Two Revised Premises
15 October 2005:
Many of the problems in physics today stem from a misinterpretation of a correct and very accurate measurement. The only two premises that SPUE Theory takes issue with are 1) the source of the gravitational effect and 2) the speed of light as a limiting speed for objects. These two revised premises change the interpretation of "red shift" and burst the "big bang" bubble.
GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS
The gravitation effect is due to sub-sub-sub-atomic particles emancipated from all bodies in the universe - not just the two objects in question. When two objects are close to each other, they cast a shadow in each other's direction which represents an area of REDUCED SPUE PRESSURE and they move towards each other because of the imbalanced pressures. The construct of "mass" is the imputed value which makes the observations match the Newtonian formula and constant. Allowing that imputed value take on extreme values give rise to the bizarre features attributed to "black holes." When you use the SPUE Theory model where the mass of the two objects IS NOT the source of energy, one realizes that a "black hole" is no more than a dense object which causes an influence due to the ambient SPUE wind. In this model, every galaxy must, without exception have a very, super-dense object currently labeled a "black hole."
SPEED OF LIGHT
The "speed of light" is a constant. The "speed of light" is a measurement on things we can measure. The speed of the source objects, however, is not so limited. Once you move beyond the notion of "seeing is believing" or in this case, "measuring is believing" you can appreciate that current limits on our ability to measure is never a limit on the source objects themselves.
SPUE Theory points out two examples regarding "what we see" versus "the speed of something sub-atomic."
Example 1: Photons. According to SPUE Theory, the universe is completely recursive and there is no such thing as a fundamental particle. As we use light or vision to acquire around 90%(?) of our knowledge of the world we tend to credit vision as the gold standard for measurement. Consider watching a jet go at supersonic speeds overhead. You will see it come and go and only later hear the sonic boom which carries auditory information about the plane's existence. A blind person, therefore may argue with you about the time when the air plane actually passed overhead.
Scientific types will be quick to point out that compression sound waves have different dynamics than the "radiation" characteristics of light. They will point out that the speed of sound cannot exceed the compression limitations within the medium "carrying" the sound. They believe that light is transmitted, in tact, from "sender" to "receiver" (although it may be bent by gravitational fields). This model assumes that we see the very particle of light emitted by the plane.
SPUE Theory holds, however, that our vision is actually "mediated" like the sound waves. We know that our eyes can only detect frequencies within a given range. What if the "information" expelled by the jet was not a discrete photon/quantum of energy that we observed? According to SPUE Theory, information is "carried" by a stream of sub-sub-sub-atomic particles of various sizes, shapes AND SPEEDS. Our eyes detect only a small subset of those particles which happened to form spinning blobs that pass our receptors at the magical speed of light. We "see" only those pairs which cause a sympathetic resonance within the range of frequencies to which we are tuned. Like the blind man, we argue that if WE didn't perceive it, it wasn't there -- but it was.
Note the implication for interpreting "red
shift." No matter what your relative speed, there will be particles
passing you at our "speed of light." What will be affected will be the
observed frequency on the rotating systems we require for measurement.
Moreover, these rotating systems may, over time, slow down as they travel away
from the source and highly active SPUE field dynamics. A slower rotation
at longer distances will be interpreted as "red shift" which may indicate EITHER
a speed differential OR a longer distance (or both). The basis for the
"Big Bang" theory evaporates (in my Hubble opinion).
See my discussion on Occam's Razor.
25 February 2006 -- the rotation of "blobs" in motion is due to the ambient SPUE wind. There is no reason to expect these systems to "slow down" as proposed above. To be internally consistent, however, it is SAFE to assume that the blobs will accrete more SPUE as they (it) travels. If the particles in the blob are large enough to shadow similarly sized particles, they are dense enough to absorb ambient SPUE over time. As they travel through denser fields (like the Earth itself), both "time in the denser environment" and the "density of that environment" will increase the RATE of SPUE growth and "heavier" SPUE which we observe as "red-shifted" light (Compton Effect) or as only half of the expected neutrinos from atmospheric collisions on the far side of the earth. This is an example of Johnny's SHAVER.
Elsewhere in this site you will find the story about "The Speed of Speed in Seaville." This tells the story about a small town where the sheriff dropped their speed gun and it now only detects and records things moving at 68 MPH. The story relates his problem where he can only write tickets for cars traveling 68 MPH although they go at many different speeds. The story goes on to relate how they could get high-speed vehicles (70+ MPH) to slow-down and thereby pass through the magical 68 MPH and detect and cite their their illegal behavior.
Example 2: Waves. Whereas some view "waves" as fundamental constructs, SPUE Theory only recognizes recursive systems of particle-mediated action. Every appearance of waves can be explained by a system (say an atom or a photon) trying to reach an equilibrium state between the opposing streams of finer SPUE.
While vacationing at Lake Cumberland this summer I studied the waves in the water. I asked myself "how could I measure how fast those waves are traveling?" I put a bobber in the water and decided that I could measure the time it took for the top of the bobber to sway through one cycle from top-of-crest to top-of-crest. I was rather surprised that the bobber didn't drift or flow in the direction of the waves at any where near the speed of the waves. Even without a fishing line attached, the bobber remained in essentially the same location, but simply "bobbed" up and down on the waves. In other words, the water molecules themselves were not particularly flowing, but the "energy" of the wave was. My surmise was that the waves were driven by the wind (water over the water cools the air, causes downdrafts which run into shore, no matter which side of the lake you happen to inspect.)
On having driven straight-through returning from a side-trip to Washington DC, I arrived back at the lake at about 7:00 AM on 30 July 2005. The lake was as calm as glass and it started me to think again. While wind is one mechanism that causes waves, so are underwater earthquakes (tsunamis). I threw a rock into the water and watched the ripples. There are multiple possible causes for water waves -- all exert "pressure" on the surface of the water. The pressure (either up or down) disturbs the equilibrium state of the water and it attempts to reestablish its calm state (the process is called homeostasis).
In the SPUE Theory model, there is always a downward pressure from the stellar rain (commonly expressed as the downward force of a gravitational field) and there is always an upward pressure from the emission of all the denser water particles below. Because SPUE transmits energy through particle interactions and "particles" tend to be spherical (ellipsoid or binary-pair) systems, the effects of the added energy is dissipated laterally as well as up and down.
We "see" waves and we can measure waves -- but they are only a visible artifact of a particle mediated dispersion of energy.