A Few Testable Questions

[kristalris]

Edit at the bottom & second edit about silly mistake on Ebb & Flow.

 

A few testable questions that I think belong in the strange claims forum :

 

1. Simulation for a dynamic crystal:

 

If we take a very strong computer and simulate as many and as highly conductive and identical as possible perfect spheres each traveling at identical speeds in random directions in a large as possible perfect cube with as high as possible conductive walls, will these balls then go to order in the centre forming a dynamic crystal? Accuracy being more critical than speed.

If so would it then be possible to infer a formula for forming such a dynamic crystal out of the simulation?

Reason for the question: a dynamic crystal might be at the heart of the Higgs field. Why that is? Lifting a tip of the veil in question 2.

 

2. Would a large massive spinning sphere cause a rise in gravity of that sphere?

 

If we were to spin a large as possible massive sphere as fast as possible would that lead to a very small yet measurable rise in its gravity?

Reason for the question: if the Higgs field ads mass when an object is accelerated then the decay of say Caesium could slow down when speeded up through the Higgs field. That would imply that decay and not time slows down when speeding up an atom clock. It also would mean speeds > c possible (and for sub atomic particles to hold c in a curved space, yet slowed down in the Higgs field at c, assuming we observe acceleration instead of length contraction). If the Higgs field is a dynamic crystal it will cause an under pressure that is perceived as gravity when mass is taken from it. I.e. it goes to order see question 1. Also causing the object to accelerate further akin the law of Hubble by adding momentum. In so doing solving the dark energy and dark matter enigma. No conflict with GR, SR FT or QM then because the same observations and predictions will follow. So assuming smaller yet unobserved particles instead of assuming something from nothing, and marrying all observations. Yet assuming acceleration of own accord by “massless” particles possible, why? See question 3.

 

3. One test both proving and disproving length contraction.

 

If you substitute all length contraction parts out of the algorithms of a Tom Tom navigation device and change it into a formula whereby the pulse is accelerated keeping c in curved space, will the Tom Tom then work just as well as with LC?

 

Reason for the question:

Length contraction only works for each separate Tom Tom, and cannot be integrated in one model without going > c if more than one Tom Tom shares the same say three satellites. Otherwise the satellites will have to length contract in different directions at the same time, or both Tom Toms will have to be seen doing this as well.

 

It is a pity that the two satellites Ebb and Flow were not built from the start to be accelerated away from the moon across say the Hubble telescope in order to observe length contraction. We know the length of the probe and high speed of these probes (Edit wrong of course only when at c in a gravitational field causing a potential > c do we get LC.) should show a measurable effect. Disproving or proving length contraction as being anything but an as yet usable mathematical trick to describe a limited part of reality. Which physics should be trying to falsify as long as we don’t have a TOE including law of Hubble in one elegant non contradictory way.(Edit the latter is still very much correct. Trial and error. Here a serious error in sales and in production. yet not in research. In trying to falsify LC even silly mistakes should be acceptable.)

 

If all these tests show what I expect it gives rise to the following explanation:

 

Acceleration of say a photon whereby it becomes unspun i.e. more red shifted in a gravitational field in order to accelerate in the curve holding c, curbing in at twice the Newtonian value, like a toy wound up car accelerating in a curve to hold its speed alleviates the need for length contraction. A photon curves in the Higgs field. Photons of all wavelengths hold c but expend energy in order to do that. All particles except “mass less particles” act like little black holes: hence gravity. I.e. the mathematics of current physics that are involved can be used by simply assuming acceleration before any predicted test. So do the mathematics of current science with say length contraction and give a prediction. Then do the test. I predict the same result with this idea as is done with current science. Only the end result can just as well be acclaimed for acceleration instead of length contraction. No conflict with current science.

How can a photon get the energy? That is a question to which there is an elegant answer….

 

Edit (rereading the rules and seeing this possibility to: Because the elegant answer leaves the realm of testable claims I didn't /don't think it's appropriate to post it for the time being. Because it might shed a negative light on my motives I will say this: It has to deal with assumptions on whether the universe is infinite or not and how chaos and order can interact etc.. Do we assume a one off or do we assume a cyclic affair? Or do we assume that stating to assume nothing, actually indeed means assuming nothing? Anyway it does concern answering the questions that go prior the proper use of mathematics. The creative art of getting the prior assumptions right. However in this thread I've chosen to start a possible discussion from simple testable questions, and take it from there.

Edited December 21, 2012 by kristalris