EricLux
Jedi Council Member
This subject raises great questions and has fascinated me for decades : it seems that with the introduction of the Theory of relativity (TOR), one has, more or less consciously, locked the curiosity, which must be what feeds any scientific research, and what is faulty (the disturbing facts and observations because they question what has just been announced as a theory). We seem to forget or pretend to forget that we are always talking about a theory which has its limits based on hypotheses and on a limited framework of observations. Observations are always made in a certain context and as long as we have not found the structure of the Unified Field, it will be so. I am not even talking about a theory of the Unified Field, which would still be a theory...
What is most lacking is the connection to reality : indeed, everything we describe in physics is based on an external observation of phenomena. We are inscribed in 3D and we propose what our 3D perception lets us see. We do not participate directly in the phenomena except at a certain level of reality and this is where it starts to be interesting because the observer realizes that he is disturbing what he observes and measures. The problem is that we do not know precisely what is the basic reality of the consciousness.
Also it is hard to specify how it can interact or disturb what it perceives and measures. It is the same for perception : how it is concretely translated into physical reality. These are major questions, on the one hand, because they call upon the nature of light which has its role in the perception of the observer (even in the case of optical measuring devices if one wishes to have the most objective approach possible) and the nature of consciousness which, even if it resembles more and more what could be a unified field, cannot be reached for lack of understanding of its deep reality. And it is not a simple definition of consciousness, based on preconceived ideas or on observations in a restricted framework that will change things. On the other hand, these major questions all point to one and the same observation : what is the role of the observer in all these observations ?
Classical physics does not take it into account for the purpose of scientific objectivity, which, in any case, could not be the case since it only studied 3D mechanics, a purely external observation based on real numbers. We had to wait for Maxwell's colossal work to unify, in the same framework, electrical and magnetic phenomena, so that the subject would start to become clearer, so that we would start to use only real numbers, so that we would discover the reality of magnetism intruding in space, that we begin to speak of a 4th dimension of space and that would lead to quantum physics revealing the effects of the presence of the observer on the measurements and observations of phenomena on an infinitely small scale.
The other offspring of Maxwell's equations is the famous theory of relativity with linear time as the 4th dimension of space. However, in his theory of special relativity, everything rests on his basic assumption : the speed of light is constant. Even more, it is constant in a change of Galilean reference frame, thus for any observer inscribed in this dynamic. The fact is that behind all these choices lies the extension of an approach specific to mechanics into the field of optics. Nothing assures us that optics follows the same laws as mechanics and that it fits into the same framework. Doesn't Einstein's hypothesis, based on observations made in a precise framework and extended in a change of Galilean reference frame, unconsciously lock our perception of reality and in a certain way reality ?
To discover this, one must remain curious, as any physicist must, and ask oneself about the true nature of the 4th dimension of space which appears to be the key to be able to observe a variability of the speed of light : the linear time used is that of mechanics, the reference frame linked to the observer is that of mechanics, the notion of speed of light is that borrowed from mechanics... what assures us that optics meets these same requirements? Wouldn't what we call the speed of light be what we perceive in 3D of a larger 4D phenomenon and which, taken as a whole, would reveal a variable speed of light thanks to the true nature of the 4th dimension of space? Wouldn't optics be able to reveal this discovery ? Wouldn't there be a deep spatial change between mechanics and optics that would have been masked by the relativistic hypothesis retained and that would explain why Einstein's theory of relativity is only valid spatially? Wouldn't the retained level of the terrestrial speed of light be linked to the value of the terrestrial gravitational field? Finally, isn't what we think we observe in the universe, from our telescopes and devices of terrestrial nature, filtered by the terrestrial level of the speed of light ? Do we not have to come back to Maxwell's equations that we may have interpreted, by haste, by inertia, for lack of any other basic reference, via the 3D filter of mechanics? By unlocking our look at Maxwell's equations, perhaps we can obtain a new approach to the reality behind the theory of relativity and that of quantum mechanics. Wouldn't what we are looking for as a unified field, which therefore requires finding a common source, be obtained by identifying it with Maxwell's equations?
Very early on, interesting work was carried out by high level physicists such as Miller and Allais (The Re-examination Of Miller’s Interferometric Observations And Of Esclangon’s Observations | Maurice ALLAIS Foundation) to realize that the subject was more complex than what the theory of relativity built on its constant speed of light suggested. And that the key lay in the temporal notion : Miller made observations over very long periods of time showing cycles and Allais, on his side, observed such cyclic correlations over long periods of time and correlations between gravity and magnetism. All this seems to attest that the dynamics of the Earth and its attributes (speed of light, gravity constant...) is inextricably linked to its evolution within the universe. In other words, we are inscribed in a given terrestrial dimensional bubble which is however relative to the universal whole of which it represents a part. And we project our terrestrial perception to the whole universe without being aware that what we observe in our terrestrial bubble can be the fact of an infinity of other consciousnesses, elsewhere, at their level, in their bubbles with their constants. With Einstein's theory, we are locked in our earthly reality bubble.
As for @Laura's speculations on scientifc @ark's blog, concerning the links between consciousness, light and gravity, it seems to me quite immediate that the way to unification passes through this issue : what we perceive of the terrestrial light is inherent to the terrestrial gravity which itself is in resonance with the terrestrial dynamics within the universe and with the collective state of terrestrial consciousness. The lower the state of collective consciousness, the more the 3D terrestrial bubble remains closed, hermetic to the universe. This could explain a lot of things and facts. The non-observation of the variation of the speed of light on Earth, apart from the observations of Miller and Allais, had pushed me to wonder about the reasons of this non-observation on the Cs forum :
What is most lacking is the connection to reality : indeed, everything we describe in physics is based on an external observation of phenomena. We are inscribed in 3D and we propose what our 3D perception lets us see. We do not participate directly in the phenomena except at a certain level of reality and this is where it starts to be interesting because the observer realizes that he is disturbing what he observes and measures. The problem is that we do not know precisely what is the basic reality of the consciousness.
Also it is hard to specify how it can interact or disturb what it perceives and measures. It is the same for perception : how it is concretely translated into physical reality. These are major questions, on the one hand, because they call upon the nature of light which has its role in the perception of the observer (even in the case of optical measuring devices if one wishes to have the most objective approach possible) and the nature of consciousness which, even if it resembles more and more what could be a unified field, cannot be reached for lack of understanding of its deep reality. And it is not a simple definition of consciousness, based on preconceived ideas or on observations in a restricted framework that will change things. On the other hand, these major questions all point to one and the same observation : what is the role of the observer in all these observations ?
Classical physics does not take it into account for the purpose of scientific objectivity, which, in any case, could not be the case since it only studied 3D mechanics, a purely external observation based on real numbers. We had to wait for Maxwell's colossal work to unify, in the same framework, electrical and magnetic phenomena, so that the subject would start to become clearer, so that we would start to use only real numbers, so that we would discover the reality of magnetism intruding in space, that we begin to speak of a 4th dimension of space and that would lead to quantum physics revealing the effects of the presence of the observer on the measurements and observations of phenomena on an infinitely small scale.
The other offspring of Maxwell's equations is the famous theory of relativity with linear time as the 4th dimension of space. However, in his theory of special relativity, everything rests on his basic assumption : the speed of light is constant. Even more, it is constant in a change of Galilean reference frame, thus for any observer inscribed in this dynamic. The fact is that behind all these choices lies the extension of an approach specific to mechanics into the field of optics. Nothing assures us that optics follows the same laws as mechanics and that it fits into the same framework. Doesn't Einstein's hypothesis, based on observations made in a precise framework and extended in a change of Galilean reference frame, unconsciously lock our perception of reality and in a certain way reality ?
To discover this, one must remain curious, as any physicist must, and ask oneself about the true nature of the 4th dimension of space which appears to be the key to be able to observe a variability of the speed of light : the linear time used is that of mechanics, the reference frame linked to the observer is that of mechanics, the notion of speed of light is that borrowed from mechanics... what assures us that optics meets these same requirements? Wouldn't what we call the speed of light be what we perceive in 3D of a larger 4D phenomenon and which, taken as a whole, would reveal a variable speed of light thanks to the true nature of the 4th dimension of space? Wouldn't optics be able to reveal this discovery ? Wouldn't there be a deep spatial change between mechanics and optics that would have been masked by the relativistic hypothesis retained and that would explain why Einstein's theory of relativity is only valid spatially? Wouldn't the retained level of the terrestrial speed of light be linked to the value of the terrestrial gravitational field? Finally, isn't what we think we observe in the universe, from our telescopes and devices of terrestrial nature, filtered by the terrestrial level of the speed of light ? Do we not have to come back to Maxwell's equations that we may have interpreted, by haste, by inertia, for lack of any other basic reference, via the 3D filter of mechanics? By unlocking our look at Maxwell's equations, perhaps we can obtain a new approach to the reality behind the theory of relativity and that of quantum mechanics. Wouldn't what we are looking for as a unified field, which therefore requires finding a common source, be obtained by identifying it with Maxwell's equations?
Very early on, interesting work was carried out by high level physicists such as Miller and Allais (The Re-examination Of Miller’s Interferometric Observations And Of Esclangon’s Observations | Maurice ALLAIS Foundation) to realize that the subject was more complex than what the theory of relativity built on its constant speed of light suggested. And that the key lay in the temporal notion : Miller made observations over very long periods of time showing cycles and Allais, on his side, observed such cyclic correlations over long periods of time and correlations between gravity and magnetism. All this seems to attest that the dynamics of the Earth and its attributes (speed of light, gravity constant...) is inextricably linked to its evolution within the universe. In other words, we are inscribed in a given terrestrial dimensional bubble which is however relative to the universal whole of which it represents a part. And we project our terrestrial perception to the whole universe without being aware that what we observe in our terrestrial bubble can be the fact of an infinity of other consciousnesses, elsewhere, at their level, in their bubbles with their constants. With Einstein's theory, we are locked in our earthly reality bubble.
As for @Laura's speculations on scientifc @ark's blog, concerning the links between consciousness, light and gravity, it seems to me quite immediate that the way to unification passes through this issue : what we perceive of the terrestrial light is inherent to the terrestrial gravity which itself is in resonance with the terrestrial dynamics within the universe and with the collective state of terrestrial consciousness. The lower the state of collective consciousness, the more the 3D terrestrial bubble remains closed, hermetic to the universe. This could explain a lot of things and facts. The non-observation of the variation of the speed of light on Earth, apart from the observations of Miller and Allais, had pushed me to wonder about the reasons of this non-observation on the Cs forum :
- Why is there no observation of the variation of the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory, even with frequency ? Because he locked the evidence of such a variation by his assumptions at the base of his theories? Because we are not aware that this variation is linked to the nature of time ? Because the collective planetary consciousness is not ready for such an observation ?
- The link between the 3D and the 4th "dimension" is mathematically translated by the fact that, in the 3D, the 4th "dimension" is hidden. Would this explain why the speed of light is perceived as constant because we don’t yet know its true nature ignoring the true 4th "dimension" ?
- Is the 4th dimension of space holographic ?
- Do we need to revisit our definition of Space ? Yes, we have to do it with the 4th dimension of space, the new spatial reference.
- Is the principle of covariance adopted since Galileo a dead end ? Should we not rather opt for the principle of invariance ? In this respect, the Lorentz group is there to ensure the covariance of 4 Maxwell-Heaviside's equations, should not we look for their invariance even if the Galilean group does not insure this invariance ?
- Speed of light varies with frequency. Is this frequency a new type of frequency characterizing the 4th "dimension" of space ? What is the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space ? A Tesla wave (0), the frequency of the observer's consciousness (1), the 3D speed of light which is thus revealed as the frequency of light when we are in 4D (2), the Ether as a new spatial reference (3) or a mix of all these ideas (4) ?
- If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, is the speed of light as measured by the observer c'= c+v? Is speed of light affected by the motion of the source of light ? Is speed of light invariant relative to a moving observer ?
- What’s wrong with the Michelson-Morley experiment in order to account for the complete inability to detect absolute motion, ether wind? Does that mean the believed propagation of light was incorrect ?
- What are the flaws in Theory Of Relativity (TOR) ?
- My feelings to unify physics, we can do it without going into General relativity and even the TOR. For that, we must be clear about EM and a true apprehension of 3D space and its dynamic. In other words, a truly comprehension of electromagnetism and space must be the key.
- Is the relativity 3D postulate « the laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frames » accurate ?
