Speed Of Light or Maximum Observable Velocity, Part II

My idea is that the labeling of the speed of light was a side product of discovering the Maximum Observable Velocity of our Universe. I know this might be a stretch but c isn't the speed of light. c is the Maximum Observable Velocity of our tangible Universe, and light is the only (noticeable) thing that travels fast enough to allow us to discover this limitation of our Universe. Light was merely the beacon that lead us to our modern day conclusion that light travels at c, which is the fastest speed possible. So you might ask why this allows me to suggest that c is not the speed of light. Making c the Maximum Observable Velocity (and not light speed) of this Universe will allow one to imagine the true attributes of light. So here's the dilemma, a long time ago we found that light takes a certain amount of time to travel from one side of a space to the other. As more accurate instruments developed, the speed at which light traveled across the (vacuum sealed) space was measured at 299,792,458m/s. After further experiments investigated the speed at which light travels, scientists found that this speed was CONSTANT. Basically, in a vacuum sealed room, whether the light source was moving towards or away from the speed sensor, the speed recorded was ALWAYS 299,792,458m/s. Today, I make this science dilemma and not science fact.
Now that we recognize 299,792,458m/s as the Maximum Observable Velocity of our Universe (c), what if light was traveling at a much faster speed than c? If this were the case and the speed of light was actually > (greater than) c + 100mph, then measuring the speed of light from a train moving away from the speed sensor at 60mph would still only result in a measurement of c.
Example A: "Speed of Light" - 60mph = c
Perhaps if we knew that the actual Speed of Light was < (less than) c + 120mph we could strap a light source onto an air plane flying 120mph, then measure the speed of the light on the air plane moving away from the speed sensor as < c.
Example B: "Speed of Light" - 120mph < style="font-style: italic;">c, or greater, to determine the actual Speed of Light. This results in our universe only ever being able to realize Example A, due to the limitations of our universe. Kind of heavy right, aren't you glad you had those Triscuits? So what does this mean for the rest of the Universe,,, or Universes? Hmmm, Part III or a seperate post? We shall see.

Speed Of Light or Maximum Observable Velocity, Part I

This is my birthday Blog so I figured I'd make it a good one. I recommend a handful of tasty Triscuits to go along with this post.
I've always had a hard time dealing with the absolute speed of light. I enjoy that the value c (Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s) has lent a helpful hand in so many of modern science's most useful equations. Equations formulated by Maxwell, Einstein and Lorentz all rely on the constant speed of light. Even one of the most famous equations of them all, E=mc^2 (pronounced, "e" equals em sea squared) uses the constant speed of light to help us better explain or understand the universe around us. Incredible! But what has always been most incredible is that the speed of light is constant. Not only can you not speed it up greater than c, such as shining a light from a moving train in the direction the train is moving,,, but you also CAN'T SLOW IT DOWN to less than c, such as shining a light from a moving train in the opposite direction. It is constant, can't change it, observable truth has proven it, and the BIGGEST of big-time scientists have used it to prove what they had faith in most.
Do you understand what I'm saying and why I see this as completely wild and mildly unacceptable? When I sit on a train moving at 60mph and I throw the pit of my apricot at 40mph towards my future destination, a static (not moving) observer on the near-by bluff will witness my pit flying through the air at 100mph (assuming zero wind resistance). But if I do this EXACT same thing replacing my apricot pit with a beam of light, the static observer will not witness the light beam moving at c+60mph; the static observer will witness your regular old run of the mill (constant speed) beam of light traveling at c. UNCHANGED, even though it was being changed just like the apricot pit.
Now due to this conundrum I can't sleep at night and I find myself constantly asking why an apricot pit behaves so fundamentally different from a beam of light? Furthermore, why is the speed of light an important factor of E=mc^2? c is not subjective, it is very much only (and always) 299,792,458m/s which is, indisputably, only the speed of light (in a vacuum). So I understand how the number 299,792,458 squared, then multiplied by a mass in kilograms results in a large number of x kilogram meters^2/sec^2 (or Joules), which is an amount of energy (E). So the number and the units make sense,,, but why does it have to be the speed of light. Why can't c be the speed of a HELL OF fast jet plane in m/s? Or the speed of the Earth in m/s? Why does light have anything to do with this? Part II coming soon, like tomorrow! I'm so 28 right now.

What is chaos? Part II

It is not surprising we aim to excite chaos in the world around us. In most cases we find chaos to be very attractive. If you had to pick a favorite from 10 bouquets of flowers and 9 of them were just red roses but the 10th has less red roses, a fern and some babies breath,,, which would you choose? Chaos has been added to one of the bouquets and you like it more. Someone with a chaotic personality may be viewed as more interesting than a more normal person. However, a chaotic personality might be the person at the party you want to avoid. The truth is that chaos is both good and bad, it's what we love and what we hate. If we didn't have chaos everything would just be normal and sterile, who wants that? Chaos is what makes life worth living, we just need to make sure we don't let it get out of control. And let's try and cool it on how we order the Earth, it does fine on its own. In conclusion, chaos and order are relative and subjective, their relationship could be viewed as just another Yin and Yang.

What is chaos? Part I

People write books on chaos, it has a theory associated with it, I've looked into it, and it's really a lot to handle. Let's try and break it down as simple as possible.
What is the opposite of chaos? Perhaps order. And what is another opposite of order? Disorder. Then we can say chaos is disorder. Let's further examine what disorder is with an example of a house that is in perfect order. All its utilities work great, the paint is fresh and the yard was just landscaped. Then imagine that the house was left as is, the owners didn't touch it, inside or out and other people were not allowed to trespass for 30 years. When the owners returned to the house, they first found that the yard was completely overgrown and out of control. The beautiful paint was now chipped and pealing from the weather, and inside was a mess of dust, cobwebs and other remains of small animals that once found shelter there. The owners would quickly say that their home was in disorder (or chaos). This is true, disorder has taken place,,, but what does this say about human order? We build a perfect house on a plot of Earth's land, we let it naturally deteriorate and the home has changed into something resembling the original plot of Earth's land,,, and we call it disorder. Where in actuality humans have disordered (or changed the order of) the Earth. So what is Chaos and what is Order? From one perspective humans increase order, from another they excite chaos. If chaos is disorder then maybe disorder isn't really the opposite of order but just a change in order. This means disorder isn't very different from order at all,,, and maybe order isn't as different as chaos as we think.

Healthy Body: Walking

I've been very aware of my body the past few weeks. And not too long ago I was thinking about how, when I was a kid, my everyday activities were enough to stay in incredible little kid fitness. Realizing that when I was a kid I would run up that slope, climb that tree and roll down that hill. Things have changed; I am no longer made of rubber these days and my natural metabolism is slowly diminishing. I am not the sort of person that would ever join a gym or spend a lot of time on a treadmill, so I thought about how I could turn my day to day into a great workout. First off, i have a bad left knee so my day to day workout includes more than average knee awareness.
First, walk like a ninja. To explain this, when you are walking down the street and there are a few other people walking ahead of you, walk without letting those people hear your footsteps. Be very aware of your steps, don't drag your feet and don't stomp. Try to put every foot down heal to toe and keep the leg motion very fluid. Also, on flat surfaces your gravity is at equilibrium and you should WALK at the fastest (comfortable) pace possible. Make sure not to run (both feet being off the ground is running) unless you plan on running the whole time; running is high impact for my knees and I try to avoid it.
Second, be sure to walk up stairs or an incline with a straight back and don't forget to breath. It is o.k. to slow your stride as you have now moved away from equilibrium and should compensate. In fact, climbing up stairs should be slow, aware steps, taking full advantage of the muscles being used. Let's say in your daily trips to and from the office there is only one stair case you need to climb, so you think you should run up it and sprint down it for a good little work out. Wrong. Guaranteed you will feel the burn more just by slowly climbing and slowly descending those stairs everyday. If you run up the stairs I suggest you keep the running going for the next 15 minutes if you plan to have a workout.
Third, heading down hill your equilibrium now changes and it is normal to hurry down a slope or stairs. Hurrying down a slope can be visualized as throwing your torso out in front and catching it with your legs. This is horrible on the knees and very little muscle is being used while doing it. When heading down a hill, or stairs, take it very slow. When you first start doing this you will feel a shaking from the muscles in your legs. This will make you aware that you are walking down hill properly. The tremors in the muscles are atrophy, and atrophy is the sign of a weak muscle being used beyond it's limitations. These muscle tremors will go away after making slow down hill (and stair) walking a normal activity. Can you believe that most humans' legs probably shake under just the weight of their own body, this is a little sad and we should really be doing something about this. To be more clear about down stairs and down hill slopes, you will continue to walk heal to toe slowly down a slope. However descending down stairs you will be going toe to heal. Really be aware of lowering your heal on every step, you will feel this in your calves.
Forth, you actually need to make walking a part of your day. Every little bit helps but if the only times you walk during the day are from your front door to your car, then from your car to your office and again at the end of the day you need to get more walking in. Consider walking to the grocery store and carrying the bags back home. Or if grocery stores are too far away, don't mill around trying to get the parking spaces right out front. Pull into the lot and park in the first open space in the back. Do what you can to make walking a bigger part of your day.
Fifth, start becoming aware of all the muscles and motions your body makes, be aware of your arms and back. Try and get the most out of all your daily movements. Yuk.

The Particle Universe, Part III

To better strengthen my point I would like to examine the atomic structure. Just so we are clear, the image we all think of regarding an atom is a theory. We can't actually witness a nucleus with electrons revolving around it in different orbitals and with different spins. This model is just theory based on our universe's physical model to help us better understand and bring order to the atomic system. As a result, our accepted atomic structure basically looks very much like the structure of our solar system; a large central star with many spinning planets in varying circling orbits. This is a result of using our universe's physical model to understand the structure and function of something in another universe which is perhaps using a different physical model. The fundamental differences being that the solar system is governed by gravity and the atomic system is governed by magnetic charge.
Not knowing what the actual physical laws of the particle universe are I have still theorized a new atomic model, just based on speculation. So imagine there is still the primary nucleus making up some of the mass, but instead of many electrons there is only one, with a specific size and speed. Quick note: at the top of the periodic table we have hydrogen which only has one electron and then the cascade of elements continues with an increased number of electrons. My theoretical structure would be that there is only one electron around every one of these elements however its particular size and speed results in its different attributes making it a different element. This model would still result in our current observations, not fully understanding the way particles act in their universe however, perhaps having a different size and moving at different speeds results in what appears to be different orbitals, up spins and down spins.
Honestly we just don't know enough about how particles are to invest fully in the current model. The current model is good enough to explain (in our universe) what is happening at the atomic level. What I'm worried about is what if we are missing something by not allowing the possibility that particles function under different physical laws. Ultimately we are keeping the blinders on by trying to fit everything we observe into the physical model of our universe.

The Particle Universe, Part II

What my theory requests is a better definition for what we call a universe. The scientific model of a Universe is: the summation of all particles and energy that exist and the space-time in which all events occur. Based on observations of the portion of the Universe that is observable, physicists attempt to describe the whole of space-time, including all matter and energy and events which occur, as a single system corresponding to a mathematical model. Our universe is also defined as one component part of a larger Multiverse.
My first problem is that the definition is two faced, stating that the universe is everything and corresponds to one mathematical model, and it is also just a single part of a Multiverse (a set of diconnected space-times). Let's examine the grammatical definition of the word universe: derived from Old French univers, from Latin universum, which combines uni- (the combining form of unus, or "one") with versus (perfect passive participle of vertere, or "turn"). The word, therefore, can mean "[everything] rolled into one" or "revolving as one" or "orbiting as one". So, "one-turn", "everything rolled into one", "revolving as one" or "orbiting as one" is the general definition of the word universe. So the "one" is pretty clear, but what is the "turn", "revolving" or the "orbiting?" I have come to two considerations: a universe is 'one space-time' or a universe is 'one physical model.'
Examining 'one space-time' would be that everything that we can observe and test, both at the astronomical level and the sub-atomic level, would answer to one physical model. To make this work we would have to amend the current physical model with a sub-class that deals with the behavior of particles, and perhaps make another sub-class that will deal with Black Holes and Dark Matter. This is o.k. but gets a little messy over time. If we examine 'one physical model' per universe, in a multiverse, there would be a physical model used to describe the particle universe, another physical model to describe our universe (the wave universe), and then another physical model to describe the greater astronomical universe and so on. I feel the many universes in a multiverse theory is much more prepared for the expanding observations we are are making today and will continue to make in the future.

The Particle Universe, Part I

We have found certain things act differently at sub atomic levels. For example the dual nature of light, being both a wave (in our universe) and as a particle (in the particle universe). Also it is found that certain particles, photons for example, don't follow our normal physical rules and may appear to be in different places at the same time. This is seen in many quantum physics observations. My theory is: observing at that small of a scale is really witnessing the rules of another universe and a new set a physical norms. I believe one of the ends of our physical universe ends at the recognition of the atom. Actions of single particles cannot be fully represented by our universe's laws without making exceptions. Perhaps once we can detect what is beyond our Universe and make a model of how our Universe reacts to its surroundings, we will better determine the thresholds of our Universe. This massconception is only a result of not being able to define what a universe is; where it starts and stops and what it does while it's here. Space is infinite. Time is infinite.