Sub-Atomic or Supervelocity Universe, Part II

In a previous post I stated that "there must be more for us out there." Actually, maybe we are missing that there is more for us in there. Just because our ability to observe and measure anything past the inner cellular level is limited to the technology we have at hand, we tend to forget that Space is infinite. Even though we can't observe at such a small focus doesn't mean we shouldn't be interested in such minute levels of Space,,, and more importantly Space is infinite so even though it is minute relative to a human's niche in Space, it is not minute relative to Space in general. Relative to humans: atoms are small and galaxies are large. While a human can sort of gauge the size of a galaxy (we know how long a mile is, a light year is a shit load of miles, and a galaxy is a shit load of light years across), we have a really hard time gauging the size of an atom (a trillionth of a mile just doesn't mean anything to a human let alone a trillion trillionths of a mile). 

We know that millions of atoms help to form more familiar objects like pillows and bendy-straws, but our familiarity with those tangible items do not help us better understand the atom,,, so we are stuck, waiting for scientists to develop a more advanced scope to capture a peak at what these atoms are doing. Currently everything we know about the atom (much like the Allegory of the Cave) is how things built of atoms behave under certain conditions, much like studying an object by only being able to observe the object's shadow.  A shadow could be the energy change in an object due to a chamical reaction.

We're kind of in the dark here, but technological advancements are turning on the lights one by one. Ultimately we really need to stop overlooking the reality that the Space you can cup in your hands is just as important as the Space that is our Milky Way Galaxy. In our tangible universe, there are a couple limiting attributes: first limit is the speed c, second limit is the mass ZERO. But we can observe the "shadows" of things with speed c and mass 0. We are seeing the shadows of items in another universe, and my next post will try to define some of the things that exist in the Sub-atomic (Supervelocity) Universe, and define some of their attributes. Could we ever enter this particular other universe?

Sub-Atomic or Supervelocity Universe, Part I

It's sort of one of those chicken or the egg discussions. For those of you unfamiliar with a "chicken or the egg" situation, I will briefly explain. It's a rhetorical question where you ask someone which came first; basically did the existence of the egg lead to the existence of the chicken or did the existence of the chicken lead to the existence of the egg? And by rhetorical I mean that it is not meant to be answered. However, logically (since a chicken exists and we have an understanding of evolution) the only way a chicken could have come to walk the Earth is if it was born, and chickens are hatched from eggs,,, so ultimately the egg had to exist first. But honestly this doesn't really help the point of my Blog, I just wanted to explain the "chicken or the egg" situation.

What came first, the sub-atomic size or the speed faster than c? I'll admit, I'm getting pretty out there with this one. In fact I'm mildly sure that none of what I'm discussing here exists in any text books or on any other web-pages,,, so it might as well be considered fiction. However, I don't think this is fiction and I truly do hold these thoughts as completely possible so humor me on this one. The stuff you will find in text books and on other web pages is: when an object nears the speed c, it nears a mass equal to zero. For example if a 12 inch ruler is traveling at 9/10 the speed of c, it would appear to be only 6 inches,,, and after the ruler was traveling 10/10 the speed of c (or c), it would appear to be 0 inches long. So if I combine this with my previous investigation of photons, a photon fits this expectation of being something that has zero mass and travels faster than c. My "chicken or the egg" question is, what came first, "the photon's speed which would have a result of making the photon have a mass of zero?,,, OR the photon's mass of zero allows it to travel at a speed faster than c?" This is completely rhetorical since we can't tangibly examine a photon. Perhaps if we could stop a photon and see what it was like at a velocity equal to zero, we could measure its mass and formulate an answer. Unfortunately we are not quite there yet, and we can't fully define what a photon is. How does this result in another Universe different from our own? Part II.

Philosophical Physics Set I

Plato might have had it more right than he knew when he wrote the Allegory of the Cave. I would highly advise anyone, with some free time, to read the Allegory of the Cave (Book VII of Plato's best-known work, The Republic). In summation, the story is how regular people are only aware of what they are told or the information that they are fed. The philosopher or the scholar are the ones that break free of the shadows and interpretations to see the real world and in turn escape the cave and, even though dealing with the truth is more difficult and painful, continue to live outside of the cave. It really is a very awesome and powerful metaphor of how we deal with the world around us. Escaping the cave in Plato's story is more of a mental liberation to learn and understand the world around us. However, escaping the cave doesn't mean we are completely free to experience the universe. Subsequent to our escape we are now confined to a planet that circles a star in a space with seemingly never-ending boundaries, and we are only equipped with a limited set of senses.

When exploring the reality of the universe we need to remove ourselves from the planet Earth and not limit ourselves to the common senses. Much of Einstein's ideas defy what we experience from day to day, and he makes that very clear in his papers. He is often explaining his ideas twice, under real world expectations and in theoretical terms (mainly because he deals with things that travel near to the speed of c, and we don't experience things that move that fast). The elephant in the room is, does it even matter to study it if it only theoretically exists? We can't experience this in our everyday lives so why waste our time? I do not agree, if we are okay with binding our bodies to the earth then we are simply ignorant Earthlings, there must be more for us out there.

Okay, Or Is It?

I basically took a week off from Massconceptions, but I wanted to post this to give you something to think about. "Okay" is a grand massconcept of the American culture. We actually have no concrete explanation of "okay"s origins and the whole thing may remain to be a mystery forever. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on "okay" and submerse yourself into the mystery that is,,, OKAY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okay
The proven and not so proven history of the term is absolutely amazing. A classic massconception.

Infinite Education

Infinity is not very easy for earthlings to understand. We seem to have an O.K. time dealing with numbers being infinite. For example thinking of a really really big number and then just adding 1 to it,,, or adding 1 million to it and making it that much larger. A very special number in math is pi, and it is a number that continues on with an infinite number of decimal places,,, as far as we can tell. We seem fine with that idea and infinity in the case of numbers is widely accepted. Einstein popularized the fact that both Time and Space were not absolute but infinite. Most earthlings seem fine with accepting this on the basis that Einstein is really smart and knows more than them. I would like to spend a little time on explaining the facts on infinite Space and Time; actually it is pretty much easier to take in and grasp than you might think.
Let's start with the easy one you already seem to understand; numbers are infinite. The reason this is so easy is because when we use numbers we can always add 1 on to any number we already know and then add 1 on to the result of that number and so on. That example doesn't work as well with Space or Time; you can add 1 second onto any minute that just passed but how will that help prove that time is infinite? To prove that both Space and Time are infinite we will have to use another method to visualize how numbers are infinite. When anything is considered infinite it is both infinitely large and infinitely small. The small end of infinity is often overlooked. So lets take a number and start dividing it by 2 (or in half). You can grab a calculator if you like because the result will be exponentially small.
So 100 divided by 2 is 50.
50 divided by 2 is 25.
25 divided by 2 is 12.5.
12.5 divided by 2 is 6.25.
Keep dividing by 2 and you get to a number less than 1 (0.78125). Depending on the calculator you will soon reach a number that looks like this, 7.62939453125E-4 (or, 7.62939453125 x 10^-4,,, OR, .000762939453125). Ultimately you will continue to see numbers with more zeros between the decimal and the first number other than zero, or larger and larger negative numbers at the end of the number,,, however you will NEVER reach zero. This is a trait of infinity; no matter how many times you halve something it will never reach a zero amount of that something.
If we earthlings can accept that for numbers we will have a much easier time proving that Space and Time are in fact infinite as well. For those who don't know, space is measured in distance or length or volume et cetera. So let's say we take the distance of 100cm and we start dividing it by 2, we would get 50cm. Do you see where this is going? Ultimately we will result in distances that are very small (relatively to 100cm) but will never reach a distance that is zero; hence distance (or Space) is infinite. Time is pretty much just the same story with different units; take the time of 100secs and start dividing it by 2 and so on and you will also never reach zero. Hence there is an infinite amount of time in 100secs.
The massconception is that we are slaves to our units of measurement. We understand 1 meter because it is about an arm's length. We understand 24 hours because it is the time it takes for the Earth to make 1 full rotation on its axis. A Second means nothing if the Earth isn't associated with its current behavior around the Sun, a Second is just a lump of Time. Our measurements are the only way we can really understand and capture Space and Time, and all of our measurements are relative to the tangible universe around us. If the Earth stopped spinning and slowly started drifting into the Sun and all earthlings burned up would Time stop? The answer is most definitely NO. It's similar to the pre-Copernicus model of the universe where the Earth is the center of the solar system, earthlings just assume the universe revolves around them and it really truly is difficult to break our self-centered-ness.
So why does this even matter, you might ask? Well if both Space and Time are infinite then the distance between two atoms is just as important as the distance between two planets and everything in between. Earthlings must understand Time and Space without units before being able to understand a universe. I will use infinite Space and Time later in exploring the Sub-Atomic Universe (or "Supervelocity Universe").

Healthy Body: Exercise the Environment

First Blog of 2008, let's hope it changes the world.
So the other day I was sitting at my local BART station waiting for a friend. After talking with my friend Sara I notice this gentleman rushing into the station's courtyard. He's dressed in some tight bicycle shorts and a tank top,,, honestly he looked a little silly for just being out and about, but not too silly for the gym. I watched him as he rushed through the courtyard. I figured he was in a rush to make his train, but then noticed he was picking up a good handful of trash on his way to the terminal. Then I noticed he kept rushing and picking up more armfuls of trash and smashed them into the trash can. He continued this for almost 10 minutes, speeding from loose wrapper to trash can; squatting and sprinting every chance he got. Then he just ran off when the place was completely clean! Totally rad.
So I didn't get to talk to the gentleman or discuss what he was actually doing, but I have a hypothesis and I plan on making it a new part of my everyday workout.
So I don't go to gyms, in fact I believe in the use of gyms less and less all the time. What happens at the gym?,,, able bodied humans go there to tone their bodies, get in shape, be healthy, and/or build their muscles. And what is the gain? A healthy body, ripped pectorals or an increased self esteem. Seems pretty vain, seems like a waste, and I'm not really into it. What I got from this quick gentleman in bicycle shorts was the idea that getting a workout and cleaning up the environment was not only possible but free and rather un-vain (considering the way he was dressed).
Basically this man ran or jogged to the BART station (perhaps 15 minutes away from where he lives), this would have raised his heart rate long enough to benefit from an aerobic workout. Once he was at the BART station he kept his speed up (keeping his heart rate up), and started squatting and sprinting from wrapper to wrapper. He would also smash his arm-loads of trash into the waste baskets. Then he ran off either to go home or to another destination for another clean up/workout! Understandably, this isn't a solution if you desire huge muscles, you could only achieve this from intense weight training. But if large muscles are what you want I would suggest you stop the gym and get a labor intensive job like construction, moving crew or landscaping. I hate seeing some dude from Google with big 'ol arms,,, so fake so vain.
So man in bicycle shorts, you are a genius and I salute you. I wish there were more of you out there. I'm working on it.
Don't join a gym for your New Year's resolution, do something good for your body and the environment instead. Adjust your lifestyle and help the planet we live in, doesn't get much better than that. Happy New Year.

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.