speed of light change one bit because you're only able to measure the speed of light relative to your own frame of reference. Right now, we don't have the technology to go to other star systems where the gravitational field causes time to progress at a different rate, nor the ability to approach relativistic speeds (in regards to an observer here on earth) where time may condense. Variable time progression can also red and blue shift light in the same way movement itself causes Doppler-shift. Think about how a record sounds when you speed it up or slow it down. You're not moving the sound source in space, but compressing or expanding the frame of time in which the sound has been heard.
Gravitational fields can bend light. Since you're not changing the physical density of empty space around a field emitter (there's nothing to change the density of), the next obvious thing to account for the Fresnel effect is to change the progression of time itself.
Thinking of this, I believe the speed of light is not a constant in this universe, but rather a coefficient. There's a subtle difference (at least for most purposes), but it's big enough to be quite important.
I do believe that the math should work out and may prove a little interesting.
Think about it this way... Velocity is distance over time. The speed of light is a velocity. Now if the time part itself is not a constant, what does that say about the speed of light? C'mon, do the math.
As an observer in typical instances, you're not going to see the speed of light change one bit because you're only able to measure the speed of light relative to your own frame of reference. Right now, we don't have the technology to go to other star systems where the gravitational field causes time to progress at a different rate, nor the ability to approach relativistic speeds (in regards to an observer here on earth) where time may condense. Variable time progression can also red and blue shift light in the same way movement itself causes Doppler-shift. Think about how a record sounds when you speed it up or slow it down. You're not moving the sound source in space, but compressing or expanding the frame of time in which the sound has been heard.
Gravitational fields can bend light. Since you're not changing the physical density of empty space around a field emitter (there's nothing to change the density of), the next obvious thing to account for the Fresnel effect is to change the progression of time itself.
Thinking of this, I believe the speed of light is not a constant in this universe, but rather a coefficient. There's a subtle difference (at least for most purposes), but it's big enough to be quite important.
I do believe that the math should work out and may prove a little interesting.
Labels: physics, space, speed of light, time, timetravel, universe, weird
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
t (x,y,z) , tj (x,y,z)j
t (x, y, z) , tj (x, y, z) j
The way stuff in space as we know it should be defined.
t = time
x, y, z = spatial dimensions or positions
j = physical version of the imaginary number, where j^2 = -1.
So by tallying up these components of space, you get 8 dimensions.
Might have some uses if someone can figure it out. The neat thing is that if you produce a product via the j-dimensional interactions, you get a negative value standard dimension result. Combine this with applied vector products, and it might be possible to use this to produce negative values in various applications where negative values are "naturally" impossible. If this could pan out, one might be able to do some really neat things with electricity or optics. (If you figure out how to make a negative modifier for gravitational attraction, things would get really interesting.)
The j-space stuff also would tie in pretty well to older work in scalar research. Scalar nodes are pretty much like the product results of electromagnetic waves (more or less radio) propagating through j-space. The product should then appear in standard space as a negative value of the two j-space factors.
The other thing is that if something propagates or exists in j-space with out a product producing reaction, it's pretty much non-interactive with standard space. So you either have to put in a j-space emitter to interact with a j-space EM transmission and be upon the vector necessary to intercept it, or be sitting on the node point of two separate j-space EM beams. This particular aspect could be useful for communications applications.
Crazy, huh?
*note: I'm wondering if this j-space thing is what sci-fi meant by hyperspace or subspace? Applications arising from understanding how to interact with a normally unobservable dimensional set defining space would be quite profound.
The way stuff in space as we know it should be defined.
t = time
x, y, z = spatial dimensions or positions
j = physical version of the imaginary number, where j^2 = -1.
So by tallying up these components of space, you get 8 dimensions.
Might have some uses if someone can figure it out. The neat thing is that if you produce a product via the j-dimensional interactions, you get a negative value standard dimension result. Combine this with applied vector products, and it might be possible to use this to produce negative values in various applications where negative values are "naturally" impossible. If this could pan out, one might be able to do some really neat things with electricity or optics. (If you figure out how to make a negative modifier for gravitational attraction, things would get really interesting.)
The j-space stuff also would tie in pretty well to older work in scalar research. Scalar nodes are pretty much like the product results of electromagnetic waves (more or less radio) propagating through j-space. The product should then appear in standard space as a negative value of the two j-space factors.
The other thing is that if something propagates or exists in j-space with out a product producing reaction, it's pretty much non-interactive with standard space. So you either have to put in a j-space emitter to interact with a j-space EM transmission and be upon the vector necessary to intercept it, or be sitting on the node point of two separate j-space EM beams. This particular aspect could be useful for communications applications.
Crazy, huh?
*note: I'm wondering if this j-space thing is what sci-fi meant by hyperspace or subspace? Applications arising from understanding how to interact with a normally unobservable dimensional set defining space would be quite profound.
Labels: crazy, dimensions, idea, physics, space, timetravel, weird
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Where's the satellite kill?
Just wondering? All this talk about it leading up to the event, and the radio mentions that they pulled it off. But not a damn thing on the TV news. It's like they completely forgot or something. Isn't there any cool "fireworks" footage? I feel slightly gypped on this one.
And I thought of two other reasons why that job of blowing up a satellite coming down might be useful. First one is that it proves that particular missile in the inventory is not only capable of killing TBMs, but with that mod - it's ICBM kill capable. (Probably why China and Russia had their complaints.) I'd suspect the mod will make it's way through the fleet arsenal so more than 3 missiles of that type will be ICBM-capable. The second reason is what would a few tons of hydrazine do to the ozone layer? I agree with most people that the tank would rupture and not make it to the ground, but a highly reactive chemical in the upper atmosphere is probably not the best thing. Just still iffy as to how well it's going to disperse in space.
And I thought of two other reasons why that job of blowing up a satellite coming down might be useful. First one is that it proves that particular missile in the inventory is not only capable of killing TBMs, but with that mod - it's ICBM kill capable. (Probably why China and Russia had their complaints.) I'd suspect the mod will make it's way through the fleet arsenal so more than 3 missiles of that type will be ICBM-capable. The second reason is what would a few tons of hydrazine do to the ozone layer? I agree with most people that the tank would rupture and not make it to the ground, but a highly reactive chemical in the upper atmosphere is probably not the best thing. Just still iffy as to how well it's going to disperse in space.
Labels: satellite, space, US 193
