Elemental Puzzle

[davar55]

Page two (please remember I'm slowly retyping this.)

Is the speed-of-light constant?

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is a universal constant. Its value
is 3 x 10^10 cm/sec, or 186,000 miles/sec. Since the distance to the
sun is 93 million miles, and since 2 x 93 = 186, it takes about 500 seconds
for sunlight to reach the Earth, or 1000 seconds for light to cross the
diameter of the Earth's orbit around the sun.

Is faster-than-light (FTL) travel possible?

Yes. Perhaps.

There are at least three possible methods or scenarios for FTL travel,
none of which violate Einstein.

1) Let v > c in the relativity velocity equation. Then mass becomes
imaginary. Now interpret that to mean that if we can break the
light barrier with a massed particle or object, then its mass poses no
inertial drag, hence anti-gravity, hence without any contradiction to
Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

2) The hyperspace concept (wrap-drive,sub-space) is plausible.

3) Wormholes, i.e. holes in the skin of the five (not four) dimensional
space-time make neutrinoino transfers throughout 3-d space to
arbitrary locations possible. Add length-dilation, and anything could
be transported anywhere.

The trick is in the technology !!!

Is the Universe three dimensional or four dimensional?

Neither.

The Universe is five dimensional. There are four spatial dimensions and
one temporal dimension. Spatially, the Universe is a finite but unbounded
three-dimensional sphere Riemann folded at every point through a fourth
spatial dimension different from the other three. The spatial dimensions
thus consist of the three ordinary spatial dimensions plus a fourth
porous hyperspatial dimension called the skin. Time is an added dimension
which is interconnected with the spatial dimensions as space-time as in
the theory of relativity. Thus the shape of the five dimensional Universe
is a super-hyper-sphere.

End of Page Two (for now).

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

You need to provide extra-ordinairy proof for this extra-ordinairy claim.

I'm aware that this is critical. When I get to it, judge for yourself.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by retina

Then why do we see red-shift?

From wikipedia

Although observing such redshifts, or complementary blue shifts, has several terrestrial applications (e.g., Doppler radar and radar guns),[1] spectroscopic astrophysics uses Doppler redshifts to determine the movement of distant astronomical objects.[2] A special relativistic redshift formula (and its Newtonian approximation) is used when spacetime is flat. Where gravitational effects are important, redshift must be calculated using general relativity. Two important special-case formulas are the so-called gravitational redshift formula which applies to any stationary (that is, unchanging with time) gravitational field, and the cosmological redshift formula which applies to the expanding universe of Big Bang cosmology.[3]


First let me point out that the Red Shift of distant galaxies IS USED TO
JUSTIFY THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE THEORY, hence the Big Bang.
Not the other way around. If an alternate explanation for the Hubble
Red Shift exists, then the expansion becomes nebulous and the Big
Bang has Big Problems.

Also, the so-called PROOF OF THE BIG BANG BECAUSE it explains the
background radiation is questionable too, for the same reason.

But to satisfy everyone' objections, if possible, you have to let me
present in my own time.

And hey I recognize the utter legitimacy of everyone's scepticism.
I would be doubtful too.

[davar55]

I get tired typing and thinking so much.
This is still hard work for me, and while I have
been working on some of these "hypotheses"
for over 12 years, that's no guarantee I'm right,
I realize very well. Still, I hope at least some of this
rubs off in a positive way.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by davar55

But to satisfy everyone' objections, if possible, you have to let me
present in my own time.

And hey I recognize the utter legitimacy of everyone's scepticism.
I would be doubtful too.

Type it all up, with the math and then make a single post. That would be best, rather than doling it out piecemeal.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

I'm NOT playing games and your comments are NOT fair, for the simple reason that I have no computer copy of my monograph.

So, you're no longer asking us to comment on what we haven't seen. Fine. That satisfies my complaint.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Type it all up, with the math and then make a single post. That would be best, rather than doling it out piecemeal.

Maybe for everyone else, but not for me. I'll try however to put more
content in each post.

[bsquared]

Originally Posted by xilman

Actually, it does have an effect. Your order-of-magnitude picture is true only for electrons which move in a potential of low effective charge. That is, for the outermost (or valence) electrons which are shielded from the full nuclear charge by the innermost occupied orbitals. For both high-Z hydrogenic ions and for the lowest energy orbitals in high-Z atoms your picture is misleading at best.

Thanks Paul for the correction and education!

- ben.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by bsquared

Thanks Paul for the correction and education!

- ben.

Ditto.
But don't give Davar any more encouragement

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Ditto.
But don't give Davar any more encouragement

Let me see -- because I got (at least) one thing right,
that's a reason for suggesting I desist?
There's more things in our universe than are dreamt of
in our (scientific) philosophies.

And I'm far and away not the first or only person to
reject the Big Bang as bad or non- science.

If, however, everyone here objects to my finishing presenting
the cosmology, I'll have to reconsider.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Let me see -- because I got (at least) one thing right,
that's a reason for suggesting I desist?
There's more things in our universe than are dreamt of
in our (scientific) philosophies.

And I'm far and away not the first or only person to
reject the Big Bang as bad or non- science.

If, however, everyone here objects to my finishing presenting
the cosmology, I'll have to reconsider.

I suggest that

a) you ignore davieddy's most recent comment and
b) reduce your number of postings until you have a substantial amount of your proposal ready for public view.

Paul