Relativity all the way

[Gwandau]

Dear members and readers of the Thunderbolts Forum,

Being fully aware of your efforts to explore and validate the concept of the Electrical Universe,I will first of all emphasize that my presence here is not as an opponent, since as far as I am concerned, we all study and interprete what we conceive through the lenses and angles of our present level of viewpoint.

I am asking myself, what makes us believe that events like gravity and electromagnetism are fundamental forces?

Could it be that mankind’s experimental results and observations are accurate, but wrongly interpreted when explained?

What if our nicely defined forces like gravity and electromagnetism are not even forces at all?

What if even light itself is not a wave that travels from A to B?

Our present main stream concept of universe being here by its own means as a self sustained bunch of mass
in vacant emptiness may be a major misconception.

Imagine the possibility that all observable events just are mere responses to one single underlying universal energy field, projecting all matter into being as field systems behaving in a true relativistic way.

No linearity, no absolute reference point, and all our well defined forces not even forces at all, but merely responses to the relative condition of field.

This is fully possible, since it is very easy to misread an effect for a cause, if the cause is not directly observable.

The today scientifically accepted existence of the so called Zero Point energy, observable in the Casimir effect
indicates the presence of such an all encompassing underlying field.

According to the relativity theory of David Barclay there is only one force in Universe, all other observable events
are just responses to the condition of this underlying field.

So maybe contemporary science has got it all wrong from the very start.

What I want to say is, it sometimes can be very fruitful to look at things from a different angel.
Even new pardigm shifts in science suffer the risk of being stagnative and self fullfilling after a while.

It doesn´t mean that we have to discard our present hard earned knowledge, just be open minded enough to
dare trying our concepts in all possible settings.

And especially regarding our basic concepts, never take them for granted.

Gwandau

[StevenO]

Dear Gwandau,

Welcome to Thunderbolts. You will find this is a more open minded forum than most other (astro-)physics related fora. Opinions, beliefs and unfinished theories that differ from the mainstream are actually tolerated here and discussion welcomed.

To start at that last point. Your introduction created appetite, so are you planning to reveal a little more, like how this unified field is causing gravity and the particles we experience as photons? That would be a nice continuation.

Steven

[Lloyd]

* Here's what Thornhill said at http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11 .
Relativity Theory - Einstein's Special Theory was designed to define simultaneity in a universe where the fastest force or signal was restricted to the measured speed of detection of light from a distant source. With an electrostatic force of near-infinite speed acting between the sub-particles of all matter, relativity theory reduces to classical physics. This leaves open the question of what we are measuring when we determine the speed of light. The speed of light in galactic terms is exceedingly slow, requiring about 150,000 years to cross our galaxy. However, the astronomer Halton Arp has shown that the redshifts of entire galaxies are quantized which requires some form of near instantaneous, galaxy-wide communication at the sub-atomic level. There are now several reported experiments that demonstrate faster than light effects.
* He may have said that a few years ago, so it's possible he's modified his ideas somewhat since then.
* See more above and here: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp& ... 2e99206b9c
* Also see TPODs etc re relativity at http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site%3At ... 2e99206b9c

[Gwandau]

Steven,

I´m glad to have induced an appetite, but as with all culinaric experiences,
the amount of ingestion has to be proportional to the ability of digestion.

Not that I for a second doubt the intellectual capacity of the readers on this forum,
but the concept I am about to convey is of such groundbreaking quality that it is,
as far as I am concerned, equal to the impact of Copernicus paradigm shift.

So, I would recommend consuming this theory in moderate doses.

The person behind this unprecedented and truly relativistic worldview is David Barclay,
a warm-harted man with the remarkable combination of a natural down to earth attitude
and a razor sharp intellect.

One example of what caught my interest is the fact that he actually predicted the anomalous
slowdown of the Voyager 10 and 11 , an observed fact giving NASA and many other a headache.

His theory also explains why two different masses have the same accelleration
in a gravitational field.

So I gave myself the opportunity to assimilate his Unity-theory, and even if I consider
myself being of an extremely critical and questioning nature, I still can´t find any flaws in
his magnificient and totally unorthodox view of our universe.

So where should I start? You mentioned gravity and light.

Since I need less words to describe the observable event we call light, I´ll start with that.

But be aware that these words are only fragments of a whole, condensed by me.

First of all you have to have to discard the present view of universe as consisting of matter
being here by its own means.

According to David every singel atom is a unique field system projected into existence by a
core oriented underlying two way field of Non Linear Time Field Frequency Accelleration/Deceleration.

Also, as a consequence, every field system, from the smallest known particle to the biggest known
galaxy cluster, is dipolar.

Theoretically, if the underlying field energy that projects and sustains our present universe
suddenly would cease, our universe would instantly blink out from existence.

The Non Linear Time Field Frequency Accelleration (NTFFA) is different for every field system,
thus giving it a unique signature and position in the universal field matrix.

If only two atoms had the same NTFFA-signature, there would be no relativity and our universe
would instantly collapse.

And every field system has a relative NTFFA-value to the relative NTFFA-value of every other field system.

The NTFFA-value of our sun is vastly higher than the NTFFA of Earth, and the experience of light,
heat and all other observable events of the Sun, is just an effect of the field differential between
the field of the Sun and the field of our Earth, a so called Field Resistance.

There is according to the Unity theory no light travelling from A to B, just a resulting field
differential.

Furthemore the Sun is in this concept not a burning Fission/Fusion fire, but a purely electrical phenomenon.
Here I believe we are converging somewhat with the idea of the Electrical Universe.

Again theoretically, if there only was one star in our universe, it would not shine, since it would be no
other field system to relate to and enable the creation of a field differential.

The same goes for all light sources, from the glow-worm to the quasar.

Gwandau

[StevenO]

Dear Gwandau,

So, if I understand it well, David Barclay holds that photons and matter are actually manifestations of higher dimensional fields crossing our observable 3D universe.

You probably know Karl Popper, one of the most eminent philosophers of science of the last century, who stated:
"A theory is scientific only if it can be falsified, and should be dropped as soon as it is falsified".

Since we can create, observe and manipulate photons and matter with 3D means, that almost looks like a falsification of the position that higher dimensional fields are necessary. The only dimension(s) we did'nt account for are the dimensions of time. How does David handle those?

Steven

[Gwandau]

Dear Steven,

Devices detecting photons and manipulating them are according to David Barclay just detecting and manipulating the field differential between the point of reference of two or more field systems.

This goes for all scientific observations and experiments. We are doing fully accurate observations but due to our linear view of universe we make the mistake when explaining these observation through the "lenses" of our orthodox view.

There is according to David no higher dimensional field crossing our universe.

The underlying field he is talking about is emanating from the center of field in every point of reference,
even in the vacuum of empty space, projecting anything into existence, including the vacuum.

This field is equal to the very matter and space in universe, and does not have its origin in our universe.

Our universe is not physical in the sense that we believe, it is a projection.

Also regarding time, according to David we have it all back to front, time is not an effect of space and motion,
on the contrary, space and motion are the relative effect of time.

It is here the concept of Non Linear Time Field Frequency Accelleration comes into action in the creation
of space and motion.

The quality and propagation of time is different for every field system, and as a consequence Earth has a
different time field than for example the Moon.

When leaving our planet with a survey vessel like the Voyager 10 headed for outer space, this vessel which
belongs to the time field of Earth is doomed to slow down gradually due to the fact that Earths time field
is getting weaker by distance, therfore time is slowing down for the Voyager vessel, resulting in an observable
slowdown.

According to David there is no possibility to travel big distances lineary in space like a train, since our universe is a matrix of relating field systems of different time fields.

Even going to the Moon and trying to live there by using water and Moon soil for food production is hazardous
due to the different time field existing on the Moon.

NASA reported of anomalous cancerous growth in all their plants grown in Moon soil in the sixties.
This information is hidden away and denied to ever have existed. Still there is many people remembering these
reports and having the articles in their possesion as proof.

The reason for NASA to deny this reports are obvious, it would greatly affect the support and funding.

The mars mission, were people are going to stay and live for an extended period will be a disaster if
NASA does not acknowledge this problem. If they all are aware, which I doubt. Probably just a few know.

Time will tell.

Gwandau

[bdw000]

I am no expert nor a scientist.

So maybe contemporary science has got it all wrong from the very start.

What I want to say is, it sometimes can be very fruitful to look at things from a different angel.
Even new pardigm shifts in science suffer the risk of being stagnative and self fullfilling after a while.

It doesn´t mean that we have to discard our present hard earned knowledge, just be open minded enough to
dare trying our concepts in all possible settings.

And especially regarding our basic concepts, never take them for granted.

Couldn't agree more with those ideas.

However:

Also regarding time, according to David we have it all back to front, time is not an effect of space and motion,
on the contrary, space and motion are the relative effect of time.

It is here the concept of Non Linear Time Field Frequency Accelleration comes into action in the creation
of space and motion.

The quality and propagation of time is different for every field system, and as a consequence Earth has a
different time field than for example the Moon.

When leaving our planet with a survey vessel like the Voyager 10 headed for outer space, this vessel which
belongs to the time field of Earth is doomed to slow down gradually due to the fact that Earths time field
is getting weaker by distance, therfore time is slowing down for the Voyager vessel, resulting in an observable
slowdown.

All that sounds to me mostly like nonsense. ALL discussions of time are pretty much meaningless UNTIL the word itself ("time") can be DEFINED appropriately. Right now the physicists (including Einstein) do not even seem to be aware that they are using different definitions of the word "time" which renders their discussions of the word useless.

Anyway, it is also an easy proof that just because a clock (any way you want to define a "clock") slows down, "it does not follow" that "time" slows down.

[Farsight]

If I might volunteer: clocks clock up motion, not time. Open up a clock, and look at those cogs whirring around. You don't see time "flowing", you see things moving. Hence I like to say time is cofounded with motion through space, not space. The most basic clock you can get is a light clock, such as light reflecting between parallel mirrors. Another light clock is an atomic clock where a hyperfine transition throws out microwaves. You sit there counting as 9,192,631,770 microwaves come at you, then you tick off a second. If the light's going slower such as down near the surface of a planet, your second is bigger, and you call it time dilation. But it isn't time slowing down, it's motion slowing down. It's to do with vacuum impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0) wherein c = √(1/ε0μ0) and the photon is a quantum of alternating current.

[Anaconda]

Hi Farsight:

If I might volunteer: clocks clock up motion, not time. Open up a clock, and look at those cogs whirring around. You don't see time "flowing", you see things moving. Hence I like to say time is cofounded with motion through space, not space. The most basic clock you can get is a light clock, such as light reflecting between parallel mirrors. Another light clock is an atomic clock where a hyperfine transition throws out microwaves. You sit there counting as 9,192,631,770 microwaves come at you, then you tick off a second. If the light's going slower such as down near the surface of a planet, your second is bigger, and you call it time dilation. But it isn't time slowing down, it's motion slowing down. It's to do with vacuum impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0) wherein c = √(1/ε0μ0) and the photon is a quantum of alternating current.

Gee, that is one of best refutations of General Relativity, or at least time dilation, I have read.

Of course, you are right, a time piece is mechanical motion, even atomic clocks depend on motion and it does not follow that a slow down in motion is a slow down in time.

The unspoken assumption of followers of General Relativity is that certain motions are universally constant per arbitrary unit of time, so any slow down or speed up must be a result of the "slow down or speed up of time", but where is the actual scientific evidence for that?

There isn't any. It's an unproven assumption.

Now, if you bring up this point of order to a follower of General Relativity they will try and put the burden of evidence on the proponent of the idea that certain motions are not universally constant, but it's the General Relativity claim for time dilation that must carry the burden of evidence for certain motions being universally constant because Science is already well aware of many different physical environments with different physical conditions which will cause the rate of motion to change for physical processes and phenomenon.

Again, great insight Farsight.

Thanks.

[Gwandau]

Hi bdv000,

maybe it is somewhat clumsy of me to use the word "time" without pointing
out what this concept is referring to in David Barclays theory.

It is by no means referring to our conventional and doubtful concept of time,
instead he is placing this higher concept of time in all encompassing position as the very
factor behind for example our experience of motion, and in this regard David Barclays unparalleled
concept referres to a factor which is not in any way possible to observe by direct means.

In my opinion he is the first person who has succeded in placing "time" in a proper context.

The word "time" used in conventional science is as far as I am concerned a misconception
and should be replaced by a word more closely related to motion.

So the observation of motion, or as I misleadingly called it, the propagation of time, is just a secondary
response to the concept of time in this theory.

David´s concept of time is the very origin of any detectable response of this field,
such as matter, space, motion, gravity, electromagnetism, and so forth.

In this context time is a core oriented accellerating energy field that projects and sustains
all matter, space and motion in universe.

Fully spelled out it reads Non Linear Time Field Frequency Accelleration.

Non linear due to the relativity existing between every point of reference in universe.

Frequency due to the neccessity for this underlying energy field to vibrate the projection
of everything into existens in a universe such as ours, were dipolarity and alternation is the very fabric.

Accelleration because without this quality the projection would be a mere three dimensional still.

But I realize how badly I am fitted to convey Davids highly interesting theory, and I fear I might
do more harm to his flawless relativity theory than good by my naive tries.

Personally I have not yet found another more truly relativistic system of thought.

A modern Copernicus, discarding the very foundation of all so called basic concepts,
still impeckable if read without preconception.

Gwandau

[Farsight]

Gee, that is one of best refutations of General Relativity, or at least time dilation, I have read.

Thanks Anaconda, but things aren't quite black and white. What I said is in line with Einstein. In The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity he talked about the equations of motion, and doesn't even mention curved spacetime. However the general relativity taught these days is something different again. They don't tell you that Einstein said this on page 152:

"As he will not make up his mind to let the velocity of light along the path in question depend explicitly on the time, he will interpret his observations as showing that the clock at the circumference "really" goes more slowly than the clock at the origin. So he will be obliged to define time in such a way that the rate of a clock depends on where the clock may be".

Of course, you are right, a time piece is mechanical motion, even atomic clocks depend on motion and it does not follow that a slow down in motion is a slow down in time.

Amazingly some people are extremely hostile to this sort of thing. They even forget that the internal mechanism of a watch or clock is called a "movement".

The unspoken assumption of followers of General Relativity is that certain motions are universally constant per arbitrary unit of time, so any slow down or speed up must be a result of the "slow down or speed up of time", but where is the actual scientific evidence for that?

There isn't any. We see motion through space, not time flowing.

There isn't any. It's an unproven assumption.

You're talking my language!

Now, if you bring up this point of order to a follower of General Relativity...

I'm all for general relativity, Anaconda. But I find myself having some real ding-dongs with people who consider themselves to be adherents of GR and who say "Einstein said this" and "Einstein said that" when he just didn't. In 1911 he talked about c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²), see On the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light. In 1916 in Relativity: the Special and General Theory he said die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. Put it through google translate and what comes out is the speed of light varies with the locality. Then there's his 1920 Leyden Address where he's talking about the "aether" of General Relativity. It's just nothing like what people say relativity is, and when you read the original material plus A World Without Time you see how it feeds right back round to the original electrodynamics, and you're into things like impedance and alternating current. An electric universe, though one that tips its hat to Tesla wherein AC is more fundamental than DC.

.. they will try and put the burden of evidence on the proponent of the idea that certain motions are not universally constant, but it's the General Relativity claim for time dilation that must carry the burden of evidence for certain motions being universally constant because Science is already well aware of many different physical environments with different physical conditions which will cause the rate of motion to change for physical processes and phenomenon.

That's true. Some will dismiss and deny patent evidence, and launch into outraged abuse because they cannot respond with rational argument or counter-evidence. It's a psychology thing, and very odd once you learn to spot it.

Again, great insight Farsight.

Thanks Anaconda. Note though that most of the stuff I've come up with isn't my original work. There's all kinds of guys out there who've haven't been getting a fair hearing for one reason or another.

[Farsight]

Fully spelled out it reads Non Linear Time Field Frequency Acceleration...

...But I realize how badly I am fitted to convey Davids highly interesting theory, and I fear I might do more harm to his flawless relativity theory than good by my naive tries. Personally I have not yet found another more truly relativistic system of thought. A modern Copernicus, discarding the very foundation of all so called basic concepts, still impeckable if read without preconception..

Sounds interesting, Gwandau, I pick up "same elephant" hints. I'll read up on it. Maybe David Barclay will be another of my unsung heroes of physics. Sadly one of the problems in physics is that there isn't a much openness and cooperation as we all might like. You don't always get to hear about people with new ideas, because some of the people with old ideas don't like it.

[Anaconda]

Farsight:

I appreciate your discussion of my comment. You are quite rare: A supporter of General Relativity that responds rationally and reasonably to criticism of same.

Can I add a note:

I am dissatisfied with Einstein's reliance with 'thought experiments'.

'Thought experiments' are inherently liable to lead to erroneous conclusions. Why? Because they are susceptible to self-deception. Also, it is inherently difficult to quantify pure thought, as they are images or constructs which aren't the territory, and will never exactly match the territory (physical phenomenon), itself. Observation & measurement of physical processes and relationships can, on the other hand, be quantified. 'Thought experiments', i.e., hypothesis, can only be a starting point, never a destination.

It has been said that Einstein preferred to put reliance in pure thought as opposed to physical experimentation (although, he obviously knew physical experiments & observations were the only way to validate his 'thought experiments').

So, I am left where I respect Einstein as a mathematician, but hold his methods, which equate abstract thought and construction (mathematical equations that quantify thought) equal to the empirical method, as flawed.

Tesla was right. Material substance can't act on nothing. And you can't measure and quantify empty space, it has no quantifiable properties, other than volume, which, of course, can be measured, but that is it, therefore, there is no way to know whether space is curved or not.

And, while his followers claim that multiple physical tests confirm GR, upon my close examination, it appears every test has an alternative physical explanation.

(My last comment seemingly puts us at odds, but I hope not, as constructive exchange of views can be mutually beneficial even when there is disagreement because ideas can be fruitfully examined as new insights are brought to bear on the subject.)

Farsight, I'd like to add that your discussion suggests a subtlety of mind and flexibility, which allows for constructive genuine scientific discourse.

In my recent scientific exploration, I have found that quality rare among conventional commenters and regrettably among a significant number of working scientists (this forum's members are much better than most in that regard as a result of supporting an alternative theory).

Your contributions to this forum are valuble and I hope to read more of your comments.

PS, have you ever considered the ideas of Ed Leedskalnin? It seems recently there are experiments that suggest the possible existence of magnetic molopoles and at least some of his experiments demonstrate anomalies in the current electromagnetic model.

[Gwandau]

Dear Farsight,

glad to see a genuine sign of interest for an unparralled relativity theory,
the generosity of an open mind may sometimes pay back in great new insights.

Here is a link to free downloadable PDF-files of all the chapters in the Unity book.

http://www.gravitycontrol.org/unity-book.html

The book is also avaible as paperback and hardcover at http://www.lulu.com/content/3137689

Very few persons have been able to assimilate the full impact of David Barclays theory.
People interested or occupied in high level physics have the neccessary intellectual capacity,
but lacks the freedom of an open mind, and have most often invested too much of their lifetime
in equations based on untouchable basic concepts.

Even most of the new theories opposing the present scientific view point are keeping one foot still in
conventional thinking, by keeping the foothold in at least one or two concepts.

The Unity theory is based on such totally new concepts, that the math and equations supporting for examle
quantum physics does not in any way apply, only the actual experimental observations in quantum physics do.

This makes the Unity theory incomprehensible and quite alien to the schooled intellect, by not having a century of accumulated and supporting equations.

On the other hand, when the discovery of zero point energy forced the quantum physics to incorporate it by
"inventing" virtual particles and so forth in an effort to stay on the arena, the Unity theory just had to stay
unaltered, since the very basic concept was zero point energy, long before its discovery.

Gwandau

[Farsight]

Sounds interesting Gwandau, I see more accord, and some similarity with Erk Durgun's Unity theory at http://www.unitytheory.info/. I'll print a few bits out now and take a look at them over the weekend. And I see David Barclay is on the forum. I'll have a chat with him.

Farsight: I appreciate your discussion of my comment. You are quite rare: A supporter of General Relativity that responds rationally and reasonably to criticism of same.

Thanks again Anaconda. I do my best to stay rational and evidential and courteous. I think it's a shame that many people on the internet behave badly, far worse than they would if sitting talking about things down the pub.

Can I add a note: I am dissatisfied with Einstein's reliance with 'thought experiments'. 'Thought experiments' are inherently liable to lead to erroneous conclusions. Why? Because they are susceptible to self-deception. Also, it is inherently difficult to quantify pure thought, as they are images or constructs which aren't the territory, and will never exactly match the territory (physical phenomenon), itself. Observation & measurement of physical processes and relationships can, on the other hand, be quantified. 'Thought experiments', i.e., hypothesis, can only be a starting point, never a destination.

I kind of go along with that. A thought "experiment" isn't an experiment, and isn't in the same league as a real experiment. But I'd say they can be useful, and it's people who are susceptible to self-deception.

It has been said that Einstein preferred to put reliance in pure thought as opposed to physical experimentation (although, he obviously knew physical experiments & observations were the only way to validate his 'thought experiments').

Yep, I'd say he put too much reliance on theory, but it's an imperfect world, and there's lots of people in physics like that. Especially today.

So, I am left where I respect Einstein as a mathematician, but hold his methods, which equate abstract thought and construction (mathematical equations that quantify thought) equal to the empirical method, as flawed.

He wasn't much of a mathematician either!

Tesla was right. Material substance can't act on nothing. And you can't measure and quantify empty space, it has no quantifiable properties, other than volume, which, of course, can be measured, but that is it, therefore, there is no way to know whether space is curved or not.

People who champion relativity talk about curved spacetime, even though Einstein didn't like the phrase. What they don't know is that the electric field is curved space. Really. Maybe this isn't the right thread to talk about it, but it's really simple.

And, while his followers claim that multiple physical tests confirm GR, upon my close examination, it appears every test has an alternative physical explanation. (My last comment seemingly puts us at odds, but I hope not, as constructive exchange of views can be mutually beneficial even when there is disagreement because ideas can be fruitfully examined as new insights are brought to bear on the subject.) Farsight, I'd like to add that your discussion suggests a subtlety of mind and flexibility, which allows for constructive genuine scientific discourse.

Thanks Anaconda. I try. Like I said yesterday, things aren't black and white. People who you think of as "followers" of Einstein aren't actually following him. If Einstein was around today, he'd be offering those alternative physical explanations!

PS, have you ever considered the ideas of Ed Leedskalnin? It seems recently there are experiments that suggest the possible existence of magnetic molopoles and at least some of his experiments demonstrate anomalies in the current electromagnetic model.

No, I've never heard of him. Hang on.. I've just read the wikipedia page and followed a link, and I see this:

Physicists at the University expressed interest in viewing the perpetual motion demonstration, were dumbfounded by the results, but gave no consideration for Leedskanin's own description for how the effect can be achieved--a dynamic I have termed, Anti-Parallel Double Helical Electromagnetic Interaction .

That sounds a lot like the electron.