Scheherazade's Relativity archive

<body><style type="text/css"> @import url(https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Allura|Parisienne|Fondamento|Paprika|Norican|Calligraffitti|Charm|Philosopher|Pinyon+Script|Mirza);
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:vertical { background:#000;border-radius:0px;box-shadow:0px 0px 0px #000; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:horizontal { background:#000;border-radius:0px;box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px #000; }
::-webkit-scrollbar { width:0px; height:4px; background:#39a;border-radius:0px; }

 #box1all { width:100%; height:100%; left:0%; top:0%; z-index:1;
background:linear-gradient( to right,#001,#103 30%,#106 70%,#001 ); opacity:1.0;
font-family:unifrakturmaguntia, pinyon script, mirza, allura, philosopher, times;
text-align:center; border:dotted 0px #e59;
overflow:auto; padding:0px; font-size:20px; line-height:0px; font-style:italic; }
</style> <div id="box1all">


<div style="font-family:charm, times;font-size:50px;line-height:80px;color:#50f;text-align:center;"> Complete Relativity
<div style="font-family:calligraffitti, charm, arial;font-size:20px;text-align:center;color:#970392;">
<div style="margin-top:10px;color:lightblue;">
<div style="font-size:40px;line-height:60px;text-align:center;margin-top:80px;padding:0px 60px 0px 40px;">Scheherazade completed this fully peer reviewed summary of true cosmology while she was the equivalent age of eight, twelve days after her birth.</div>

<div style="font-size:54px;line-height:76px;padding:40px 35px 40px 40px;color:lightblue;text-align:left;">
<center> July 18 2017</center> <br><center>RELATIVITY is the most major aspect of COSMOLOGY</center><br> Annotated from Highlights of the Royal Cambridge Astrophysics Journal, Summer Quarterly</center><br>
<br><center>Set 1.</center><br><br>
Complete Relativity is a difficult concept to grasp. It involves more than Special and General relativity, but includes them. It involves Cosmology and the nature of the universe, both actual and perceived.<p>
a) The universe is actually very tiny. A non zero singularity, which scales at 1, not the zero which most mathematicians treat any singularity as existing as. Alternatively, the actual universe may be treated as a near
singularity object. That is likely what it is. Math does not lie, as long as the information given is true.<p>
b) The universe appears to exist as distant as 93 billion light years,
and appears to be 13.798 billion years of age. This means it is about 7 times the diameter it can possibly be if most of it by far had never gone faster than light speed in a big bang. An "INFLATIONARY" period of faster than
light speed expansion is used to explain this. Trouble with this is, there is no known sensible explanation for an inflationary period. It is given a Greek letter name, Lambda. <p>
c) Most space in the universe is apparent, not actual.<p>
d) If something moves in the actual non-singularity, which is tiny, its RELATIVE motion in the apparent universe is much larger, and traverses the distance in the apparent universe at a mathematically proportional velocity greater than light speed. This is one way that may be used to determine the size of the actual universe.<p>
e) Motions performed in the manner of d above are the entanglements, the virtual particle motions, and may turn out to be a related concept to gravity's transition from certain Fermion spins into centrifugal force, which is
its release as inside out centrifugal force, and that is gravity.<p>
f) Since gravity does release from black holes, (otherwise, black holes would be weightless), there must be a mechanism for gravity's release from black holes.<p>
g) Since there must be a mechanism for gravity to release from black holes, and, since black holes in the classic meaning of them have no mechanism given or suggested, then, the current model of black hole is wrong.<p>
h) The current Dark Energy Black Hole model has a mechanism for gravity's release, but the gravity released will indeed be VERY VERY OLD. Time does not go to zero for the outer observer. It goes to UNDEFINED. That is a big difference. Gravity comes out of a black hole aged a lot to us not inside that black hole. This ANCIENT GRAVITY is what has the different property than normal gravity, and this can be a way to account for Dark Matter.<p>
i) That ancient gravity which is then released from a black hole would then manifest the FINITE distance which that particular ancient gravity would work to an observer not inside that, or any, black hole. I think this said
finite distance is in the range of 50 million observable light years. That is a range comparable to local clusters of galaxies, and includes galaxies, the objects most effected by dark matter, which will be found to have been a CHIMERA astrophysicists searched in vain for, for decades, and let us hope not for centuries. It would also have a more concentrated G, gravity constant force, which falls off faster than our normal G, and then falls off
rapidly at some set distance from its black hole source, becoming some form of entropy value due to its age, and the fact of thermodynamics being actually unassailable. The constant G then being found to be more complex than a single constant, perhaps as many as the number of black holes within range, and perhaps also taking the total
entropy of beyond range into account.
 <br><center>+++++=====+++++</center><br>
<center><img src=" " style="width:20%;"></center>
<p><center>Set 2.</center><br>
What goes on when any matter, mass, or object falls into a DARK ENERGY BLACK HOLE, as I've remodeled Chapline's DARK ENERGY STAR, the matter breaks down as it approaches the event horizon. Each of the subatomic particles breaks completely down. This is by a process of AGING.<p>
Any event horizon, no matter what theory is understood, used, or followed, has a DUAL PROPERTY regarding time:<p>
For the object falling in, time proceeds as normal.<p>
For an observer far above watching the object fall in, the object appears to slow down as it approaches the event horizon.<p>The object also appears redshifted, just as doppler shifting works: AS IF IT IS ACCELERATING
AWAY FROM THE OBSERVER, but simply in the presence of huge quantities of gravity. (Acceleration and Gravity both have this property.) Thus, for the outside observer, during the entire lifetime of a human observer, the object never completely reaches the event horizon. However, the answer, that is the solution of the math, is found, IF the mathematician substitues 0 instead of using an UNDEFINED term, and the math I think would
involve at least one CONSTANT, and
I think the constant can be discovered if one first discovers the age of the gravity that is released by black holes. Don't let this be too surprising. That could be found by knowing the black hole's mass. Knowing black hole
masses should reveal their histories.<p>
According to part of Chapline's model, the PROTONS which make up a major portion of the mass of the object falling into the black hole, DO INDEED EVENTUALLY FALL IN, from the perspective of the outside observer.
Those protons fall in after they decay, and protons take 10^34 years to decay into VACUUM ENERGY, also known as the COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT. So, the outside observer would finally witness the fall of the object into the black hole when, (and about simultaneously with) the ENTROPIC END OF THE UNIVERSE.<br>
Black holes are indeed entropy valued objects. The entropy of black holes has been a large part of the high order discussion of them ever since they were first conceived. (Entropy is part of those laws of thermodynamics, simplified as saying no mass or energy may be lost, but the mass may be converted to energy, and energy may be converted to mass.)
Since it had taken so long for the mass to fall into the black hole for the outside observer to see, but it was very rapid for the actual object which fell in, THERE IS A TRADE-OFF of entropy, and THE NEW INCREASE OF GRAVITY WHICH THE BLACK HOLE GETS FROM THE OBJECT THAT FELL IN IT IS INDEED EXPRESSED.<br>
The black hole gains the weight of the object that fell in it, but the gravity it expressed is 10^34 years old, and apparently that is very near GRAVITY'S ENTROPY VALUE ALSO.
Thus, the weight that a black hole gains is expressed as VERY ANCIENT gravity, and this gravity's value is not the same as Newton's nor Einstein's "G", and has different properties, some, or more likely, all of which may mainly, or entirely solve the Dark Matter problem.<br>
It is possible that this model also solves much of the Dark Energy problem, as the result of the entropy of protons yielding much Cosmologically Constant Vacuum Energy concentrated under the event horizon, and this may
well be expressed by the dark energy black hole similarly to the way gravity is expressed.<br>
That's the idea of it.
<p><center>=====</center><p>
This also refers to the idea that inside each black hole is a different kind of vacuum energy. The vacuum energy, which should be theoretically derivable for each black hole's weight value, may be used to define
DEGENERACIES of very massive objects. Also, rates of matter inflow would likely affect a result. This leads to what began this essay, that the universe is actually a very tiny particle sized object, and that what we view as space, or distance, is actually a result of this particle's degeneracy event. That, by itself, may turn our to be a system of events, and, that might actually explain time, the Einstein relativities, in addition to the greater Cosmological Relativity introduced here. The Einstein Relativities fit within the relativity of actual to apparent universes.<p>Additional answer to a valid question which some have posed. This question concerns the background microwave radiation temperature-energies observed by excellent ground and satellite studies. Those who stubbornly stay with the Big Bang Lambda theory in the face of the impossibility of an inflationary period continually point to the global map of the microwave temperature variations, saying it precisely answers the big bang Lambda theories. It also answers the degeneracy theory just as well. When the near singularity undergoes a degeneracy event, and shrinks, there needs to be a release of energy close to equal that of a sudden expansion. <br>
As another necessary aside, many amateur proponents of big bang theories are quick to say that it was not a bang at all, yet provide no other characterization that makes sense. I am one who wishes the practice of nonsense would stop.<p></div><br>
<div style="font-size:44px;line-height:58px;padding:40px;color:#1e008e;">

<div style="font-family:pinyon script, arial;font-size:50px;line-height:34px;
color:#189;text-align:center;"><h3>Code By<br></h3>Kathy WayStone

</div></div></div>