Einstein's Starting Point

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by guoliang liu</i>
<br />When the light travels in the sun’s frame, its speed is relative to the gravitational potential field of the sun. When it enters the earth’s frame, its speed is relative to the gravitational field of the earth. But if there is a transit zone in between, how do you define the speed of light in this zone?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How do you define the speed of sound at different places in an atmosphere that contains jet streams and calm areas? The answer to both questions is complex, but there is no doubt that the mediums (air or elysium) do have a specific velocity at every point in space. And the speed of sound or light at any point is then measured relative to the medium speed at that same point.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Zero gravitational potential means that the LCM is far away enough from any gravitational centre; so the property of the LCM is the same everywhere.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At infinity, gravitational potential is not zero; it is a large, arbitrary constant. We might choose to set that unknown constant to zero for mathematical convenience, but the background potential, much like the background elysium (LCM) density, is really large and non-zero.

And it is not "the same everywhere". As I tried to explain, the gravitational potential surrounding a tungsten sphere fades into the background of Earth's gravitational potential, which fades into the background of the Sun's gravitational potential, which fades into the background of the Galaxy's potential, which fades into the Local Group's potential, then into the Local Supercluster's, then the local "Great Wall's, then ...

The ultimate background might very well be zero potential somewhere way, way outside the visible universe, just as Earth's atmospheric density eventually goes to zero far enough into space. But for elysium, that zero density and zero gravitational potential is not approached anywhere within the visible universe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In this case, do you think that the speed of light should reach a maximum limit?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The ultimate limit would only be reached very far outside the visible universe, where the density of elysium (LCM) approaches zero. -|Tom|-

Mr. Flandern
Thanks for your answers.
We use Newton’s gravitational law to define the gravitational potential u=-G*M/r. Outside the visible universe where u=0, the speed of light reaches the upper limit of c, on the surface of a black hole where u=-c^2/2, do you think that the speed of light should reach the lower limit of zero?
Do you think the LCM has mass? When you calculate the mass of the earth, do you include the mass of the LCM surrounding the earth?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by guoliang liu</i>
<br />We use Newton’s gravitational law to define the gravitational potential u=-G*M/r.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In the Meta Model (MM), that formula becomes u = c^2-GM/r. Even in Newtonian gravity, there is an arbitrary additive constant, which is usually set to zero (= ignored) because it is not needed when working only with changes in potential.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Outside the visible universe where u=0, the speed of light reaches the upper limit of c<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True. But note this is not the background value of local potential far from a source mass, which would be c^2.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">on the surface of a black hole where u=-c^2/2, do you think that the speed of light should reach the lower limit of zero?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Black holes are purely mathematical constructs. No such thing as a black hole is possible in physics. Einstein himself argued that black hole singularities could not exist. But as one approaches the surface of a supermassive, highly collapsed star, the speed of light would indeed get very small, possibly approaching zero.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do you think the LCM has mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Mass" is undefined at scales smaller than the quantum level. In MM, we must simply say that elysium is a medium whose unit particle, the elyson, has substance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When you calculate the mass of the earth, do you include the mass of the LCM surrounding the earth?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, excess elysium in and near the Earth adds to the blockage of gravitons by the Earth, and therefore to Earth's gravitational and inertial masses. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom,

Could light emissions be zero at the event horizon of a black hole, and the speed of light actually increased in the rotational bands around the black hole much as wind speeds in a hurricane would be faster around the eye wall?

Also, I would equate the compression effect and speed of light having a direct relationship with a broader graviton implosion forming a future time motion around eye wall that would also harbor a zero time event within the center of the black hole. This compression then would result in a reverse time wave resonance that would result in an antigravitational release of antimatter jets at 90 degrees to the implosion plane. Also, this circulation that results in galactic conditions with multiple colapsed imploded stars at it's center is the result of the greater universal forward time graviton bombardment as a flux return flow towards a reverse time universe.

The fountains of antimatter being created in the zero time event at center of galaxies reveals the reasons why antimatter is not found in great quantities in the forward time universe. Where ever antimatter is being created then must be a clue to the dynamics of the incredible compression that gravitons exert upon all mass. To carry this a step further then again I do not believe that mass or forward time would exist without a balanced dual nature of two way circulations of time waves creating mass fluctuations. The compression waves then must provide a huge potential energy dynamic that certainly could be utilized as a power source. Just some thoughts.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />event horizon ... black hole ... time motion ... reverse time wave resonance ... antigravitational release of antimatter jets ... reverse time universe ... circulations of time waves ... creating mass fluctuations ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have spoken often about the importance of separating mathematical thinking from physical thinking. All the preceding concepts can easily exist in equations, but none of them can exist in "deep reality physics". The principal difference between the two is that the latter must conform to the principles of physics [see metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp ], whereas the former has no such physical constraints and readily admits magic and miracles.

Personally, I no longer enjoy pretending that the fantasy concepts of the world of math can have physical counterparts, even if exactly that is fashionable in today's world of science. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom,

I agree with the premise of no time reversal, and I agree with your paper for the most part. We have to be careful that we do not fall into the same trap that created the physics based on a singularity and big bang curved space universe (space is flat, light, gravitons, quantum flux, curves). We certainly do live in a forward time universe. However, even if we can not go back in time that does not mean that this moment is not just an intersection between two succinct time domains. There certainly is ample evidence that this duality of motion is represented at quantum levels during collider experiments. It would be a total failure of science to not explore all options. Whereby, a model of dual time makes a whole lot more sense in explaining the extreme motion of galaxies, atoms, etc,,, around centers. Plus, without your forward thinking we probably would not even be having this conversation. We have broken through barriers that describe a relativity confined to the speed of light thanks to your inspiring calculated thinking. Now, the challenge is to keep asking questions that will continue the quest that you have begun.

As far as actions at a distance. What appears to be an unsurmountable distance to us may be just a second away in comparative scale of dynamic quantum interactions that may certainly prove to be beyond even the speed of the graviton. To always close the door on any new thinking is our current paradigm which is really a sad commentary on our evolution. It would be better to trace actions and there possibilities in a complete picture that may be the cause for all actions. I think that I have done just that and I really find that there are few free thinkers out there to even comment appropriately on what I am attempting to figure out.

John