Our Noodly MÔnster is roguish regarding sciences, IT manipulates scientific experiments to persuade us that it exists. But to remain credible, IT mixs the truth with the forgery: Ying and Yang.
Any scientific truth thus contains the truth, It is a question of point of view, relativity.
Bébert Einstein very almost uncovered the mystery of this quoted(esteemed).
Small reminder on the subjectivity of points of view (see dialogues inter religious, and epistemology of the religions).
To understand better, how we can think of being right, the other one also, to have at the same time twists and reason, but to need the recognition from the point of view of the other one to dread the reality which hides behind appearances.
See you, please, this volume in three dimension : it has a circular base(basis), surmounted by a cone the summit of which is not a point but a right segment equal to the diameter of the base(basis). (Said like that it is tremendously more clear !)
A person who sees it of face will say that she sees a square, and will think of it such. Other one of quoted(esteemed) will see it triangular, and the third down circular.
These three persons can skin each other to know who has twists or reason without ever agreeing. Nobody will have twists or reason, but the complexity of the object will escape each as long as they will not envisage that each cannot detain that a part of the Ultimate Truth which escapes them in all three individually. That it is possible to approach the truth only by holding(liking)
Bébert had so discovered that our perception of the reality thus depended on the place where from we observed it.
His most famous example was the one of a train running to a speed close to that of the light (uniform movement: neither bends, nor acceleration, nor slowing down). And to differentiate 2 points of observation of the phenomenon. An observer in the train (Anastasia), and the other one on the bank observing it crossing (Bernard).
He wondered if we could see itself in a mirror in this train : indeed moving forward at the speed of light, his image conveyed by the light should not reach the mirror in our logic of Newton.
But finally yes!
Two postulates in his conception :
1/ The person, Anastasia, in the train cannot know if it moves without looking outside (Postulate Galilean)
2/ Where from: the speed of light is the same for all.
For this person, Anastasia, the light behaves in the same way that in the stop(ruling) : she sees no difference ; and cannot know thus if it runs or is in the stop(ruling) (it is a spacial train and there are no jolts due to rails).
For the observer of the bank, Bernard, he sees things quite otherwise ??? Arghh ?!
Two small plans to understand : the passenger (Anastasia) lay down under the ceiling light of the car :
For her (Anastasia) things take place normally (so as long is that it is normal to lay down under a ceiling light of train spacial approaching the speed of light !) :
But for this on the bank (Bernard) this is what it takes place:
But Our Sly MÔnsterosity passed there! IT lengthened the perception of the time of Anastasia for Bernard, and de facto the light crossed more distance for him but in a longer time, the speed of light thus remained the same that for her seen from the outside. A billionth of second for her is one second for him.
De facto a cosmonaut travelling in speed approaching the light, will return younger than his congeners stayed in "Earth". He will have lived on one year in the space, whereas his congeners will have aged of 10 years.
Also, if doors back and front of the car are equipped with a system of opening as soon as the light reaches them (when we switch on it the ceiling light : Einstein is incredible in his illustrative capacity) : for Anastasia they will open together ; but for Bernard, the MÔnster will show him to open the back door before the door before (the light having more distance to be crossed for him towards the door before because of the movement).
Bébert had almost understood the principle of the Noodly Touch.
That has the simple air(sight) like that, but it is fundamental. In social sciences, it is major : we are dependent on the point of view with which we are connected. A conflict in the average east will have no same analysis if the observer is Jewish, Arabic, western or Chinese. And we shall see God differently as we are Buddhist, Pastafarian, Muslim, or Animistic.
It is an illusion to claim itself neutral in the analysis of a situation of which we are actively involved more or less from part our point of view: it is a relativist datum of any scientific experiment.
There is no neutral point of view scientifically speaking, and it is better to assume our biases (and the distortions which they infer) that to claim itself wrongly objectives, in which case we deform the reality without reporting it to us even. There is no scientific objectivity, Our Roguish MÔnstruosité the watches it by giving us different points of view to each.
In physics we call that of the reference tables: one chosen one, among the simplest to understand a problem... But it is not the only one.
The example most obvious is our representation of the universe. At the beginning we considered that the earth was the immovable center of the world, and that the sun turned around us. Then we considered that the sun was the center of the world. But it was necessary well to suit that it turned around the center of the galaxy, and that it even moved in a heap of galaxies, etc. such of the Russian matriochkas which fit the some into the others. In fact, there is no center in fine. Any reference table (point of view) is valid itself : simply, the mathematical equations (and cosmological conceptions) will be simpler to land under certain angles of perceptions, following what we give subjectively to solve.
If we want to go on the Moon, we can take the earth as reference center. If we want to go on Mars, it is better to take the sun. But when we can go to the other planetary systems, it will be necessary to us to take the galaxy as reference table, etc.
Towards new Cosmologies of the universe
Attention ! Already, the relativity of Einstein is a bit puzzling for our poor spirits humanoids, but we take off here towards still unexplored abstract parts of conception ; fasten solidly your seat belt, that is going to waltz seriousness.
Keep good in the spirit the idea of reference table (point of view), to hope to keep a vague understanding of the disastrous abstract shake-up which are going to follow: pirate's dress is deeply advised.
The human mind is egocentric, it thinks from its place (central !) in the universe, we are used to still thus thinking in term of material, because we are made by material.
The material thus would not move (or so little), and it is thus the light and the waves that would move compared with it.
But thus let us change reference table. And let us imagine whether it is the light and the waves which are immovable, and whether it is the material which moves on their meeting.
. . . . . . . . . ? ? ?
Oouûûhhh theere !... It is mentally ill, I grant it to you. Impossible ? ! ! ? ? !
Exept ! Exept ! To consider that the material either, or expanding, or in implosion at the speed of light! ?
. . . . . . . . .
The simplest would be to consider it expanding, but to tell the truth the idea of the implosion seduces me more (after all it is just * a question of pure reference table : We considered that the electric current went of the positive towards the negative, while in fine it is the opposite, but the theory works very well back to front all the same).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * ( White: just man White, here black, leaving of a black hole)
Thus let us consider that the material implodes in a astronomical (++) speed (= at the speed of light) under the influence of a gravity which remains to define and to reappoint (the gravity which we know not being able to be while a vague evocation of this new notion of "gravity ++" infinitely "denser". But thus that the escaping waves in this "gravity ++" remain on-the-spot as a "memory" of the previous state of the material.
Please note: if all the material implodes in the same speed, and the universe also, all the proportions and the internal movements are respected and thus "a priori" imperceptible in-house there.
So if my neighbor and my environment implodes in the same speed as me, the distance between objects and I also implode, and nothing allows me to perceive the change. Idem for the nearby planet, etc.
But that would indeed explain this annoying tendency of the material to swirl on her even at every level, such the water in siphons.
If we thus take an object (which collapses on him even) We collapsed with him and towards him. This is what it would take place:
The blue observer would go to meet the yellow object, and would cross the space occupied previously by him (in yellow dotted line). But the yellow object would have left behind him tracks of this previous state in the form of waves (bright e.g.) immovable (dotted lines). And the observer would perceive them by collapsing on him at the speed of light (here the speed of collapse = speed of light). QED.
This speed of collapse would be constant, but relative: constant compared with the size of objects at the moment "t" about is this moment. But it would slow down according to time proportionally in the collapse of the universe thus.
NB: if the light is immovable, it explains that its speed ( = 0 ) is constant for all, because it is them who have a speed not the light..
To what that is of use all this: in the first place, there would be no ether in which would propagate the waves, it would be the material which would move. And then that makes the good do the shambles in the scientific certainties. It is the MÔnster which asked to me for it.
That also allows to have a presentiment of another cosmology of the universe.
For example to see Big Bang otherwise.
At some point, the universe should contract in inverted Big Bang : the big crunch.
Then all the material of the universe will be condensed in a pinhead. We imagine while it would re-explode in new Big Bang.
But let us imagine that this concentrated of "material" (which would not look like then what we know) is reduced to its most solid and most elementary particles in their most ultimate envelope (-> boson ?), hyper concentrated in the point not to be able to any more concentrate more, but always under the pharamineuse pressure of their own "Gravity": because the situation is "grave" then.
We can imagine while these ultimate envelopes burst as soap bubbles, and while has this moment there this concentrated universe finds itself again almost empty: these "bubbles" being almost empty in itself (as atoms). Then the universe would again begin imploding finding no more resistance in its collapse.
Let us imagine while it is not so much the universe which implodes but also, in the movement, all the particles which also compose it. In fact rather than to burst, bubbles would implode. Seen by the inside if bubbles implode faster than the new universe under the influence of their gravity, it can give the impression of an explosion (inflation of Big Bang) "in house" (change of reference table!).
Because seen by the inside of this implosion (the new universe) as everything would implode almost in the same speed, taken place the first moments by the disastrous implosion, nothing would allow to realize this implosion in situ.
It is for that that I privilege the reference table implosion. And then as Pastafarian, I bet on the mutual attraction rather than on the aversion (expansion at the speed of light, but nothing would prevent from choosing this no more mentally ill reference table "a priori").
So, it is collectively admitted that our universe is expanding faster and faster because the Doppler effect. ATTENTION ! We stay in an internal vision of the universe: a relative internal expansion infinitissimy slower of the implosion that we have thus just evoked. But would not the Doppler effect be due rather to the fact that our speed of implosion (seen in extern here) would slow down imperceptibly? Where from the distortions Doppler? (The more the observed object would be distant, the more our perception of this object would set of the delay, and more it would seem to go away from us)
And there (in house) nothing would more be sure on this expansion, and thus on original Big Bang! (We shall return there)
Because, my good dear consPIRATors here is a proof that the universe does not arise from Big Bang, but good MÔnstre in flying Spaghetti, HIM even stemming from primitive Pâsta.
Well... You're still Here ?
It was the "hors d'oeuvre" : the serious things begin. Tighten your belts: Run & rock & roll youth ! It's the big shiver !
Let us note that there is no fixed point theoretically (immovable) : Know you whom the Earth turns around the sun in km/s 300 ! As for the Sun, it moves in the galaxy has a vertiginous speed. It is just a question of reference point. When a radar takes us by car, it measures the speed with regard to the ground, not to the sun.
In fact the speed defines itself compared with a given point ; and in logic of Newton, if we move in a uniform way, we realize nothing because, after all, we do not move not report to one even (Relativity of the movements).
Thus let us remain egocentric persons, we change speed compared with another Reference table : an individual, the Earth, the Sun, in the galaxy, etc.
Actually, say that we would approach the speed of light is an aberration in itself : with regard to ourself, we do not move, we move compared with something else.
In our implosive logic, if we move compared with another object, we set of the (temporal) delay compared with him in its implosion. Stick you, please : we always implode in the same speed with regard to one (at the moment " t " for us), But we are not any more in the same progress of the temporality as our congeners. Remember you of the cosmonaut living on one year, whereas his congeners age of ten years.
Well, in the relative speeds ridiculously low (/speed of light gets on) in which we usually move some with regard to the others, this phenomenon is imperceptible including the astronauts (in some microseconds near), and it came true during the spatial journeys where the watches of the astronauts took a little of delay.
In theory, imploding more slowly (with regard to an immovable observer) finds itself in time "t-1" for him, and should seem bigger, the time lengthening for us (with regard to the Other one always: in his time "t-1" our dimensions were wider and the longer time : he perceives us more slowly) : did you notice as the short-distance runners on their podium looked more hurt and more sturdy than the common and how we see them crossing the finishing line in slow motion ? Without laughing, Bébert says that our mass increases, but in fact the other one always perceives us in its temporality (with a time of delay which compensates for the perception), that is always in them even proportions, it is a paradox on which I shall not dwell now. (Already rather tiresome like that!)
What changes on the other hand, it is that more we approach the speed of light (relatively) more the other one perceives us as a wave. In the limit in the (relative) speed of the light, he would perceive us as a bright wave, or other (beams "X", waves radio, neutrino, etc.). The opposite is also true: the traveler would also collect the immovable observer as a wave. Paradox more we seem to go fast in house more we approach the speed of light in extern (=0, seen from the outside by the implosion, the light does not move lets remember you. Moreover the in-house observer perceives our time as lengthening infinitely, and thus would eventually perceive us as immovable: thus as the light!)
Actually, it is the secret of the invisibility of Our Timeless Monstruosity, which could cross the material such beams " X ". It is moreover in passing " The Creation " of Michel Angelo in the beams " X " that we discovered Its Image in transparency : all Beer and no taters.
Différentes temporalités, définissant différentes tailles de l'univers : Une petite vidéo illustrative sur les fractales :
Would we do can go faster than the light to this reference system ? We remember that the speed is only relative, for the traveler : he remains immovable with regard to himself in his temporality which is other.
The objection raised in our former conception is that would be needed an infinite energy to exceed the speed of light. But lets we remember that the temporality is not any more the same : at the approach of the speed of light (relative always) a billionth of second for the traveler would amount to billions of years for the immovable observer. Thus the energy which it would be necessary to mobilize during billions of years for the observer (immense), the traveler could mobilize it in a billionth of second. De facto, the energy would be also a relativist value.
Thus we could, "a priori" (at first glance), completely exceed the speed of light (with regard to a reference table). Exceed the speed of light would mean in fact go to rebour of the implosion that is enter an expansive dynamics (/reference table always). What is true, it is that we would escape mutually our respective perceptions one to another. What would be more just to say, instead of claiming to be able to go faster no than the light (more to implode but to enter expantion, to leave the temporality of the reference table to go back up(to raise) the time - while perceiving our appropriate temporality of the same way), instead of it, to say rather that it is impossible for two observers to perceive themself mutually beyond an upper difference of speed at the speed of light : More not to be able to perceive themself mutually means that the fact is impossible, but simply to say that there is impossibility to perceive this reality!
Thus that we would escape then our mutual fields of perception. Attention ! We would not fall over to another dimension, we would be simply off-camera. As well as beams cross "X" to us without we perceived them at first glance, we are probably crossed by going objects, for us, faster than the light, without we have the slightest means to perceive it. In fact, it is admitted that we do not perceive 96 in 99 % of the mass of the universe !? The paradox then would be that energy faster than the light for the Other one, we would go back up the time for him, and conversely (but without perceiving ourself mutually.
An common idea (ID) is that with a powerful hyper telescope we could see Big Bang, which is not sure as I showed it higher, we would see it if it exists, but especially if it is situated in our field of perception. In the logic of the implosion at the speed of light, it would mean that the light goes back upraises the time (of the implosion) faster than the implosion it even ; that is the light goes faster than the light ! In fact, we should see "things" which look like more and more waves more we shall move forward in the distant (and distant past). This until we reach the limits of our perception.
In fact I bet on a relatively stable universe. This says Big Bang exist maybe, such them hyper novaes ; but as a relativist event, following the example of earthquakes. For the big crunch, I thus recommend pirate's dress in case, who only allows to return to the state of primitive Pasta, passes wall, because timeless (relatively speaking)...
The black holes: universes ? See lower.
I was not able to resist the joke.
It would be if for example our universe was a black hole in extern. We do not speak about stars to neutron where any materials would be crushed by its gravity there. But of very enormousim black hole. Let us imagine that their center is not the material hyper compressed, but really a hole filled with "dark matter", invisible and impalpable there because in another temporality.
I explain : from a certain attraction, the masses sucked up by the hole would take so speed that they would exceed the speed of light, and de facto would change direction of temporality escaping our perception (which from : black hole, where from the light and the waves even do not return to our perception). But lets call back we that for the traveler who exceeds the speed of light, it is only compared with a "immovable" said observer ; for him even he does not move. Its time and its space stay even for him : they change only for The " external observer ".
How the time and the space of the traveler they would be even while it would penetrate into a black hole which sucks up so many materials, which should thus disrupt this space-time : exactly by an implosion where the concentration of material would not be noticeable, because imploding there in a coordinated way.
The inversion of time, the time he even in itself, would thus be an implosion such as described in the basic premise.
I grant you that the approach of a black hole is at first glance at high risk for the material.
At first, the strengths in presence are so violent that the erratic disorders engendered in its approach should create disastrous collisions. Besides, the difference of attraction between two spheres moved closer at the approach of the hole risks to be such as the head of the rocket or ten thousand times more attracted than its tail, and is disrupted, thus. In fact, what we perceive black holes, it is rather this kind of apocalypse. But also indeed they are only small black holes, peculiarities, whatever very common.
Let us imagine that the black hole is so massive and immence that its attraction power are smelt so far, that the material reaches very gradually the speed of light well before its center, to see so far from its center, that the béance is such, that the inhaled material has all the place to rush without clash, without considerable difference of attraction from head to foot during its long approach, thus without real perceptible change there. Then yes ! The traveler could even not realize as he leaves fields of perception where from he left: it would always be for him in the same universe. The change would be for the outside observer who would see him disappearing ; and still this "disappearance" could be very progressive, such an estompage of the perception of the material towards the undulatory vagueness (and conversely).
It is moreover maybe what we shall see, by looking at the origin of the universe : an undulatory gradation. But once again, Big Bang is not excluded, but I would hold it rather then as a disastrous peculiarity of a small black hole the too narrow neck of entrance, creating a collision in this entrance. The last matter, the universe was created 5000 years ago for the Relativist Fusilli Monster * , but its temporality is not doubtless ours. * "IT" fuses
May Its Divine Sauce rains on you such a beam of light in the ambient scientific obscurantism.
Secula Seculorum Râmen