Writing to the Aliens. Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » On the Failings of Reason (Archived) » Writing to the Aliens. « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/writing to Aliens
Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 01:12 pm:   

Writing letters to the Aliens... What should we say?

Writing to an extraterrestrial audience poses something of a challenge, such as might possibly happen if the SETI project ever actually succeeds with a First Contact, now that the SETI Institute's Allen Telescope Array makes a contact with some advanced Alien civilization slightly more probable, though not a sure bet. But if by chance, or science, meaning we actually tune into their channels of communications and understood the message, how would we present ourselves? What would we say?


Pioneer & Voyager plaques galactic message, from Earth's human species

Some advocate we do not contact them, as it may invite a 'hostile' race of unwanted visitors, such as made popular in War of the Worlds, or grade B movies showing alien monsters. Their advice is to stay quiet, stop transmitting into the galaxy our existence, and instead just leave a message in a bottle somewhere, like on Mars. (We already did this with both Voyager and Pioneer extra-solar spaceprobes, with identification disks showing where we are from.) The ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of how Greek traders in his time would trade with the African coast by a 'safe' method: they would leave a pile of goods on the beach and withdraw, then wait for the natives to examine the goods, take what they wanted and leave in exchange their own products and withdraw into the bush, to which the Greeks would do again the same. It seemed to work, but in this case it might be said that it is we who are the 'natives' on the beach. And unless 'they' left us a 'message in a bottle', such as some mysterious probe on a distant body we can actually reach with present rocket science, perhaps our moon or local asteroid, or Mars, it is unlikely meaningful exchange can take place. And if they did leave us a 'message', what would they say?

SETI project, talking to the galaxies... maybe

Of course, we may be broadcasting and listening on the wrong frequency, or wrong medium altogether. While we send and listen on rather slow electromagnetic energy, radio waves traveling at c, they may be sending and listening on near instantaneous quantum-entangled waves, so our signals are going past each other. It would be like us sending smoke signals next to a cell phone tower, and not understanding why nothing happens. But if by chance we actually did find a way, or they made an effort to listen to our primitive radio waves, what would we say? What would they say?

In his book Contact with Alien Civilizations, author Michael A.G. Michaud makes some observations on policy and protocol, should such 'smart' encounter actually happen. He suggests that such a contact is a serious, and not necessarily pleasant, possibility, and we had better be prepared for it, just in case. He also posits that perhaps the extraterrestrials see our world as a nature preserve, or avoid it as a 'slum' world. We are violent, and like some primitive natives on a shore, it may be prudent for them to avoid contact with us. And if you believe in the UFO abductions stories, perhaps they are violent or amoral too. But what if they are really not too different from us, but only thousands or millions of years ahead of us? Then what? Michaud thinks that if they get past their 'growing pains' and not self destruct as a technological civilization, they may have gotten past the hostile stage and become more respectful of life, all life, including our, at times miserable, lives on Earth. If so, this should be the first basis of protocol, that neither they nor we are approaching each other with hostility and suspicion, but with a cautiously open attitude that universal consciousness evolution is something that leads to greater awareness vis-a-vis other civilizations, with cautious respect, rather than conquest and destruction. Perhaps on that channel of communications, we might be able to talk.

FTL 'entanglement' communications on laser beam experiment at Tenerife

The first thing we would show, in my opinion, is what we had done in space thus far, something like the NASA page, just so they know at what stage we are operating. If they are reasonable as a species, then we can perhaps communicate in some universal language of images and mathematics, for starters, until we mutually learn each other's language. The first order of the day is to understand where the other is coming from. What is the big picture? Do they also see the universe as an evolving universal reality, where our 'human' species are awakening to a greater understanding of our place in the cosmos? If the ultimate image of a universal consciousness is one that transcends our daily concerns, but instead is viewed mutually as an infinite gift, then hostility between species, including inter galactic species, should have a commensurate attitude towards the other: the more conscious a species, no matter how technologically developed or not, the more tolerant such a species would be towards a stranger's anomalous appearance or philosophies. We may come from totally different life form structural bodies, or we may be identical in every way, but on the level of consciousness is where we make our mark in existence, both here and elsewhere. So if an Alien contact means mutual respect, without one trying to coerce the other, then there is room for exchange, both intellectually no matter how far advanced or undeveloped, as well as on the material level. What can we learn from them? What can they learn from us, assuming we are not merely another galactic 'nature preserve' but worthy of contact? In fact, why has such contact not happened before? Or has it? We do not know for sure, but some may think they had been here before, and decided to leave us alone to 'incubate' some more.

...maybe the 'extraterrestrials' are 'like us'?

I think we will be surprised, and discover that we are not some monsters in their eyes, nor they in ours. The universe has some homogeneity to its structure, and though at present we understand so little of it, its ability to evolve life may yet prove universal, especially as it involves advanced conscious life. The universe in its infinite capacity does not begrudge its gift of life, but rather indulges it, so if there are advanced species in our galaxy who had learned the secret of faster than light travel, or communications, then when we finally do meet, we must approach them as light filled beings first, and only potentially harmful to us second. The greatest damage may actually come not from them, if they are conscious beings, but from us and our fears, where we would inadvertently sabotage our efforts and theirs to communicate. We are filled with ancient taboos, our religious belief systems based at times on unreasonable expectations, so would be 'insulted' by their presence, especially if they are much more advanced than we are. Our moral values may not match up, so a natural suspicion and hostility would result in our failing to dialogue. As long as they make no threatening actions to subdue us in some way, there is no reason to assume they would act in ways contrary to consciousness evolved species. Open frankness, as opposed to deceit, would be their first approach to us, without reserve, and that would be our first clue to their intentions, if it is we who are the primitives on the beach. Conversely, if it is we who initiate first contact, we must guard against fumbling it, in order to not repeat past encounters with other civilizational cultures, such as happened when a technologically and intellectually more advanced Europeans encountered the natives on the American shores. Other than diseases introduced, which were devastating to the aboriginal natives, the Europeans were appalled to find brutal practices among the natives in their human sacrifice and jumped to the conclusion that they were merely savages to be subdued and converted to Jesus. But this in retrospect was an ignorant response, and today such an error hopefully would not be repeated. The same would be for any contact by us, if we found a species less developed than ourselves, that we would approach them with great care and caution. Now reverse that, since it is more likely that they are more advanced than us, especially if they fly here first, and their response to our, albeit somewhat primitive, Terran civilization would mark them as to their level of progressive consciousness. How conscious would they be of us, in terms of the big picture? That may be the main qualifier we would look for, though we as a planetary species have yet to prove our own consciousness. We fear the other, often with good reason, but we should not fear ourselves as more consciousness developed human beings. And if they prove to be conscious beings, that they do not use force or deceit, then fear should be the last element of our contact, rather than the first. Look for the trust, and if we are light filled beings, then look for that light in the other. Otherwise, leave a message in a bottle at some safe distance for both of us, and exchange goods there.

So that should be our first message: watch us from a distance, but don't be afraid of us. Sure we are still barbarians on many levels, as our daily news broadcasts make amply self evident, but we are also trying to better ourselves, and in time that progress will become also self evident. We too are conscious human beings, some more some less, some hardly at all, but there are here humans who are beginning to see with a greater universal consciousness, so there are some you can talk to. Those of us who see things in universal principle terms, who are tolerant of differences and not protective only of our own, we who are able to see things with a greater cosmic vision, they should be your first handholds to new communications and exchange. And if we are too aggressive for you, then let us retreat back into the bush, and we can wait some more. Perhaps our governments are not a good place to start, since they rule with fear mostly. But do not shun us, because really we are of the same make as you, children of the same universe of Life, and in time our world will awaken to a greater universal consciousness also, in time. Can we post this to you? Will you respond? That is our 'message in a bottle' to which you may respond when you are ready. But do not frighten us, and we will do our best to not frighten you too. Our world is ready for meaningful and positive change, and perhaps one small note from you will give us that extra little lift we need to become a better world.

There is much joy in life, in All Life, and much beauty, same as there is room in universal evolution for that greatest of joys, of laughter and beautiful things, of selfless kindness and love. Judge us not by our past, but look at our future, in our arts and the beautiful things of which we are capable, and see us for what we can be. We are not perfect, and we suspect neither are you, even if technologically and intellectually, perhaps even spiritually more advanced than us. So we should approach each other with this cautious optimism, and take it one small step at a time. We can work it out, given a chance, and time. And if this is too risky for you, leave us a message in a bottle, or at least show yourselves at some safe distance. We are ready to listen. Even if guarded, because we do harbor many fears, as are most primitive peoples, we can listen. That is our hope, if you approach us with love and compassion. We can respond with same, however imperfectly, and listen.


Imagined extraterrestrial satellite on (Soviet) postage stamp... and destination? :-)

This is our message, stamped and sealed, and ready for delivery. Where do we send it? How? See SETI "Earth Speaks".

Return address: www.humancafe.com

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/'alien' writings
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 09:19 pm:   

What if the 'Aliens' are writing to us? :-)

Not that this is what is happening here, but if any wish to read the reverse of us "writing to Aliens" it may be found in these three stories... sort of, unedited.

The Trilogy is called "Dream of the Worlds", which can be accessed at: Ivan's 'Great' works, Fiction et al - original ms

1. Book 1: Dream of the Worlds

2. Book 2: Power of Maya

3. Book 3: Promise in the Amazon


Well... It's a 'promise'... if they are writing to us... we will write back. For sure!

But they're cute stories anyway.

Ivan :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2CV space/time
Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 03:54 pm:   

Deux Chevaux - very low tech - 60 year anniversary

_44929444_emma_226.jpg (interactive video - click pict)
Unveiling of first 2 Chevaux Citroen 2CV - BBC article

more pix here

Eat your "hearts out" Aliens! :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/alien life
Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 11:17 pm:   

Enceladus may be a candidate for life?

Here is a Space.com article: Cassini Probe Sets Sights on Icy Saturn Moon

[In this artist's concept, the Cassini spacecraft makes a close pass by Saturn's inner moon Enceladus to study plumes from geysers that erupt from giant fissures in the moon's southern polar region. Credit: Karl Kofoed]

That this tiny moon about the size of Arizona has enough energy to spew out water ice jets is as remarkable as the fact that it even has an atmosphere. (In a higher local G region, about 10G for Saturn's orbit, this is not surprising, however.) So now Cassini will fly within 16 miles of its surface at tremendous speed; this itself is testimony of the great achievement NASA engineers using gravity sling-shot calculations, which are obviously spot on.

In the same vein, where there is energy and warmth, and water, there is a high likelihood of life. It may only be microbial life of the simplest sort, but same as Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator had been found living nearly three kilometers under the Earth's surface, living single celled without interaction with other bacterial species, without light but metabolizing CO2. It cannot tolerate oxygen, nor is exposed to photosynthesis by sunlight, but is powered by the energy from nuclear decay. How wondrous is that? It even has a flagellum by which to propel itself!


Chivian's analysis shows that D. audaxviator gets its energy from the radioactive decay of uranium in the surrounding rocks. It has genes to extract carbon from dissolved carbon dioxide and other genes to fix nitrogen, which comes from the surrounding rocks. Both carbon and nitrogen are essential building blocks for life as we know it, and are used in the building blocks of proteins, amino acids. D. audaxviator has genes to produce all the amino acids it needs.

D. audaxviator can also protect itself from environmental hazards by forming endospores – tough shells that protect its DNA and RNA from drying out, toxic chemicals and from starvation. It has a flagellum to help it navigate.

dn14906-1_650.jpg (interactive - NewScientist article)
Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator


"It can't handle oxygen," he says. This suggests it has not been exposed to pure oxygen for a long time. The water in which D. audaxviator lives has not seen the light of day in over 3 million years, and this could be an indication of how old the species is.

If deep inside the Earth, why not Enceladus, or Europa, or any Jovian moon that has energy and water locked in? In theory, where there is water and energy, no matter at what wavelength, there is life. This may even be true on Mars, somewhere beneath its surface. But for other than bacterial, our encounter with more inteliigent species may have to wait some. Our first 'encounter of the 3rd kind' may only be this bacterium, or its cousins, which may be first life anywhere at all.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Maxwell's gravity
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, November 07, 2008 - 10:23 pm:   

Is cold Dark Matter 'hot' electrically?

Orbitsphere, from Hydrino Study Group (interactive -article)

Current theory has it that cold Dark Matter is made of WIMPs, but this is as of yet undetected and unconfirmed. These 'weakly interacting massive particles' remain as illusive in the laboratory as 'hydrinos', which Randell Mills theorizes are 'lower state' hydrogen atoms. Neither had been found to date. I do not think they exist, at least not on Earth. But something out in deep space far from hot radiant energy of stars and galaxies may approximate these illusive particles due to the much higher gravity I suspect resides there, which makes them behave electrically different from the same atoms here on Earth. (Please use the word search function below to look up "dark matter" and "WIMPs" for all posts related on Humancafe forums.) A video showing the Bullet Cluster interaction of cold and hot matter can be seen here: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/bullet.mpg

646.jpg (interactive -Space.com article)
Bullet Cluster in X-ray

On Aug. 6, 2008, I wrote on "Clumpy Dark Matter":


We know ‘cold dark matter’ is invisible, non-luminous, e.m. energy poor thus cold; and we know it interacts gravitationally. So why not simplify things and accept these conditions, where ‘gravitation rich’ dark matter inter galactic space, meaning we can’t see it but it’s there as dust and gas, could be simply higher G matter than anything we can find on Earth? Per Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, this higher G matter would exhibit more mass so it appears as if it were more massive in the clumps where such dust and gas exist. Then there is no reason to look for WIMPs, but look for evidence where Newton’s G is NOT a universal constant, but higher in deep space than here in Earth’s vicinity. That would greatly simplify cosmology, including MOND and possible the Pioneer Anomaly, without disturbing the gravitational effect of CDM, what makes up 85% of matter in the universe. The only problem with this idea is that there is at present no justification of such a model based on General Relativity or the Standard Model, so no theoretical basis for it.

In the recent NewScientist article Is dark matter a wimp or a champ?, it said:


If dark matter is electrically charged, it would be more likely to collide with normal matter. That's because it could couple with ordinary matter through its magnetic fields. Normal matter might also bounce off its electrostatic fields like a billiard ball.

But is this what happens in deep intergalactic space at much higher G than on Earth, electrically?

In a more recent article at Space.com, they revisit the Bullet Cluster: "Mysterious Dark Matter Might Actually Glow", the hypothesis is that these weakly interacting particles of Dark Matter may under some circumstances glow at very high gamma-ray wavelengths, and should be sought. Would WIMPs (Wiki) glow at gamma-ray range? Per Wiki:


In astrophysics, weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs, are hypothetical particles serving as one possible solution to the dark matter problem. These particles interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity, and possibly through other interactions no stronger than the weak force. Because they do not interact with electromagnetism they cannot be seen directly, and because they do not interact with the strong nuclear force they do not react strongly with atomic nuclei.

But this creates the conundrum that if these particles do not interact with electromagnetic energy, and thus are invisible to our instruments, they do interact gravitationally, and possibly at the 'nuclear strong force' level to effect gravitational lensing, which is how we detect where they are. Here is what this mapped cold Dark Matter looks like in 3D:

182.jpg (interactive -BBC)

Can this cold Dark Matter in deep intergalactic space be more electrically active, but not necessarily electrically charged? This is where those above mentioned "hydrinos" come in.

In fact, there is no reason to believe hydrogen can exist at 'below the ground state' as this short paper discusses: "Hydrinos: A State below the ground state" by Eric Krieg, where he makes a clear case that the Energy = Kinetic + Potential energy reduces down to the Bohr atom at ground state, as it should. The only problem with this is that it assumes the proton charge, which is equal to electron charge, cancel at the electron orbital shell, as it should. But, and this is where perhaps a new theory emerges: What if the proton gravitational force (as a remainder of the Strong force, per Axiomatic, where in our solar system Newton's G grows at the rate of about 1G per 1 AU) is greater in a cold intergalactic space region than within the close proximity of a hot star, like on Earth near the Sun? Suddenly, the 'ground state' of the hydrogen atom, out in deep space, is closer in to the proton than Earth's hydrogen, so it is gravitationally more active (like Dark Matter) and perhaps electrically more active (where the electron is tighter around the proton), so that its "particles interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity" as postulated by WIMPs? Or as Krieg wrote:


r_o = hbar^2/ me^2

This result turns out to be the Bohr radius. This is a pretty amazing result, considering that up to this point we have not done anything spectacular or appealed to any breakthrough or revolutionary physics. Basic, ordinary calculus, that is beyond dispute, tells us this is the value of r at the minimum of the energy. It cannot be any smaller, so there is no way a "fractional state" can exist.

And that is correct, that n=1 for the quantum effect cannot be n = fractional of one, per the derivative of the Energy equation set at zero, where the proton and electron charge equals zero. The same would apply with a 'lower ground state' where the charges would still cancel, but at a different orbital shell for the lower ground state than observed on Earth. That could be key to what is happening in deep cold space, that the orbital quantum for a hydrogen atoms is at a lower radius r_o than observed because out there G is greater than on Earth. In effect, the Bohr radius in regions of cold Dark Matter would be smaller than what we know for the hydrogen atom here (but still n=1).

And that is the whole key, that with a smaller Bohr radius, the electrical and weakly interactive forces for a hydrogen atom change, because the proton charge and remnant Strong force are greater there than here. In essence, the remainder of this interaction (at femtometer wavelength, or gamma-ray to neutrino wavelengths) renders a remainder gravitational force that is greater than measured in Earth's region (near the Sun) of hot energy. Surprisingly, this dovetails rather nicely into an old Maxwell theory of gravity, that (in Maxwell's words):


The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction. As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation.

The "enormous intrinsic energy" is the cosmic background of cold space where the gravity potential is substantially higher than here, which renders the proton stronger in terms of its positive charge, which then reduces the Bohr radius into what would appear to be a "hydrino", though none of this is possible, nor observable, from Earth. (BTW, this nulls the idea that such extra energy can be extracted from Hydrinos, as per Mills.) But if we could impute observations regarding cold Dark Matter where it is gravitationally more powerful than ordinary baryonic matter, and by extension the Bohr radius is smaller; then in terms of electrical activity, and high energy wavelengths, the Poisson field equation 'potential energy and density' takes on a different characteristic, where it is more dense electrically. (Or put another way, the stronger positive charge of higher G proton necessitates a likewise stronger negative charged electron to maintain n=1 Bohr radius, which renders it electrically more active, or 'hot' electrically.)*

Now, the only reason this comes up as an interesting conundrum regarding cold Dark Matter is that if in deep space matter, particularly hydrogen atoms, exhibit greater gravity (per higher G), then there may be reason to think that Maxwell equations will likewise work differently there. So in the cold dark regions of space, those energy starved regions far from hot radiant energy generating stars and galaxies, electrical phenomena should be different, and more intensely energetic, than here in our Earth's region. In our solar system, going far enough away from our hot star Sun, there should already be evidence of this greater electrical energy, which would include the Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts leaving our solar system. Are their electrical life-spans, for example, greater than originally modeled? At much closer to home, the same would apply to our Mars Rover vehicles, where they may be exhibiting greater electrical life than originally modeled. But on a cosmic scale, this would lend some greater credence to our being in an Electrical Universe, more than near the Sun, because electrical activity, as well as weak interacting forces, should be greater in a higher G environment, such as encountered in the regions of cold Dark Matter, than here.

Strange and anomalous behaviors begin to look 'normal' in such an environment. For example, Mars 'sticky soil' may be okay in an region where Mars G is about one and a half times Earth's, because it may be electrically charged in ways we cannot duplicate on Earth. Neutron stars with their very high gravity G and high energy jets begin to make sense; so do super massive galactic Black Holes polar jets emitting very high energy (positive charged) generating super magnetic fields. This changes cosmology beyond Einstein's General Relativity, which postulates a constant universal Newton's G, and makes a variable G electrically more interesting. Perhaps Maxwell could not explain gravity, at least not in terms of his equations, but he was on track with imputing some sort of greater energy for space; surprisingly, that energy is not electromagnetic but gravitic in nature. And this is where modern (at this point future) cosmology will need to part company with current theory: Space is a gravity phenomenon, where in the absence of electromagnetic radiant energy, all atomic matter there has a greater gravitational potential, right down to the Bohr radius. Can we prove this? Only if we find G is greater farther from the Sun. The second proof would be offered if electrical activity far from the Sun is 'hotter' than here on Earth, which means all our distant instruments remain more energetic for longer periods of time than our Earth modeled Maxwellian equations would permit. Or, in effect, Hydrinos can exist, but out there and not here; in the most extreme at the galactic Black Hole, the Bohr radius is reduced to zero, and gravity G goes to its maximum, where no light can possibly escape. There hydrino-photon-electrons ceases to exist, all negative charge is nulled, and all that escapes through the polar axis are positive charged particles, proto-protons which will become future hydrogen atoms.


A3 lattice, like stacked oranges; sticky soil on Mars.

... Of course, I'm writing this to "Aliens". :-) Maxwell would have understood, in his understated humility.

Also see Why Dark Matter 'appears' non-baryonic


*(As an afterthought, deeps space plasma energy now makes sense in a higher G intergalactic environment, especially as high energy gamma-ray emissions; the same for why very large deep space hydrogen clouds can gravitationally condense into star combustion, something not possible with a constant universal Newton's G, though this combustion may need a catalyst.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Volts gravity
Posted From:
Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 12:48 pm:   

What's a square-root of a cubic meter?

In Prof. Freeman Dyson's article "Why is Maxwell's Theory so hard to understand?"


"We now take it for granted that electrical and magnetic fields are abstractions not reducible to mechanical models. To see that this is true, we need only loot at the units in which the electrical and magnetic fields are supposed to be measured. The conventional unit of electric field-strength is the square root of a joule per cubic meter. A joule s a unit of energy and a meter is a unit of length, but a square-root of a joule is not a unit of anything tangible... The unit of electric field-strength is a mathemitacl abstraction, chosen so that the square of a field-strength is equal to an energy-density that can be measured with real instruments. The unit of energy-density is a joule per cubic meter, and therefore we say that the unit of field-strength is the square-root of a joule per cubic meter." (italics mine)

This problem, how to visualize a 'square root of a cubic meter', was similarly encountered when I derived Newton's G from the proton-to-proton gravitational constant (g=5.9E-39 dimensionless), where the equation worked out to be: G^2 = g(c^2 pi^2). But how does one understand the square of G, or square-root of g?

For example, G^2 is (m^3 kg^-1 s^-2)^2, so it is m^6 kg^-2 s^-4, but on the right side, g(c^2 pi^2) is the same as g(m^2 s^-2), which to balance both sides leaves g to be m^4 kg^-2 s^-2, or taking its square-root (since G^2 must be reduced to G) then (g)^1/2 is m^2 kg^-1 s^-1. But what does this mean?

I ran into the same problem earlier when I wrote "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Mass", where the unit worked out for g was V^2, or Volts squared. I then wrote (Mar. 28, 2006):


Later, when I found a way to convert this g to Newton's G for gravity, the equation used, G^2=g(c^2)(pi^2), had the same g in Volts, viz., "V m^2 s^-1". This led to a conundrum, so I left it in the paper on the Pioneer Anomaly (Mar. 1, 2005) as units "unresolved", and left it at that. I didn't give it much thought, until one day recently I thought there was an odd relationship to which I had been earlier blind. It seems that perhaps this is a way to convert kilogram mass into length and time. Both are "mass", but where one is in Volts, the other is in kilograms. In fact, they are both in units of length, or more specifically volume m^3, and velocity, m s^-1. Here how I think it really looks.

In terms of universal SI units which are length, mass, and time, Volts are expressed as V = W/A, or Watts over Amperes, where A = N/m, or Newton's per meter. This means that Volts are therefore the same as V = W/N/m.

Taking these values at their universal length, mass, and time, they work out as follows:
W = m^2 kg s^-3, N = m kg s^-2, and A = m kg s^-2 /m = kg s^-2.
So taking V = W/A, we get V = m^2 kg s^-3/ kg s^-2, which reduces to: V = m^2 s^-1.
Now, (in my above for g) V m^2 s^-1, (because V = m^2 s^-1) the g from the gravitational Newton's G conversion equation, is really V^2 (Volts squared), which is also "m^4 s^-2". But the Axiomatic Equation's g (in the f(1-g)c^2 right side of the equation) came out as kg s^-1. This is the "unresolved" part. Where can this go?

If we equate the two, here is what we get: m^4 s^-2 = kg s^-1

And if this is worked out for kg, we get: m^4 s^-1 = kg

But this is a 'hidden' value for perhaps volume and velocity, such as: m^3 (m s^-1) = kg.

The m^3 is volme of mass, and m s^-1 is its velocity. That's more strange than the "unresolved"!

And so it remains unresolved, but s^-1 is "activity", and m^2 is "area", while kg^-1 is "per mass". The only way this can make sense is to say that the proton-to-proton gravitational 'constant' g is V=m^2 s^-1 per kilogram of mass. This was how it worked out originally, and again in the above g=m^2 kg^-1 s^-1, so they are the same. The units seem to match... But I still don't understand it! What does the square-root of g really mean?... That the proton-to-proton gravitational value is in Volts?

Now I can better appreciate Maxwell's dilemma in trying to work out the square-root of a cubic meter of energy density! But that's how it works out.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/reference frames
Posted From:
Posted on Monday, November 10, 2008 - 10:47 pm:   

Not all reference frames are created equal.

mg20026801.500-1_250.jpg (click to see readers' comments)
Light coming at you in your reference frame

I find it amusing to read how relativistic light is always at c, no matter from what reference frame it is being observed. This means that per Einstein's relativity, even if we travel at near light speed, the velocity of light would remain constant, his second postulate. This is further supported by special relativity's first postulate, that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Or as Mark Buchanan says in his article "Why Einstein was wrong about relativity":


The discussion centres on two assumptions that Einstein made when formulating his special theory of relativity in 1905. The first is uncontroversial: that the laws of physics should look the same to anyone at rest or moving steadily.

However, what if this is not strictly true, taking light blue-redshift into account, that what is observed from one moving reference frame may look different from another?

Take this example: I am traveling at near light speed in one direction, and train my telescope to observe distant cosmic light redshift, the one Hubble observed. What will I see in one direction, versus another? If I look perpendicular to my line of travel, the Hubble redshift will appear as it is known; if I train my scope in the direction I am moving, it will have blueshifted from the Hubble observation; if I train it towards the direction receding from me, light will have more deeply redshifted. So in effect, my reference frame is the same for my own reference frame, or co-moving perpendicularly, but it is different from another reference frame, that of the light traveling towards me, or away from me (the observer). Or put another way, if I were a photon of light traveling towards my point of observation, I would appear differently to that photon depending upon from which direction it is coming at me. So traveling in any direction creates its own particular reference frame, and the observed redshift, or blueshift, is then dependent upon which reference I am referring to. Or, in effect, observations of physics are "reference frame dependent" and not the same for all reference frames. Does this not contradict Einstein's first postulate, if the universe looks different to us depending upon from which reference frame it is being observed?

But what about the second postulate, that light is always at c regardless of the reference frame from which observed? Again Buchanan:


This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives? Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels at the same speed.
This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks.

We assume this to be true, but in fact we do not know it is true, because we had never ventured outside the solar system to test this postulate. What if light travels in space faster or slower than on Earth? But if we assume this is true, light is always c, then depending upon which reference frame from which the universe is observed, the red or blue shifted light will tell us what is our relative reference frame. And obviously, that means that within a reference frame the laws of physics are all the same, but for varying reference frames, they are different at each point of observation. Now, they could all be the same, but that would necessitate a variable light speed c, where the red or blue shift would always be the same for any reference frame. We know from observation this cannot be true. So two possibilities exist: 1) either light is constant c and the laws of physics are different from different observational reference frames; or 2) light c is variable and the laws of physics are everywhere the same regardless of our observational reference frame. Obviously, something is wrong here, because they cannot both be true at the same time. And if so, then Einstein was wrong about relativity, but not for the reasons Buchanan mentioned.

BTW, for the record, in reading Buchanan's article he does not think Einstein was wrong, merely that light speed c being a constant was irrelevant. Well, maybe so, but then the laws of physics to be same for all reference frames would have to mean light is not constant c, but variable. Do we have any measurements that this is true? Not yet. Tongue in cheek, but I think light in space at light c looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCOBqJ9zVjU&feature=related while moving away, but like this when moving into it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFE2n-OQSSk&feature=related :-) Einstein's universe is dull by comparison.

Prove me wrong! Einstein found wiggle room by mathematically redefining 'time' and 'length'. Easy! The rest is history, endless debates, and a hundred years of non-achivements... except for measurements (within the domain of relativity) that "Einstein was right again!"... nonsense.

Also seeL: Bullet train 'paradox'

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 07:16 am:   

Its not a law of physics that light should appear to be the same wavelength for all observers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 08:52 pm:   


Its not a law of physics that light should appear to be the same wavelength for all observers.

Agreed, Anon. For same reason it is "not a law of physics" that rulers shrink and time slows in accelerated reference frames; and "Twins Paradox is not a law of physics," though it makes a good story. When the laws of physics are everywhere the same, except for different observers, there is a problem: Physics to be isotropic and uniform for all reference frames, would have all observe the same phenomenon equally in all reference frames, not only the observer's. Of course, this is an impossibility.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 10:55 am:   

Huh? The laws of physics are the same for all observers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Friday, November 14, 2008 - 06:33 pm:   


The laws of physics are the same for all observers.

Right again! :-) The "laws of physics" in and of themselves "are the same" for all observers. But the point made above is that the "observed physics", what is measured, is "different for observers". Not too subtle a point, is it?

Take the Twins Paradox again: One twin heads away from Earth, so when his earthbound twin observes him, he appears to have time slowed down, so he ages less. Right? Now, the other twin in space looks back at his earthbound twin, and to his point of view, the receding twin (on Earth) has time slowed down, so he must be aging less. Does this make sense, or is it truly a conundrum of relativistic observations? Which twin is aging more slowly?

Yes, of course all laws of physics are the same for all observers, but relativistic observations are not same for all observers. This was also the point of the article mentioned above, that for Kate and Frank, the same laws of physics yield different observations (slightly rotated by space-time), so the observed-physics are not the same for both of them. Therein lies the relativistic paradox, which makes it impossible to say that both the laws of physics are everywhere the same (which they are), and that the measurable observations are the same for all observers (which they are not). The same phenomenon observed from different reference frames yields different results.

Perhaps what is needed here in "the laws of physics are the same for all observers" is to better define "which laws of physics?" Are we talking about the observed phenomenon? Or are we talking about rules that apply to all equally? Of course, if it is the latter, then you are right. But if the prior, the observations are not. Hence, in the Twin Paradox it is impossible for both twins thinking the other is aging more slowly, since the end result is neither is aging more slowly. Hence, the paradox of relativity.

Don't get me wrong. I fully accept that relativistic observations are valid, but only for the observer, and only from the observer's reference frame, which nulls the idea that "the laws of physics are the same for all observers". Clearly they are not.

That is what I mean. But if you disagree, explain how... Please prove me wrong!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Monday, November 24, 2008 - 03:09 pm:   

All the 1st postulate means is that if your moving along at constant speed that physics is the same no matter what speed your moving at. Or another way its explained is if your in a closed box moving at a constant speed there is no experiment you could do to determine your moving. So I agree that observations might be different for different observers but this doesn't mean the 1st postulate is wrong since physics still works the same in all inertial reference frames

I read the article a couple times and its interesting but like someone said in the comments if these guys are right it just makes special relativity stronger since if they are right even if light has mass and doesn't move at c you still end up with special relativity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/word trick
Posted on Monday, December 01, 2008 - 02:19 am:   

Einstein's First Postulate is a 'word trick'.

In the original version:


As first formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, the theory of special relativity was based on two main postulates:
1. The principle of relativity — The form of a physical law is the same in any inertial frame.
2. The speed of light is constant — In all inertial frames, the speed of light c is the same whether the light is emitted from a source at rest or in motion.

However, there is a word trick here, which Einstein in his First Postulate may not have noticed: "The laws of physical law is the same in any inertial frame," may also be assumed to mean that the laws of physical laws are the same in any inertial frame for all frames, which we know from observation that this is not true. In fact, each observation of such physical laws in any inertial frame is particular to that inertial frame's observations only, and cannot be applied to other inertial frames. So in effect, each observation of physical laws is frame specific for the observer, and cannot be said to be "the same in any inertial frame" except as a word trick to make something it is not. Then it is no longer science but sophistry, or at best philosophy, though a century later there is still every effort to prove Einstein was right paradigm, though based upon a wrong premise.

Of course some of Einstein's ideas were right, but not because of his First Postulate, which is simply a word trick. So if cesium clocks tick slower traveling in a gravitational field, or Mercury precesses as Einstein predicted, these may or may not have anything to do with his theories, but more likely with how the universe works: that cesium atoms do tick more slowly in gravitational fields, and that Mercury's orbital precession is affected by solar mass spin transfer just as Einstein 'guessed' with his General Relativity. In fact, Einstein will be proven irrelevant over time, in the same way Ptolameic epicycles proved irrelevant to understanding the true nature of cosmology; though it 'appeared right', in the same way Einstein's Special Relativity 'appears right', though it is right only for the observer. Though, that said, I am sure Einstein was a pretty smart guy. :-)


Also see: Not all reference frames equal
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - 06:59 am:   

I have to strongly disagree because there is no word trick at all! The 1st postulate is a principle that all motion is relative and how its described in words doesn't matter to that principle. Do you disagree with the principle that all motion is relative? Also you said earlier that ' The same phenomenon observed from different reference frames yields different results.' and maybe this isn't what you meant but the results ARE the same for any observer its just that observations that lead to those results might be different. Like if two thing collide at high speed any observer can figure out the results of the collision using relativity and they will all agree on what will happen even if they disagree on things like the speed or the mass of the objects. That's what I mean about the physics being the same for any observer and that's what the 1st postulate means. Like in the new particle collider in Europe (when its working haha) this is tested and they need special relativity because regular physics can't explain what happens there.

Also the twins paradox is explained really well all over the place and is one of the first things people learn about relativity so I don't think that can be proof relativity is wrong. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/length & time
Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2008 - 09:37 pm:   


I have to strongly disagree because there is no word trick at all!

I believe I answered your objection on the BAUT's forum (ATM): Relativity is wrong thread. The next poster would certainly agree with you! :-) I can't disagree or agree, because the meaning of relativity is unclear, hence why I call it a 'word trick', worthy of the best paradox.

But for your amusement, I leave behind this ref to a great U Tube video explaining Einstein's relativity in three D. Pay special attention to last part of why time and lengths had to be adjusted. Really cool.

(interactive video)

Cheers, Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 12:02 pm:   

Yes I would agree with adsar because things like the LHC in europe are not illusions haha. Its like I said before special relativity or something like it is needed to explain he workings of particle colliders for exampe because regular physics can't explain what happens there so you can't just say its an illusion based on the speed of light.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Bullet Train paradox
Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 - 06:16 pm:   

The Bullet Train 'paradox'

Here is the enduring Einsteinian Paradox:
There is a logical fallacy here, that you cannot have light travel at a constant velocity c and, hitting the moving car's opposite ends at the same time, it cannot at the same time arrive either sooner or later for the observer inside the moving car, without violating light c. The only way this could work, as Einstein discovered, is to make time a variable (which Einstein's Special Relativity calls proper time). Therein lies the conundrum of most of Einstein's Relativity: is light c a constant with time a variable, or the other way around?... Or perhaps something else again, that time is a constant as well as light c, so in the end the whole Relativity exercise is observer dependent? If so, then there is no paradox, since all relativistic phenomena are always from the observer's reference frame, or point of view, so it only appears to be time dilated.

hitachi_a-train_ctrl_domestic__olympic_shuttle.jpg (interactive)
Video - 2 mins - quick Special Relativity explained

There is a slight inconsistency in how this 'bullet train' explanation presents Special Relativity in the video above. If the observer aboard suspects lighting just hit the two ends of the train simultaneously (which the outside observer knows for sure it did), then how can she 'know' from her (inside the train) observation that the front bolt hit first if light travels at c for all observers regardless of velocity?

If light is always c, per Einstein's second postulate, then it matters not if one is stationary or in motion relative to it. She, as the on board observer, would still have light reach her at the same time from both ends of the trains (light always c for all observers), and the only clue she might have that she is in motion is the forward light comes at her blue-shifted, while the rear light comes to her red-shifted. And of course, if the blue-shift (per Einstein's clocks) is speeding up time measured, then the forward light would arrive to her before the rear light. But this is a function of adjusted time per light constant c relativity, and NOT because her trains motion gets the light to her faster (since light always travels at c for all observers). As a passenger inside the fast moving bullet train, she may conclude therefore that both flashes hit the train simultaneously, which goes against what Einstein predicted in his 'thought experiment'. The only reason she would think the front hit first is that the light coming from there is blue-shifted, if all light is c for all observers. The light from both ends would reach her, traveling inside the train, at exactly the same time!

Therefore, if ALL light travels at c, even inside the moving train, there is no way to know one is in motion or stationary except through blue/red-shifted light. Is this not a problem of 'simultaneity', if light is always at c, for both stationary and moving observers? In effect, except for blue-shift of front flash, the on board observer would think both flashes came at the same time, because once the light is inside the moving train it will always travels at c per the second postulate of SR. And that makes it a paradox.

I wonder if Einstein thought of this apparent 'paradox'? Or he simply 'worked around it' by making time and length 'adjustable'? :-)


Addendum: Per Einstein's Second postulate of Special Relativity, light travels at c for all observers; and he claims that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames, First postulate. But this is flawed, because per relativistic measurements and observations (using light c as a constant), the 'observer' is always the favored reference frame. In the famous Twins Paradox, one twin is traveling away from his earthly twin at relativistic speed (approaching speed of light, which is what makes Relativity work), and is observed, both mathematically and observationally, that his 'time' is slowing proportionally. While the earthbound twin ages in normal years, his space traveling twin is aging more slowly. However, that is true only for the observer to make this claim, since aboard the space ship, the traveling twin is aging normally. If he were to accelerate to the speed of light, his 'observed' proper time would be zero; he is not aging at all. But aboard ship he is aging normal years. So this shows that the First postulate is false, since what is observed in one reference frame, the observer's, cannot be transposed to the other reference frame, the observed. At this point, Special Relativity fails its postulates, which undermines all its offshoots, including General Relativity. The biggest problem with General Relativity is its assumption (same as Newton) that the gravity constant G is a universal constant (no preferred reference frames for laws of physics). There seems to be reasons enough to begin to look how to falsify this claim, that in fact, the gravity 'constant' G is a variable with distance from any hot star. Once this is found, Einstein's First postulate is null and void, and with it all of Relativity, except as an observational and mathematical formalism.

[BTW, to make it really interesting, what would both observers see if the bullet train were traveling at twice the speed of light under above conditions? Of course, Einstein ruled against this possibility by saying light c is maximum, for a good reason! The only way this could work as described in the Bullet Train video is if the passenger inside the train moving at relativistic velocity was also moving within the train at relativistic velocity; then she would 'think' the front bolt hit first. But that violates Einstein's second 'maximum' velocity of light postulate, if the two velocities are greater than c.]

Though if the Aliens can do this, they already know the answers to this. :-)

Also see: Not all reference frames are created equal
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 02:43 pm:   

But the lightning flashes did not happen at the same time for the inside observer so the light from each flash wouldn't reach her at the same time. For the inside observer the front flash hit before the back flash. The video says one thing that confuses things a little when it says the outside observer would predict the inside observer would see the front flash first because shes moving towards the light. But the video is just saying that's what common sense would say because that is not what special relativity says.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Time, what's that?
Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 08:50 pm:   


But the video is just saying that's what common sense would say because that is not what special relativity says.

And... what would SR say it how? :-) Take your... yurhh... time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 07:27 am:   

haha...I think my statement was confusing too. The video goes on to explain that things simultaneous in one frame aren't simultaneous in another so for the observer on the train the front flash happens first. And this isn't because the light reaches her at different times its because the flashes really happened at different times for her which is like what you said before about how if the light just reached her at different times it would disprove the 2nd postulate. This is just like the twins paradox you talked about in a way because its another example to teach people about how relativity works so its hard to use it to use it to show that relativity is wrong. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 07:37 am:   

I think maybe another way to answer your question is to say the outside observer would predict that the inside observer would 'see' the front flash first but NOT because she is moving towards the light to meet it in her frame. He would predict that she would see it that way because if he understood relativity he would know the front flash happened first in her frame. Anyway that's why the 2nd postulate holds true in both frames which I think was your question. Maybe that's a better way to explain my point or maybe not. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/non dark energy
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 10:28 am:   

Dark Energy 'illusion' proves Einstein's relativity?

What if there were no 'dark energy' pushing galaxies apart, but rather it were all an 'illusion' of light transversing very large areas of space rich in gravity (where G is orders of magnitude greater than here on Earth) to cause its light to redshift over those great distances' - coming out of a light-years-long gravity-well in our line-of-sight? And what if the cosmological constant were no more than coincidental to this redshift illusion, so Einstein's calculations coincide with this constant for gravitational redshift reasons rather than Doppler-like space expansion reasons? They would both appear the same, except one is wrong. I suspect space-expansion, an expansion of nothingness, is the likely candidate for error. The light-illusion is mathematically correct, but an error in perception, if so.

1.jpg (interactive- BBC)
Light on the dark energy mystery - Galaxy cluster Abell 85


Dark energy is not well understood, but scientists believe it is is a repulsive force close to the "cosmological constant" proposed by Albert Einstein.
Another way of looking at is is that nothing - the vacuum of space - contains repulsive energy.
Observations over the last decade or so suggest this is accelerating expansion of the Universe.

And what if the 'accelerating expansion of the Universe' is a refraction of space dust and gas itself (at much higher G) so it gives the 'illusion' of space expansion acceleration, at about half the 'age' of the universe (really at about half the distance of visible universe)? Interesting conundrum, that a relativistic 'word trick' would have such a lasting stubborn effect on this non-dark energy 'light trick' illusion! :-)


Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration