A Unified Field Theory
A summary of the Unified Field Theory
On the Relativity of Distance
In my previous discussion I mentioned that I was confused about the concept of ‘relative distance', but after giving myself a day to think about the problem I have arrived at the solution to that particular enigma.
A summary of the Unified Field Theory
In our previous discussion we made note of the anomalous presence of a ‘high red shift quasar' located in a ‘low red shift galaxy'.
Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?. "How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?"
First I will give a short review of some points discussed previously.
In the diagram above we represent a galaxy with a grey circle. We will represent this galaxy as a circle because I am convinced that so called ‘elliptical galaxies' are produced by a distortion effect (our view is visually distorted creating the illusion that a circular object is an oval ellipse). It is not unheard of for objects to be found in elliptical orbits (the earth is one example) so it is possible that material was sucked into that galaxy at an angle and that this then resulted in an eccentric elliptical orbit, so this interpretation could be incorrect.
We represent the ‘black hole' at the center of the galaxy by means of white circle. This then becomes a ‘white hole'. The reason for this assumption is that for a ‘quasar' to exhibit a redshift of 2 billion light years is an indication that the matter based theory of gravity leads to an erroneous description of so called ‘black holes', and that it is in fact the surface of the blackhole that is glowing (such that quasars are not located in ‘the accretion disk', as that matter based theory of gravity would require, but rather a quasar is simply a glowing white hole, and for this reason I no longer wish to use the erroneous term ‘black hole' to describe such an object. We make the assumption that the relativity of momentum and the relativity of processes that is one of the logically following consequences leads us to conclude that such a white hole is not some ‘crushed singularity where all the laws of physics break down'. If the laws of physics ‘break down' this is a strong indication that these laws are erroneous. Rather a white hole is just a truly humongous, huge, huge mass.
As for that bit about ‘nothing escaping' from such a hole (not even light) for the purposes of the Unified Field Theory, we interpret motion through the field, and the so called ‘particle wave duality' as not being properties of electromagnetic radiation but rather as field effects generated by the field itself, and therefore there is no logical reason to conclude that such field effects would not occur in a strong field, but rather we must conclude that such effects would continue to occur and that only the manner in which the fields effects manifest would change with a change in field strength (the relativity of processes). Therefore it would take a boson (such as a photon) two billion years to navigate to the top of such a field which means that the radiant energy of that quasar is very ancient light which left the surface of that white hole long, long ago.
Therefore we conclude that for a boson the ‘distance' to some point in some galaxy (or any other point in the field) is a relative distance. The boson reports that the distance to the surface of some white hole in the center of that galaxy is ‘2 billion lightyears' because this describes the path of a boson. To a boson when field strength increases, this is equivalent to a relative increase in distance and a longer path.
In the image above, we illustrate the fermion path, which is revealed to be the inverse of the boson path. The boson (such as that photon) reports that the shortest path is associated with the weakest field while the longest path is associated with the strongest field. This means that it would take a photon a very long time to navigate the longest path (two billion years in this example). A fermion tells us that the longest path is always found to be associated with the weakest area of the field, while the strongest field is equivalent to the shortest path. Therefore both fermion and boson experience the relativity of distance and they experience this relative distance in the form of an exactly opposite inverse relationship. We can see that as a fermion falls into the field of a small body, its rate of acceleration decreases relative to the ever increasing acceleration experienced by a fermion falling into stronger and stronger fields. This acceleration is equivalent to an ever shorter path, the exact opposite of what is experienced by a boson such as a photon.
Anyone who has ever tinkered with the equations of Relativity theory would know that the equations break down at high energy levels, and that if you keep pushing, your software will crash. One way around this problem would be to ‘renormalize' those badly behaved equations so as to smooth out that peculiar non-linear curve and thus keep your software up and running. A second approach would be to question the fundamental assumptions that generated such equations in the first place, for the problem is not really mathematical but rather conceptual.
One way to conceptualize this high energy problem would be to scale up to a humongous ‘white hole' and then drop a fermion into such a high energy hole and observe the predicted results after which time we will then compare the predicted results with the actual results and note the difference there as well. According to our predicted results, a fermion will follow a boson path when dropped into such a large white hole. What this means is that the fermion will follow the longest path in the galaxy and take two billion years to cover the distance, just like a boson does, for no fermion can refuse to follow a boson path. This is inconsistent, for we would expect a fermion to continue to behave like a fermion, experiencing ever greater acceleration and following an ever shortening path, right up to and including the point at which we dropped that fermion into a very powerful field. We don't expect our computer to crash simply because we dropped a fermion in a really great big hole and then expected a fermion to continue to behave like a fermion. In order to ‘renormalize' we will have to force a fermion to behave like a boson when dropped into great big holes, for this the only way to keep our software up and running.
The conceptual problem here is twofold. First is the problem with time. An assumption is being made here that ‘time is real' in that ‘time is the fourth dimension' and therefore there is time and when motion occurs it occurs within this fourth dimension of time at the same time as it occurs in the other three. We can see that this idea is nonsensical when we scale up to high energies and then try to drop some fermion into a giant sized hole, only to find the fermion behaving weirdly and spending two billion years to fall into such a gigantic hole.
What would actually happen would be something like this. The fermion will fall into the gigantic hole with a virtual infinite velocity. We use the term ‘virtual' because the velocity will not be literally infinite, for even the most gigantic hole has an associated velocity vector. We also expect that fermion to smack the surface of that enormous mass virtually instantaneously. Time is generated by motion, so the impact will not be literally instantaneous, but will once again be found to be dependant upon the velocity vector of the field around that huge, huge mass.
Now when we say ‘instantaneous' we do not mean that the fermion will spend two billion years following the boson path down into that hole, but because of time distortions it would only seem like it was instantaneous, because actually it was not a nearly instantaneous impact but rather actually in the real world of the time dimension it took two billion years, you see. This type of nonsense will have to be invented if we start dropping fermions into really big holes.
There is no ‘time' dimension, and time is just a description of the way that motion occurs. Therefore when we say that a fermion will impact the surface of some gigantic mass vritually instantly at what was virtually an infinite velocity, that is what we mean. The motion of that super accelerated object will generate the time required to explain that motion, which will be virtually no time at all.
Now if you were to ask some boson to report back on that fermion impact, what you will get will be a boson description of a fermion event. Therefore the boson will report that the fermion spent two billion years traveling two billion of those light years and then impacted the surface of that massive hole. If you got boson report on tape you would want to hit the super duper fast forward button so as to make it appear that the impact happened almost instantaneously at super duper velocity, for this correction is required in order to translate boson reports of fermion events into truthful representations of fermion reports.
We can see then that the interpretation of time that states that time is just a product of the description of motion between fields is the correct interpretation of time, for that other bit about time being an actually existing fourth dimension produces ridiculous math equations that describe stupid nonsense when they are cranked up to very high energy levels, and the only way to correct that math problem is to correct our faulty interpretation of time as being somehow something real.
What we then discover is that distance is relative. Let's suppose you hopped onto a rocket ship and went on a super duper high velocity voyage to some point in space, and given your velocity vector you followed such a shortened path through space that you arrived at that very distant point in one week. After spending a week you then went home. According that bit about time being the fourth dimension when you got home you found that your twin was 80 years old. Now given that time is nothing but the product of motion what would actually happen is the following. When you got home you would find that your twin was a little bit older than you were. Perhaps your twin was three days older than you were. You see it only took you three weeks to make that trip. You were a fermion following a fermion path and your velocity and your motion creates the time such a trip took, or to put it more accurately there is no fixed path in the universe, but rather distance and path length are relative to velocity. Your twin might be a few days older than you were because an increase in field strength slows down the motion of those bosons and therefore you would experience time dilation as your ‘relative black hole' (a high speed object) rocketed through space.
If you were able to achieve a high enough velocity, your path would become so short that you could reach any place in the universe virtually instantaneously. When we say ‘instantly' we mean ‘instantly'. We do not mean that it took you three billion years but because of that ‘time dilation' phenomenon it only seemed to be instantly. You see the time dilation you experience upon such a craft is unrelated to the relativity of distance and the apparent time dilation that occurs when you move with incredible velocity over what becomes the shortest path between two points.
Therefore we say that distance is relative to velocity, with an increase in velocity being equivalent to a shorter path. For this reason it is always a good idea to travel at maximum velocity for the result is a relative increase in the path length and a decrease therefore in the distance any fermion must travel between any two points in space.