The Black Hole lie... What is Space anyways?

Good day,

If something is possible mathematically does that mean that it is possible? Considering that math is a language, or better still, a supplementary language, universal in general, with its only sense of grammar and such it, is likely that as traditional languages can be used for fiction, then math can likewise be used for fiction, and even lying. Yes, I mean literally ‘false’ as opposed to simply misleading which is frequently done with “statistics”. Since there are things that can’t be proved, like the “Beginning of the ‘Universe’” and things that aren’t provable at a specific time, like ‘velocities faster than the “speed of Light”, other things that are arbitrarily chosen, like ‘Time’, then there is and always will be room for differences in informed opinion legitimately based on what is known and differing because of outstanding variables.

In the case of ‘faster than the speed of light’ (‘>c’) being possible I believe is a, currently unobservable, regular occurrence. I will have to go into this at a later date. If you haven’t run across it yet I did an extensive survey of physic texts during the early 1980’s and was easily able to find everything I needed to work out the particulars. In the basic of formation constructions of an alleged ‘Black Hole’ all specific matter reaches a state which will induce enough matter to accelerate (almost instantly) to velocities well beyond ‘c’, the magnitude is related to the change of relative matter densities and relative thermal conditions primarily. Although arguments can be made for other factors I have found if considered in what be considered a ‘Grand Relativity Theory’ these fall into one of the two categories and the few special cases are secondary and only effect the range within its magnitude.

In cases not considering ‘>c’ subatomic deterioration is so easily dismissed that is laughable. Consider any ‘atomic bomb’ and the causes and effects of implosive and explosive forces. The hang up with the Big Bang Theorists is they think ‘if it comes together fast enough…’ or any of their rationalization, ‘that it can happen’. What about space? Einstein ventured an idea of the relationship of space and matter, and this is the crux. Space is. Not only is Space, but so is Gravity! What is Space’s relationship with Gravity? What is Gravity without matter? What is matter without Space? If you consider the relative matter density of a chemical compound; i.e. what is the part (percentage) that is matter? or what is the amount of Space displaced by the present matter? then you see that the formation of a Black Hole has to do with the displacement of space. This is very much like the idea of a cooling body. It does not get cold, or to say absorbs cold, its heat leaves, or better put it looses Energy. Needless to say if there is an ‘equal and opposite action for every action’ then there is an absorption, or transference, of energy by the next body creating an equilibrium effect were no net loss of energy occurs. Even in a ‘refrigerator’ situation and gaseous water is condensed into water, the vacating Space is not lost within the unit during transference in an opened system. In the case of a closed system the sealing container is acted upon by the energy pulling the container into the condensing matter. When a jar of properly treated preserves are open the dimpled lid ‘pops’ into place releasing the converted energy.

The magnitude of gaseous and liquid displacement is high compared to the liquid water to solid water transference this is an over simplification of relative matter density, how it demonstrates another aspect working against the formation of any ‘Black Holes’. As the water losses energy of liquid state to solid fissures form (it cracks) as ‘impurities’ that were held in the liquid state of the water but are incompatible with transforming along with the water to a solid under the particular circumstances (an over simplified example of an aspect of relative matter density). The cracks usually occur with vacating particulars in gaseous form, but liquids may not transform under the conditions, and solids may form and precipitate before the liquid losses enough energy to become a solid. Any container is affected as the energy flows out of the system as a glass may crack under the stress of spatial displacement.

Thus an aspect of variance regarding Euclidian geometry can be reconciled with a non-Euclidian geometry. I found a measurable quantity, Energy of Space, which can be measured as a relationship of relative matter density and relative thermal conditions. As far as I have been able to determine (note that the spatial displacement is bond by the variance of Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry) the variance of Gravity to Space is. That is to say a relationship of vectors in different reference plans (not space and definitely not time) with no direct over lap. A boat traveling downstream has no variance to the stream since they have corresponding properties to Special and General Relativity. Gravity and Space have no relationship to each other however they each have an effect on things that are subject to and influenced by Special and General Relativity.

Please note that the terms: >c, variance, Energy of Space, spatial displacement, relative matter density and relative thermal conditions, are all only being used to bridge the gap of concepts from the Big Bang theories, calculus, Special and General Relativity with the 4^th/5^th D-Space construction and the mathematical structure that I came up with to solve these dynamically different ideas. Any resemblance to existing terminology is due to lack of sleep...

Peace,

Stephen A. Halkovic III

Cause and Effect... Super Spatial Interactions

Good day,

Happy New Yew to come!

 

Examining the idea of a fourth spatial dimension as cause and a three dimensional space with a fourth dimension of time as effect as opposed to the space/time four dimensions typically used by Big Bang Theorists and even Einstein's constructions yields an even stronger reconciliation of perceived data. I am inclined to concede that even a fifth dimension of space maybe viable. However beyond that it would seem that a larger variety of natural phenomena would have to be readily apparent.

Most of my conclusions have to do with the study of the nature of electrical current, not as the simple fluctuation of electrons, but as energy in all of its transformations. I took the wide range of particle and wave theories with their formulas and bombarded as much raw data as I could with them during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s so by the fall of 1983 I was acquainted enough to recognize that Einstein had fallen short on the application of his theories and relativity not necessarily because of not recognizing the concepts, but because of the bulk of mathematics that is required to straddle not only Newtonian and Quantized nuclear mechanics, but thermo-electro-harmonics of charged stratified gaseous and solid matter.

The first questions that came to mind that was not already answered came about when isolating a single particle/wave packet, weather it originated within the perceived phenomena, or traveled through the prescribed domain. The first subject of question that I quarried was: “Is there something that can travel faster than the speed of light?” Of course there is a particle that travels faster than light, since all of our experimental observational means are limited by ‘observance’ i.e. light is the ‘fastest’ medium through which we record data, then it is impossible for anything traveling ‘faster than light’ to be recorded. A catch ‘22’ since calibration cannot be achieved.

An example would be lightning and thunder. If you can only hear, i.e. you can’t see, you would never know that the light of the electrical discharge ever happened, and the distance from the strike to the observer would be measured the shock wave through the medium of the air. During the development of supersonic aircraft there were numerous problems that had to be overcome with the instrumentation to function properly when the craft achieved sonic velocity and higher.

Unlike the supersonic aircraft and ‘faster than light’, where the knowledge of light traveling faster than sound allowed for recalibration, the nature of ‘faster than light’ travel cannot be measured since we do not have a proper reference frame to measure it.

Neutrinos or their existence is calculable and has been for a long time. This was the first ‘particles’ or ‘wave packets’ that I gleaned, but of more importance if neutrinos exist then electrons have to travel at an even higher magnitudes of velocity. The ‘electron cloud’ or the quantized paradox of a single ‘body’ being more than one place in time indicate that ‘observation’ of ‘faster than light’ velocities create ‘optical’ illusions.

Why people think that ‘faster than light’ velocities are a violation of physics’ law or Einstein’s theories is purely a misunderstanding of what Relativity is eluding towards. These not construct of relative magnitudes, but the perception of various magnitudes of one reference frame and a different reference frame in order to reconcile the individual reference frames with each other. These reconciliations are the basis of the unification of fields (week, strong, electric, magnetic, and such).

What are the conditions of observation? That is the question Einstein and many others have been working on puzzling out. Although there was much I could perceive by recognizing a fourth dimensional space being disseminated into the popular 3-D space/time misrepresentation it was not until the summer/fall of 1985 that I was able to recognize the mistakes built into calculus that made Newton reluctant to publish and solve them.

It was tricky, and various modern arithmetic proofs done after Newton helped point the way of a solution and proof of a corrected version which was both arithmetic and geometric. Before actuating this new mathematical procedure, along with the strike accounting of physics of subatomic to astrological, I ran various calculations of certain proposed high profile facilities.

Unfortunately when these calculations were made along the lines of the prevalent ideas of the Big Bang Theorists the more accurate mathematics led to catastrophic results. In order to maintain a clear conscious I destroyed any and all related research notes, calculations, proofs, conclusions, and all. I am in no means trying to re-render these findings. I merely hope that these writing will yield to more clear minded thinking and a higher standard of social responsibility to future scientists.

Peace,

Stephen A. Halkovic III