This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Written by DTYarbrough
ANSWERS to QUESTIONS they should have asked.
© Copyright 2010,2011 All rights reserved
Written by DTYarbrough TIME PARADOX A spaceship capable of light speed travel leaves a star system 1 billion light years from earth in the earth year 1 billion BC. Another spaceship leaves another star system 1 thousand light years from earth in the year 1 thousand BC. Light from both star systems would reach the earth at the same time. had it left when the spaceships did, and so would both spaceships since they travel at light speed. Since time supposedly stopped for both groups of travelers during the voyage, it would still be 1 billion BC for one group and 1 thousand BC for the other, yet they are both here at the same time in the year 0 BC. CONCLUSION: Time does not stop or even slow down when you reach the speed of light. I'm not saying that we will or will not be able to reach the speed of light. I am only saying that physicist's that claim time slows down or stops for any reason, should have their heads examined.
MASS PARADOX Some physicists have said that a light sail would be propelled by photons or that gravity can bend light. This means that they believe photons to have some mass. I agree with this assumption. However it violates another belief that any object with mass, when accelerated to the speed of light, would attain infinite mass. Why doesn't the photon hit us like a canonball? CONCLUSION: My theory, Conservation of Energy in Subatomic Particles, may explain this. I believe that in subatomic particles such as photons, energy takes the form of velocity or spin or a combination of the two. The greater the velocity, the less the spin. If it loses velocity, it gains spin and viseversa. The reason for this is that a point on the surface of the particle can not travel beyond a certain speed within a given medium. If the velocity alone causes the point to reach this speed, then spin is not possible. While it is spining fast
enough to cause the point to move at the speed limit, no velocity is possible. The combination of spin and velocity can never cause the point to exceed the speed limit. NOTE: The surface, while spinning, would be at the outer edge of it's force field. I believe that a photon with no velocity would have maximum spin. This spin creates a force field that gives it it's maximum physical mass. As it is accelerated, it attains what I call inertial mass but since the spin is reduced, it's physical mass is reduced. The end result is that a subatomic particle will always have the same total mass and the same total energy. This may not apply to atomic particles and we will not get into that now. LIGHT PARADOX Matter is 99.9999% space, (according to the standard theory) yet light can not penitrate much of it. For the photon to bump into something would be like you tripping over the only stone in the sahara desert. I can't remember their explanation for this but I bet it was a good one. It probably wasn't worth remembering. My theory states that it is the spacing of the tachyons(dark particles) inside matter that gives matter the ability to reflect, refract, absorb, bend or slow light. Since the tachyons form the medium that allows light to follow a wavelike path through a so called vacuum and explains the particle/wave duality of light, changing their spacing changes the photons ability to follow it's wavelike path through them. Light can easily penitrate six inches of glass, but can't get through a thin layer of paint. Which is denser. It take a diamond to cut glass. What does it take to scratch your paint job on your new car? BACKGROUND RADIATION Physicists tell us that the background radiation is equally distributed in all directions when viewed from earth. Give me another example of matter being dispersed outward from a central point in such a way that this could happen. What they are seeing is the tachyons or dark matter I have been talking about, evenly distributed because their dispersal is due to electostatic forces between adjacent particles. How are they seeing them? I'm not sure, since anything in the energy spectrum would pass through them as light does, making them invisible. GALACTIC COLLISIONS
Observation of galactic collisions have shown that the standard theory for gravity does not work. Even modified gravity theory only works if there are non-relativist neutrinos present. Lots of luck with that one. What is present is the tachyons. I'm not sure what they saw that they couldn't justify but I can tell you what I would expect to see with my theory. As the galaxies colide, where they overlap, there would be twice as many tachyons as would normally occupy that space. This will cause that space to expand, drawing normal matter with it. I suspect the standard theory expected the increased matter in this space to increase gravity and draw the matter closer together. The two effects may cancel each other to some extent, but the result would be unexpected with the standard theory. GALACTIC DISTANCE AND LIGHT SPEED Scientist claim they have seen a galaxy that is 13 billion light years away. Assume the universe to be 14 billion years old and our galaxy is moving away from the big bang at 1/50 light speed or 600 km sec. I DIDN'T MAKE UP THESE NUMBERS. 1.0 billion years after the big bang when the light left the other galaxy, the earth was 20 million light years from the big bang while the other galaxy was 13.0 billion light years from where the earth is today. Were is earth today? .28 billion light years from the big bang. When the light started leaving the other galaxy, it was either 13.28 billion light years on our side of the big bang or 12.72 billion light years on the other side or some distance in between. This was 1 billion years after the big bang. How did it get 12.72 to 13.28 billion light years distance in 1.0 billion years. I went on line to check my numbers. Amagine my surprise to find that the old theory of a single point big bang was no longer accepted. It seems the new theory has something to do with a recipe for raisin bread. I heard it's even been approved by the FDA. But I know that not that long ago, they said the old theory had been proven a dozen different ways. But this one is better, it's been proven 2 dozen ways. Physicists throw the word PROVEN around so much that Webster's is considering adding a new definition (Guessed at and agreed with by the most physicists). So does this mean that there is no GREAT ATTRACTOR ( a mysterious unseen object with billions of times more mass than the milky way that
is pulling us off course and will destroy us all in 15 billion years)? Well, at least that's a relief. I guess I can still plan on going to the soccer game this weekend.
TIME DILATION Physicists claim that time slows down for moving objects. They claim they have proven this by examining two seperate clocks, one from a moving object and one from a stationary object. In order to examine an object at any particular moment in time, it must exist in that moment in time. Even if time had changed for one of the clocks, by the time it existed in the same moment in time as the other (in order to be observed) it would be displaying the correct time. If not, then it's ability to keep time has been changed, not time itself.
LIGHT FROM A MOVING OBJECT Imagine a baseball pitcher capable of throwing a baseball 100 mph. Imagine that he can throw a ball every 5 seconds. This is meant to represent an object emitting photons to produce a ray of light, although the speeds are much different but unchanging. Place the pitcher in the back of a moving truck traveling at 90 mph. Two distinct things would happen. First, the ball would leave his hand with a speed of 10 mph or 190 mph depending on which way he faced. The pitcher would be in a new location each time he threw a ball, causing the balls to be spaced closer or farther apart. The series of balls would not even closely resemble a series of balls throw by a pitcher that was stationary. Even if Einstein is saying that the speed of light as not determined by the energy that went into producing it, that does not account for the spacing problem. And it certainly does not explain how it can move away from a moving object at the same speed that it approaches a stationary object, as stated in his theory of relativity.
GRAVITY PARADOX Even if you believe in space time and think that mass can warp space, how is it possible that two objects with different mass can maintain the same orbit.
Jupiter, the most massive object in the solar system (other than the sun) shares it's orbit with thousands of asteroids typically smaller than a kilometer in diameter. Jupiter and the asteroids all move at the save orbital velocity yet their masses are astronomically different. In my theory this is made possible by the spinning disk of dark particles. Jupiter and the asteroids simply go along for the ride.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?