RE: The speed of light is the highest possible speed in the universe. But how come there is such a thing as the highest possible speed in the universe at all? (Quora)
The common analogy likens the galaxies to spots on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. As the rubber stretches, all the spots move away from each other.
This statement, taken from a current astronomical text, can be found in almost any explanation of the recession of the distant galaxies, either in essentially these same words, or in terms of a three-dimensional analog, such as the one used by Fred Hoyle, in which he compares the galaxies to raisins in a pudding expanding in the oven. It testifies to the general recognition of the fact that the kind of motion typified by the movement of spots on the surface of an expanding balloon is, in some way, different from ordinary motion. This difference has not received any intensive scrutiny in physical thought, and is not given any attention in the textbooks. Indeed, the definition of motion is customarily expressed in terms that specifically exclude the kind of motion that we observe on the balloon surface. The results of the investigation reported in this present work indicate, however, that this special type of motion plays a significant part in many physical phenomena, and that a thorough knowledge of its nature and properties is essential for a full understanding of those phenomena.
As a first step in this direction, a critical analysis of the expanding balloon situation is in order. If the motion of the spots is examined in isolation, without placing the balloon in a reference system, or introducing a reference system into the balloon, which can easily be done conceptually, or if a similar mental picture of the receding galaxies is constructed, there is no way by which the motion of any one spot, or of any one galaxy, can be distinguished from that of any other. The only identifiable change that is taking place is a continuous and uniform increase in the magnitude of the distances between spots, or between galaxies. All spots and all galaxies are moving outward at a constant speed, but they are moving outward in all directions, which means that the motions have no specific directions. Thus the only property of this type of motion is a positive speed magnitude. Such a motion is, by definition, scalar.
With a little further exercise of the imagination, we can make the analogy with the galaxies somewhat closer by replacing the balloon with an expanding three-dimensional object, perhaps some kind of a transparent expanding plastic ball, with visible spots scattered throughout its volume. Here, again, the motion of all spots is simply outward, and unless a reference system is arbitrarily introduced to provide directions, the only property of the motion is its positive (outward) magnitude.
This view of the expanding plastic ball that we derive by mentally abstracting the ball from the local environment, and considering it in isolation, is exactly the same as the view that we get from observation of the distant galaxies. The only thing that we know about the motions of these galaxies is that they are receding from our own galaxy, and presumably from all others, at speeds that increase in direct proportion to the distance, just as the relative speeds of the spots in the interior of the expanding plastic ball obviously do. What we observe, then is a scalar motion of the galaxies, a motion that has no property other than a positive magnitude.
The currently popular view is that the galactic recession results from a gigantic explosion in which the entire contents of the universe were thrown out into space at the speeds now observed. The radially outward motion in all directions is explained as the result of velocity differentials. On this basis, the galaxies in one direction are receding because they are moving faster than the galaxy from which we are observing them. In the opposite direction, the galaxies are presumed to be slower than ours, and we are therefore moving away from them. There is no way by which this kind of a distribution of motions, if it exists, can be distinguished from motion of the type illustrated by the spots in the expanding plastic ball. Regardless of its origin, motion of this kind has no inherent direction. Each identifiable point, or object, is simply moving directly away from all others. Any further characteristics that may be attributed to those motions to fit a theory or explanation of their origin are nof relevant to the existing physical situation.
The type of motion with which we are familiar in everyday life is vectorial. This is motion relative to a fixed reference system. Like scalar motion, it has a magnitude, but it also has a direction in the reference system, and the effect of the motion depends on this direction, as well as on the magnitude of the motion. The difference between the two types of motion can be brought out clearly by consideration of a simple example. Let us assume that a moving point X is located between two points Y and Z on the straight line joining the two points. lf the motion of X is vectorial, and in the direction XY, then the distance XY decreases and the distance XZ increases. But if the motion of X is scalar, as on the surface of the expanding balloon, or in the expanding plastic ball, both XY and XZ increase.
The scalar motions readily accessible to observation are not isolated in the manner of those that we have been considering, but are physically connected to the spatial reference system. This physical coupling supplies the vectorial directions (directions relative to the reference system) that the motions themselves do not possess. The entity that actually enters into physical phenomena is not the scalar motion alone, but this motion plus the coupling to the reference system. In the condition in which it is physically observed, the balloon or plastic ball is connected to a reference system by placing it in that system in such a manner that some point X of the expanding object coincides with a specific point A in the reference system, the reference point, as we will call it, and the outward motion XY of a spot Y coincides with a vectorial direction AB.
The universe as a whole cannot be placed in a reference system, but the same result can be achieved by introducing a system of axes into the universe. The origin of these axes is then the reference point. The Big Bang theory of the origin of the galactic recession introduces a conceptual reference point of this kind, the location of the hypothetical explosion, but leaves the vectorial directions undefined. Thus, aside from being incomplete, and conceptual rather than physical, this Big Bang hypothesis does the same thing as the placement of the balloon in a position in the reference system. It connects a scalar motion with a reference system.
A scalar motion physically coupled to a reference system in this manner may act in essentially the same way as a vectorial motion, in which case it is not currently distinguished from vectorial motion. Alternatively, it may have some quite different characteristics. Current science then does not recognize it as a motion. For an understanding of these hitherto unrecognized types of scalar motions, we will need to examine some of the fundamental facts that are involved.
These pertinent facts are not difficult to ascertain. They have hitherto remained unidentified not because they are hidden or elusive, but because no one has looked for them. This, in turn, has been due to the lack of any clear indication that they might have a significant impact on physical understanding. After all, expanding balloons and plastic balls play no major part in physical activity. It is often asserted that issues in science are investigated for the same reason that men climb mountains—just because they are there to be climbed—but small mountains get scant attention, and seemingly insignificant physical phenomena generally receive the same casual treatment. An attitude of benign neglect is all the more likely to prevail where, as in this instance, some readjustment of thinking is necessary before the existing observational situation can be seen in its true light.
<unquote>
From: The Neglected Facts of Science, by Dewey B. Larson
You really need to read my latest article with Shaq in the title to change your perspective on reality. Everything is understandable and this nonsense about the magic of the speed of light is people trying to build their careers and has nothing to do with reality... It is politics and pecking order and has nothing to do with science...
That is quite the magnum opus, Thomas. I read it from cover to cover, as it were.
I was hoping for a little constructive feedback on my article.
There is little I could disagree with as far as giantism, metabolism, biological scale, etc. Unfortunately I had trouble following how that relates to helium-2 and water. Perhaps there is a mis-match of terminology and definitions. Please enlighten me:
Who are the monks you refer to?
What exactly are all these fields - what is a muted field, what is a repulsive field, an energy field? How do they transmit force? What is a field pressure (assuming this is not referring to ideal gas law)?
What is a spectrum particle?
How do you know about nuclear strands?
I was hoping for a little constructive feedback on my article. Instead, I think I got lectured at in a foreign language that I don’t understand.
I’d love to know why you thought that I needed to read this Space Jam story, and what it is about my perspective on reality that you think I need to change. I don’t think you are ready to infer many conclusions about my perspective on reality from just this one article.
For what it’s worth, I am not attempting to construct a Theory of Everything. All I am doing is taking baby steps backward from a lot of givens that are being taken for granted that should not be - because they are not scientifically justified.
Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Hypothesis non fingo.
It may be true that ‘everything is understandable,’ but I did not find your TOE to be understandable. I’m not sure it qualifies as one until some of those terms are defined. Perhaps they are in your other works. Please point me to them.
I don’t think that the best way to get people to make your articles go viral is to “exhaust their brains” with “billions of isolated, chaotic facts finally being forced to align into a single, beautiful, and perfect pattern.” That was not my experience.
I also humbly suggest that it’s a good idea to draft in google docs—which has probably the best spelling, grammar, and diction checker I’ve ever found—before publishing.
Some of your descriptions of the inner workings of electrons, photons, and atoms hint at the concept of composite motion. You’d probably really like the Universe of Motion as explained by Dewey Larson, who wrote extensively on how all possible composite motion combinations explain and predict physical properties of matter.
But to understand the Universe of Motion, it is necessary to step all the way out of conventional geometry - of both “space-time” and also cartesian coordinate space. That geometry of motion is so alien that ‘experts’ never thought of it and can’t see it. A familiarity with Clifford Algebra helps, but I don’t even think they are working with the correct number system...
Larson’s books are becoming increasingly difficult to find online, as websites die off (I have hardcopies), but here is a list of the most important ones:
<quote>
The common analogy likens the galaxies to spots on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. As the rubber stretches, all the spots move away from each other.
This statement, taken from a current astronomical text, can be found in almost any explanation of the recession of the distant galaxies, either in essentially these same words, or in terms of a three-dimensional analog, such as the one used by Fred Hoyle, in which he compares the galaxies to raisins in a pudding expanding in the oven. It testifies to the general recognition of the fact that the kind of motion typified by the movement of spots on the surface of an expanding balloon is, in some way, different from ordinary motion. This difference has not received any intensive scrutiny in physical thought, and is not given any attention in the textbooks. Indeed, the definition of motion is customarily expressed in terms that specifically exclude the kind of motion that we observe on the balloon surface. The results of the investigation reported in this present work indicate, however, that this special type of motion plays a significant part in many physical phenomena, and that a thorough knowledge of its nature and properties is essential for a full understanding of those phenomena.
As a first step in this direction, a critical analysis of the expanding balloon situation is in order. If the motion of the spots is examined in isolation, without placing the balloon in a reference system, or introducing a reference system into the balloon, which can easily be done conceptually, or if a similar mental picture of the receding galaxies is constructed, there is no way by which the motion of any one spot, or of any one galaxy, can be distinguished from that of any other. The only identifiable change that is taking place is a continuous and uniform increase in the magnitude of the distances between spots, or between galaxies. All spots and all galaxies are moving outward at a constant speed, but they are moving outward in all directions, which means that the motions have no specific directions. Thus the only property of this type of motion is a positive speed magnitude. Such a motion is, by definition, scalar.
With a little further exercise of the imagination, we can make the analogy with the galaxies somewhat closer by replacing the balloon with an expanding three-dimensional object, perhaps some kind of a transparent expanding plastic ball, with visible spots scattered throughout its volume. Here, again, the motion of all spots is simply outward, and unless a reference system is arbitrarily introduced to provide directions, the only property of the motion is its positive (outward) magnitude.
This view of the expanding plastic ball that we derive by mentally abstracting the ball from the local environment, and considering it in isolation, is exactly the same as the view that we get from observation of the distant galaxies. The only thing that we know about the motions of these galaxies is that they are receding from our own galaxy, and presumably from all others, at speeds that increase in direct proportion to the distance, just as the relative speeds of the spots in the interior of the expanding plastic ball obviously do. What we observe, then is a scalar motion of the galaxies, a motion that has no property other than a positive magnitude.
The currently popular view is that the galactic recession results from a gigantic explosion in which the entire contents of the universe were thrown out into space at the speeds now observed. The radially outward motion in all directions is explained as the result of velocity differentials. On this basis, the galaxies in one direction are receding because they are moving faster than the galaxy from which we are observing them. In the opposite direction, the galaxies are presumed to be slower than ours, and we are therefore moving away from them. There is no way by which this kind of a distribution of motions, if it exists, can be distinguished from motion of the type illustrated by the spots in the expanding plastic ball. Regardless of its origin, motion of this kind has no inherent direction. Each identifiable point, or object, is simply moving directly away from all others. Any further characteristics that may be attributed to those motions to fit a theory or explanation of their origin are nof relevant to the existing physical situation.
The type of motion with which we are familiar in everyday life is vectorial. This is motion relative to a fixed reference system. Like scalar motion, it has a magnitude, but it also has a direction in the reference system, and the effect of the motion depends on this direction, as well as on the magnitude of the motion. The difference between the two types of motion can be brought out clearly by consideration of a simple example. Let us assume that a moving point X is located between two points Y and Z on the straight line joining the two points. lf the motion of X is vectorial, and in the direction XY, then the distance XY decreases and the distance XZ increases. But if the motion of X is scalar, as on the surface of the expanding balloon, or in the expanding plastic ball, both XY and XZ increase.
The scalar motions readily accessible to observation are not isolated in the manner of those that we have been considering, but are physically connected to the spatial reference system. This physical coupling supplies the vectorial directions (directions relative to the reference system) that the motions themselves do not possess. The entity that actually enters into physical phenomena is not the scalar motion alone, but this motion plus the coupling to the reference system. In the condition in which it is physically observed, the balloon or plastic ball is connected to a reference system by placing it in that system in such a manner that some point X of the expanding object coincides with a specific point A in the reference system, the reference point, as we will call it, and the outward motion XY of a spot Y coincides with a vectorial direction AB.
The universe as a whole cannot be placed in a reference system, but the same result can be achieved by introducing a system of axes into the universe. The origin of these axes is then the reference point. The Big Bang theory of the origin of the galactic recession introduces a conceptual reference point of this kind, the location of the hypothetical explosion, but leaves the vectorial directions undefined. Thus, aside from being incomplete, and conceptual rather than physical, this Big Bang hypothesis does the same thing as the placement of the balloon in a position in the reference system. It connects a scalar motion with a reference system.
A scalar motion physically coupled to a reference system in this manner may act in essentially the same way as a vectorial motion, in which case it is not currently distinguished from vectorial motion. Alternatively, it may have some quite different characteristics. Current science then does not recognize it as a motion. For an understanding of these hitherto unrecognized types of scalar motions, we will need to examine some of the fundamental facts that are involved.
These pertinent facts are not difficult to ascertain. They have hitherto remained unidentified not because they are hidden or elusive, but because no one has looked for them. This, in turn, has been due to the lack of any clear indication that they might have a significant impact on physical understanding. After all, expanding balloons and plastic balls play no major part in physical activity. It is often asserted that issues in science are investigated for the same reason that men climb mountains—just because they are there to be climbed—but small mountains get scant attention, and seemingly insignificant physical phenomena generally receive the same casual treatment. An attitude of benign neglect is all the more likely to prevail where, as in this instance, some readjustment of thinking is necessary before the existing observational situation can be seen in its true light.
<unquote>
From: The Neglected Facts of Science, by Dewey B. Larson
https://web.archive.org/web/20191122232657/https://library.rstheory.org/books/nfs/01.html
You really need to read my latest article with Shaq in the title to change your perspective on reality. Everything is understandable and this nonsense about the magic of the speed of light is people trying to build their careers and has nothing to do with reality... It is politics and pecking order and has nothing to do with science...
That is quite the magnum opus, Thomas. I read it from cover to cover, as it were.
I was hoping for a little constructive feedback on my article.
There is little I could disagree with as far as giantism, metabolism, biological scale, etc. Unfortunately I had trouble following how that relates to helium-2 and water. Perhaps there is a mis-match of terminology and definitions. Please enlighten me:
Who are the monks you refer to?
What exactly are all these fields - what is a muted field, what is a repulsive field, an energy field? How do they transmit force? What is a field pressure (assuming this is not referring to ideal gas law)?
What is a spectrum particle?
How do you know about nuclear strands?
I was hoping for a little constructive feedback on my article. Instead, I think I got lectured at in a foreign language that I don’t understand.
I’d love to know why you thought that I needed to read this Space Jam story, and what it is about my perspective on reality that you think I need to change. I don’t think you are ready to infer many conclusions about my perspective on reality from just this one article.
For what it’s worth, I am not attempting to construct a Theory of Everything. All I am doing is taking baby steps backward from a lot of givens that are being taken for granted that should not be - because they are not scientifically justified.
Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Hypothesis non fingo.
It may be true that ‘everything is understandable,’ but I did not find your TOE to be understandable. I’m not sure it qualifies as one until some of those terms are defined. Perhaps they are in your other works. Please point me to them.
I don’t think that the best way to get people to make your articles go viral is to “exhaust their brains” with “billions of isolated, chaotic facts finally being forced to align into a single, beautiful, and perfect pattern.” That was not my experience.
I also humbly suggest that it’s a good idea to draft in google docs—which has probably the best spelling, grammar, and diction checker I’ve ever found—before publishing.
Some of your descriptions of the inner workings of electrons, photons, and atoms hint at the concept of composite motion. You’d probably really like the Universe of Motion as explained by Dewey Larson, who wrote extensively on how all possible composite motion combinations explain and predict physical properties of matter.
But to understand the Universe of Motion, it is necessary to step all the way out of conventional geometry - of both “space-time” and also cartesian coordinate space. That geometry of motion is so alien that ‘experts’ never thought of it and can’t see it. A familiarity with Clifford Algebra helps, but I don’t even think they are working with the correct number system...
Larson’s books are becoming increasingly difficult to find online, as websites die off (I have hardcopies), but here is a list of the most important ones:
https://www.wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Dewey_B_Larson
Here are some important extrapolations of his work:
http://www.lrcphysics.com/
Some archives of Larson’s books, as well as work of those who carried on his ideas:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260410153654/https://reciprocalsystem.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200224161400/http://library.rstheory.org/
https://archive.org/details/the-reciprocal-system-of-theory-collection/A%20New%20Theory%20of%20Gravitation%20%28Larson%2C%20Dewey%20B%29/
And https://rs-theory.github.io/RS2-Theory.pdf
I hope you get to do your helium experiment.
PS: I tried to write a proper vector superscript notation, but it seems impossible.