sunspot

I am recycling nomenclature because it still appears to apply. Let me give a practical example that I already alluded to. If we start with a hydrogen atom that is stationary, relative to our reference, the electron is traveling with relativistic velocity. As such, the electron should be defining relativistic mass, distance and time due to its velocity, even though the atom, as whole, is stationary in our reference. So essentially the hydrogen atom is a combination of two distinct references. The electron is both a particle and a wave. The electron is also hard to pin down in the space within an orbital. This uncertainty of location is expressed by the Hiessenberg uncertainty principle. Because there are two distinct reference affects, but we traditionally try to model the electron using only the stationary reference of the nucleus, one ends up with a level of uncertainy because the electron is not exactly within the zero reference. This is a good first approximation, but a more complete analysis needs to include the stationary and the relativistic reference. If we were to take a snap shot of an orbital, to look at the electron, and if we could zoom in, what I believe one will see is an additional set of tiny relativistic particles also traveling near C, orbitting/spinning around the center of the electron. This expectation is not without precident since electrons display relativity around the stationary center of atoms. In the case of the electron center, one would see three tiny subparticles that I called mass, distance and time. The various ratios of their three relativistic velocities will define the properties of an electron. I can not prove this sub-particle make-up of the electron any better than string theory can prove the existence of strings. However, if one extrapolates from this basic (unproven) premise, one can create a model this can go way beyond string theory, with greater simplicity. That is the only assumption that needs to be made, everything else is based on what we already know. If we use this base (unproven) assumption and look at a proton, it can be stationary in our reference. But if we magnify it, it too will have the mass, distance and time sub-components traveling close to C in tight orbits around the center. Its mass relativistic velocity will be higher than an electron giving it more mass in our reference. It time component will be similar to the electron. While the distance component will have a slower velocity making it behave in a more stationary way compared to the mobility associated with the electron. When an electron and proton interact, there is reference potential between the mass, distance and time parameters. All the forces of nature can be defined by various combinations of just these three potentials. For example, the EM force is the interaction of D and T, which is why it gives off energy as wavelength and frequency (DT). Gravity is essentially between M and D, while the nuclear force is between M and T. The weak nuclear force is when both DT and MT act at low D.

You seem to miss the point. I was saying this tiny region of space that we call the proton is a tiny zone of extreme time dilation. Even if it is at rest in our reference, this tiny zone still defines time dilation. It is funny, nobody has a problem with strings, which have never been proven, yet to suggest a tiny zone of time dilation, it becomes speculation. Shouldn't all mention of string theory be dumped into speculations until it is proven? It is accepted because it has pratical value. For those with an open mind, I would like to add another example to show how the model can make complex predictions with ease. My contention is that any particle and particle state can be expressed in terms of just three parameters, mass, distance and time potential. I equate these to special relativity. The way this is possible is tight orbits of near infinitessimal subunits traveling near the speed of light. The center of the orbit is in our earth reference, but the tiny subunits are in a relativistic reference. This has as much basis in proven fact as strings, but leads to a more practical model that does not require extra dimensions to do the same thing. The extra dimensions is a mathematical construct that should be considered speculation until it is proven in the lab, with hard data. If science excepts this without proof it is becoming philosophy. Geting back to the MDT model, if we start with an oxygen nuclei with only one electron in the 1S orbital, if I was to input energy, at the correct quanta, I could knock the electron into the 2P orbital position associated with the chemical reactions of oxygen. The energy quanta, like all energy, has no mass but has wavelength and frequency. These define its energy value. The speed of light is common all all quanta from gamma to radio waves and is not a measure of energy potential. That is an artifact of the specfic distance and time potential called wavelength and frequency. The distance and time potential of the energy quanta, or the energy stored as what we see as wavelength and frequency, is tranferred to the electron, causing the distance and time potential of the electron to increase by this energy value. There is no change in mass potential since the energy quanta has no mass (potential). This new MDT state of the electron defines a chemical electron associated with an oxygen nucleus. The induced EM force potential is reflected in its new combination of MDT parameters. Or EM force is connected to coordinated changes in distance and time potential. If we combine an electron and proton we can make a neutron. In this case the two original long phase particles are conserved to become a composite called the neutron. The neutron is not an original primal particle but a conserved combination the two original particles. The distance and time potential of the two; proton and electron, lower removing the EM force. The weak nuclear force shows the distance and time potential of the two particle composite fluctuating, allowing the EM force to weakly cycle in and out near its zero. We can increase the distance and time parameters and cause a neutron to break the composite allowing the electron and the proton to regain their charges. This is a good example of the conservation of the original primal particles.

One of the lines of reasoning that appeared to necessitate a practical reference was connected to common matter. If we look at the proton, electron and maybe neutron, these subparticle composites last as long as the universe. They were created at the beginning and will continue to exist maybe all the way to the end. In the lab we have also catalgued a wide range of subparticles and subparticle composites, but almost all these only last for a tiny fraction of time. There are essentially no subparticle composites that exist within the intermediate ranges of time, yet the electron, proton and neutron have the same building blocks as the less stable composites. The particle composites of common matter seem to act as though there are in a highly time dilated reference. In their practical reference, they may last as long as the unstable composites do in our reference, but in our reference they appear to be almost eternal due to time dilation. The perspective that matter is sort of condensed energy was consitent with this. They were not moving at C but very close to C ,in a very tiny region of space in our reference. This would also explain why mass and energy can interconvert so easy without any intermediate things, i.e., tiny step either way. How this could be theoretically possible could be explain as follows. During the creation of the universe, when gravity and relativity affects were extreme, potential energy was stored in the practical special relativity of these composites. Space continued to expand with these primal composites retaining they time dialation to become external particles that will last as long as the universe. This parallel allows the large and the small of the universe to run on the same time schedule with respect to our relative reference. One of the possible conceptual problems with this premise is, when we think in terms of special relativity and relative reference usually the velocity will alter the mass, distance and time relativity, simultaneously. But these common matter composites were similar with respect to time dilation, but differed in their mass and how they appear to occupy space or distance. This led to the theory that mass, distance and time practical special relativity of these primal composite can change independantly of each other. The independant angle was consistant with the way electron and proton appear in our reference. The proton has more mass or mass potential (potential energy in mass relativity) than the electron, while the electron appears to have more distance potential (ability to occupy distance through its faster velocty). Based on this thinking, it became possible to model any subparticle composite in terms of its mass, distance and time potential. The unstable lab composites have low time potential so they do not last long, but they can still show significant mass potential as well as significant distance potential. The next related theory is the conservation of long phase. Long phase was a term I used to describe the highly time dilated composites of common matter (last a long time) to distinguish them from all the other low time dilated composites. The way this conservation principle worked was that long phase composite can alter their three parameters and their ratios, to create a wide range of states with the original composites being retained. But, if they lose too much time potential, they are lost forever. This could explain some of the particle state that occur in atom smasher type experiments. The time potential of the long phase, is sometimes converted to mass and distance potential with long phase lost forever. Based on this theory, this led to the theory that mass, distance and time potential were all interconvertable. For example, the proton of a nucleus and the hydrogen proton of water, were the same types of long phase particles (hydrogen proton is older), but differentiated slightly in their parameter ratios. The hydrogen proton of water is more mobile indicating that it has more distance potential. The hydrogen proton also has more mass potential since nuclear fusion would decrease its mass potential if it was to become part of a higher atom. This parameter ratio difference would imply that there is a practical potential between the protons within the nucleus of oxygen of water and hydrogen protons on water's chemical perimeter. Water can not fuse the hydrogen protons but the practical potential could partially explain why hydrogen protons are so mobile in an aqueous continuum.

Let me give another anology that may get my point across better. If someone was to walk into a house of mirrors, their reflection will be everywhere. Others can stand in many places and still watch what that person is doing. This is the practical strength of relative reference and special relativity. One can see same things from many references such that all the activities of the person (laws of physics) will appear the same to all the references. On the other hand, if that person physically walks into the reference area one is in, such that he is no longer a 2-D reflection (distance and time), but now have substance (also mass), one is still seeing what everyone else is seeing. This practical reference is just a special case of relative reference. But the difference is the extra third dimension (mass). One no longer has a flat or 2-D reference but essentially a 3-D reference that can get other senses involved including the sense of depth. One can touch (practical experiments) and even smell the person, something that can not happen with any of the purely relative references. In an earier post I mentioned how, with the electron moving a good fraction of C, it defines a practical special relativity reference with respect to a hydrogen proton nucleus. The latter is more connected to our earth reference (as a first approximation). We tradtionally put both the electron and proton in the same reference for analysis, even though they occupy two different practical references. If we go back to our house of mirror, if a second person enterred from another area, but both people appear in a relative reference as being close together, one may assume they are both in the same space. This may or may not be true, but that is how it will appear from that relative reference. If we instead look in terms of practical reference one would notice that they are not together in 3-D but only 2-D. We can define them in 2-D (distance, time) with great practical utility. Maybe that is enough. But I tried to see them in terms of their practical references so I could also include their energy differences and the practical affects that should result their MDT practical special relativity. That is why I am lobbying for practical reference because it can shed some new light on phenomena that exist in many practical references. I am not trying to confuse things or make things harder. It takes a little getting used to but it allows one to model physics in three variables, since the laws of physics stays the same in all relative and practical references, with the practical references only varing by the amount of energy in mass, distance and time relativity. If I was to guess a possbile source of confusion it is connected to using energy when dealing with relative references. The relative orientation is based on what we see, which only needs energy (light) to be made possible. Light or energy has no mass, so mass is not needed for relative references, by default. The practical reference also uses mass and is therefore more useful when dealing with mass between references. This is where all the forces of nature are active. If we use the practical relativity reference with mass potential equal to zero, we get energy and relative reference. In this respect, relative reference is a special case of practical reference.

The data I showed in an earier post, was the half life of an accelerator particle increasing, i.e., proof time dilation does indeed occur as was predicted by the math. Also particles in accelerators will increase their relativistic mass and start placing a drag on the equipment. Nothing different happened to the scientists or the controlled samples that sat nearby in their relative reference. The energy input created these practical special relativity affects. The stationary reference had no practical special relativity affects because it did not recieve the neccesary energy.

The beta fish are sort of pets in a controlled environment. Adaptation to a more dynamic environment may pose more problems. What is interesting about inbreeding among humans is the speed at which genetic regression appears to occur. One would almost expect genetic stabilization like the Beta fish. Maybe the opposite is true, in that genetic diversity is equally progression beyond simple genetic addition.

The protein grid of the ovuum may only able to define equilibirum for the correct amount DNA. It would be interesting if the ovuum, cherry picked the DNA to get the correct amount. It could result in dedundancies or gene switching. For example, if the male sperm contained some extra female genes that the male DNA that it got from his mother, and these were able to find their way into the fertilized ovuum, they could replace or run parallel to official female genes.

One of my earliest cosmology models, twenty years ago, tried to equate the six days of creation to the evolution of the universe. The way the original model worked was to chose a reference that is highly time dilated to measure time. For example, the first roughtly 1M years of the universe's expansion (hydrogen and transparency for light appear) is equated to our earth reference. On the other hand, if one was stting on the BB reference, the enormous gravity could have made that amount of time appear like one day. At that time, I figured there is no logical reason why God would use our reference (which didn't exist yet) if he is busy sitting on the BB making sure his project is on schedule. Someone else published the gist of my relativistic slowdown model a few years later, but by then my theories were taking a different direction.

I think I understand my confusion. If we look at relative reference and special relativity the reference affect that everyone has presented is indeed valid for distance and time. But it is not valid for relativistic mass. The only reference that will actually gain relativistic mass will have to have energy inputted into them, since E=MC2. We can not gain or lose mass just by observing a relative reference. If I was on my spaceship traveling near C, time and distance, will be relative, but relativistic mass will be not. Only the spaceship, due to the energy input needed to reach relativistic speeds will show mass increase. This relativistic mass increase is one aspect of what I called practical special relativity. I call it mass potential. Practical special relativity is a special case of relative reference special relativity. It is the reference with the mass increase. Practical special relativity is more than just mass increase, it also shows practical relativity in distance contraction and time dilation, that are also a practical affect caused by the energy input. For example, space is actually pulled into the practical reference. If I could cut the netting and allow space to expand, I could drive a work cycle with the expansion of space. I call this aspect of the practical special realtivity distance potential. The energy input will also cause practical special relativity in time. This could also be used for work. I call this time potential. Practical special relativity is more than just relative reference, it is based on the reference that contains the potential energy store in mass, distance and time potential. With the laws of physics the same in all references, including the practical special relativity reference, the relativistic changes in mass, distance and time, due to the energy input, are able to adjust all the laws of physics. Or all the laws of physics can be expressed in terms of various combinations of mass, distance and time potential.

One way to see light traveling away from you is to use fog. The scattering of the light will reflect back so we can see the light moving away. I guess what we actually see is light coming towards us that scattered from light moving away. This limits how far the light can go before the signal is gone. This raises an interesting point. Light from very distance galaxies either never went through any intergalactic fog or if it did what we see is only a fraction of the original signal. In other words, if we had a ten foot thick fog wall, the light existing would only be a fraction of its original self, with the lost fraction scattered, refracted or made diffuse.

There is another side to special relativity. It has less to do with relative reference as it has to do with velocity differences due to energy input. For example, we can not make even a small mass reach C because the mass would become infinite. It would take infinite energy input to make even a small amount of mass reach C. From a stationary reference, watching this impossible feat, even though we see ourselves as the moving reference, no energy is being expended within our reference. Our reference mass is still where it was when the accelerated mass began it journey even though it is beginning to gain relativistic mass. Why do we only see time and distance special relativity from our relative reference but not relativistic mass increase also?

The bible was written so long ago that its message of creation was appropriate to the minds of an ancient person. It is sort of like looking at the universe as seen by Copernicus, and then judging modern science by this precusor theory, since the data shows this science foundation uses erroneous assumptions. Or one can realize stepping stones are a sequence of steps leading to future understanding. Each stepping stone was the state of the art in its day, leading to gradual improvements and new stepping stones for futher progress.

One needs to interpret the bible symbolically instead of literally. The literal interpretation implies God physically looks like a man. The symbolic interpretation is that our minds work in a similar way. In bible tradition the angles see humans as something higher than themselves because God put so much effort into humans, yet humans see the angles higher than themselves. What this paradox shows is the true image of God is innate but dormant within most humans. There is another side, which is lower than this ideal image of God. The tendancy for many people to associated the image of God with something superfisical like appearance, shows their connection to God is more a surface phenomena different from the ideal image of God.

Ancient cultures were indeed smarter than we believe. If we look at the Roman army, the soldiers were also skilled craftmen and engineers. This allowed them to live off the land without the need of a supply line. They did not just live off the land but transformed it into civilization. Their army corp of engineers made aquaducts that are still operational 2000 years later with ingenuity and hand tools in a time when horsepower was measured in horses.

One thing about the death penality that most people miss is the relativity of reference. Good citizens try to empathize, essentially putting themselves in the shoes of someone, while looking through their own eyes and honest beleif system. The mind of a criminal sees a different reality. A good analogy is a pickup basketball game. If there are no officials around, some players will cheat, while others will try to play by the rules. If the cheating got bad where it involves elbows, pushes and trips, if one continues to play by the rules there is no incentive for the cheater to stop. It also puts one at a disadvantage. Eventually, after a chipped tooth and bloody nose, one may decide to play by the cheater's rules to give them a taste of their own medicine. This is what the death penality come down to. If we play by the rules of good citizens and allow others to cheat, there is no incentive for change. If we play by the rules sets by the cheater he would begin to understand the affects of his or her actions. There will change from an ego-centric child into a more globally understanding adult.

If we look at the sperm fertilizing an ovuum, the sperm begins with half the DNA and the Ovuum the other half. The question I have, what would happen it we manipulated the sperm cells so they divide the male DNA disproportionately, with the super sperm now having 55-60% of the male DNA material going into the ovuum. In other words, the combined DNA in the ovuums starts out with 105-110% of the normal amount of DNA.

When I spoke of practical relativity I mean special relativity phenomena that are created due to the input of energy. Even our galaxy still has some of the energy push from the creation of the universe. If I was on an actual space ship traveling near C, this is not a simple mind game. It would take a tremendous amount of energy exerted over a long time (modern tech) to be able to reach those speeds. My momentum or velocity would impart practical special relativity affects to me. If the earth reference, saw itself relative, what kind of actual work could that reference do with its percieved special relativity affect? Nothing. The spaceship on the other hand, if we could safely slow it down, would have so much potential energy that I could generate electricity. These are two different things; one is actually due to physical energy and the other is only due to mental energy. I believe that space within the macro-universe is part of the expansion. However, points of space anywhere within the physical universe can be at the zero reference. There is not a single physical zone of zero velocity reference, but rather the zero references exists everywhere. The MDT model predicts that the zero reference becomes evident during mass/energy conversion. It occurs simulatanteously with the speed of light reference. This potential between the two book ends of reference allows energy and the laws of physics to be the same in all intermediate references. Things sort of touch the zero reference, for an instant, and then proceed in finite reference. I am not trying to undermine relative reference, since this is how mathematics views the universe. But if one thinks in terms of practical special relativity (needs energy to occur), then one can begin to guage absolute measures of special relativity. This is important because it simplies things. For example, the hydrogen atom has a proton moving at the slow speeds of our reference but the electron is moving with the speed implicit of a relativistic reference. There is potential energy there. If we could normallize the two practical special relativity references we could generate energy from the potential.

Your images tell something about how the environment has an impact on the evolutionary process. The environmental potentials keep the DNA moving in the required direction needed to maximize its conformity to the needs of the environment. It it goes off in the wrong direction, nature will set it straight, through it own natural progression. When it comes to the psychological aspects, these, like the evolving genetics, are built on simpler things, i.e., natural instincts like hunger and mating. The higher life forms should be grounded on these instincts, unless the evolving mind attempts to disconnect itself from natural evolution. If it did, it would become something this is not natural to the planet, with less certainty of selective evolution being the deciding factor for evolution. In other words, selective evolution is causual to the planet, but noncausual selective evolution could push it down a unnatural path. For example, if a monkey learns to use a stick to catch ants, this is a natural selective progression of behavior. If the monkey culture was out of synche with natural evolution, it may deem this natural, unnatural, killing the smart monkey less it spread its progressive behavior to the gene pool. In other words, if the alien culture follows natural instinct it will evolve down the fastest path and will end up similar to other higher life forms, since things like eating and mating will still be important. On the other hand, if it departs from the natural to become something truly alien to us, it will progress much slower because it will continue to shoot itself in the foot of natural selective evolution. As a human example, hurricanes are common to certain areas of the country. Natural selective evolution would build up the smarts to avoid settling these dangerous areas. Unnatural selective evolution just keeps sticking their hands in the fire figuring someday the fire will feel comfortable. This unnatural behavior is made possible with the support of culture, since we have others helping us pull our hands from the fire at the correct moments and others who constantly treat the burns so we can do it again.

I understand your arguments and there is relative validity to them but I am thinking in terms of practical relativity. As an example, if I wanted to begin an exercise routine to lose weight, but do not like to exert myself or sweat, and decide to take up running, I could go to the track where other people are running, and place myself in a chair. In my mind, because of the relativity of reference, I will assume that all the runners are stationary (even though they are in actual motion) and that I am the one that is moving. This allows them to do all the work and me to enjoy the benefit of exercise, since I am now in relative motion. If I really want a good workout, I simply focus on the fastest runner and make him stationary in my mind giving me the faster relative running velocity. This is my new special relativity mind workout that requires no effort or actual motion to be able to get all the benefits of running. All we need is one person to actually gain kinetic energy via running. The reality is, to get the special relativity benefit of the running, I actually need to run and not just create a relative reference within my mind. It requires the input of energy. Our galaxy is in motion so our reference is getting a little exercise whether we like it or not. Electrons orbitting nuclei are getting even more exercise. There is also a stationary reference sitting on the chair somewhere in the universe. This is the only place where one is not getting any exercise.

The problem with nuclear power is not just the waste, but the waste of time, money, and effort caused by those who irrational fear the worse case scenario. The solution was supose to be fusion power. However, the push appears to be taken the wrong path, since we are not much closer than 20 years ago. I noticed that nobody showed much faith in the fusion program either.

You guys to not seem to understand special relativity. What causes special relativity affects is the energy associated with velocity and kinetic energy. It is only the reference of the object that has been given the kinetic energy that is exhibiting real special relativity affects. There is a also a reference illusion predicted by the math for the stationary reference. One way to prove this is to derive relativistic mass from scratch. Mass and energy are related via E=MC2, while kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. If I gives a mass a velocity V the total energy is MC2+1/2MV2. This total energy equals the relativistic mass M*C2. Or M*C2=MC2 +1/2MV2. Solve for M* and you get the mass equation of special relativity. Relativistic mass needs velocity to gain the potential energy needed to make the relativistic mass increase. When they did the accelarator experiment the mass got heavier, which is why one can never cause mass to reach C. What also happend was the half life increased in time. It wasn't a reference illusion but the product decay actually took longer to happen. The stuff in the test tube nearby retained its normal half life. It did not time dilate, only the sample with the actual velocity showed the real special relativity affects. You guys need to clear you heads of the reference illusion and think in terms of an object needing energy input to express special relativity affects. If we compare two reference we are comparing relative energies for the same phenomena.

That policy of the private sector is an extension of the govenment policy. It is not job performance or heath care dollar that is in question but conformity to the policy. The rational arguments of all the wasted time and extra health care costs does have a hint of truth. Maybe this should be the litmus test instead of the current cart blanche invasion of the privacy that takes away the right to be presumed innnocent until proven guilty. When labor unions were busted up, business decided to go back to the 1900's and exploit even the worker's private time. The next thing is to require that they only buy from company stores. Or they can give the employee low interest rates loans for housing and then fire them so they violate the contract, allowing them to repossess the house. If they decide to control private time, them the employee is on the payroll at home working overtime. Maybe this could be the basis for a class action suit; lost wages.

I thought one of the practical examples that proved special relativity was due to the half lives of certain accelerator particles increasing due to their relativistic velocity. The reference perception may play the tricks that you and the math say occur, but the special relativity affect is connected to the thing with the extra energy of motion. If I was traveling near C, only I would be moving, the movement of the earth is an reference illusion. Since only I would have the extra energy stored in my relativistic time, distance and mass, only I would have any actual special relativity affects. The idea of two relativistic references appearing at the same place is not that far fetched. The easiest example to see is the electron on an atom. It is moving with relativistic velocity while the nucleus is more connected to our stationary reference. We don't normally look it at this way, but only a stationary electron would be in our reference. This suggests something quite interesting. The positive charges on the protons are in our reference and the negative charges of electrons are in a faster reference. They may be two faces of the same phenomena. The positron and electron pair may meet in a intermediate reference, which is not a place stable. While the extra mass of the proton, and its lower magnetic induction, will alter the magentic addition, allowing the two references to remain stable.

I beleive the evolutionary model is correct in theory, that simpler things evolve into more complex things and that selective adaptation gives it a better foothold leading to further progression. The model seems sound, but the data is not as continuous as one would hope. Fossil evidence is sparse considering we have less than .001% (estimate) of the actual animals from anytime in distant history. If I decided to formulate a theory of the evolution of Joe's morning routine from the time he gets up and goes to work, I know there is a logical progression. But if all I had for data was some clothes on a chair and piece of burnt toast, I would have a lot of liberty coming up with possible logical scenarios. I would also use my own biases for getting ready in the morning to fill in the blanks. I believe in the progressive structure but not the random stuff. Joe probably selectively adapted his routine to help him maximize effeciency so even on off days he continues to evolve to work. That is where hydrogen bonding come in. The random DNA leading to selective evolution is too convenient. It allow one to fill in any gap without data. If one needs something, puff, it can randonly appear. That sounds like hockus pockus to me.

Relativistic mass is the sum of mass plus kinetic energy due to the equivilency of mass and energy. In other words, if we give a mass M a velocity V its kinetic energy is 1/2 MV2. It total energy becomes MC2 plus 1/2 MV2; or M*C2=MC2+1/2MV2, where M* is the relativistic mass.