Wow. It’s been a year since I last posted, but that doesn’t mean I’ve stopped. It’s been a difficult year. But I’ve worked out some exciting stuff from the concepts developed in the prior posts–did that title get your attention?!! Well, maybe not, but let me explain.

When one realizes that our existence is a scaleless system, all kinds of implications start popping up, and one in particular has really held my attention: where does that speed of light constant come from in a system with no scale–a system that emerges from nothing to a scale of infinite range? I realized, perhaps the speed of light c is an anomaly of measurement, not the real “speed”. In fact, a scaleless system would suggest that the speed of light is infinite (or alternatively, no time passes when covering any distance). It turns out that the Lorentz transforms work when thinking this way, and that the speed of light we measure is a ratio of infinities–and an incorrectly measured ratio at that! This can be seen by letting the c in the Lorentz transform go to infinity. The actual measured speed of an object is always relative to something else, for example a stopped object with speed zero. We can arbitrarily choose what number to assign to a moving object, and if we choose to assign infinity to a photon, then any object moving slower than a photon moves with a speed relative to the photon–a ratio of infinities that becomes finite.

What is so remarkable about this approach is the realization of how arbitrary the speed value is–but where does that speed of light constant come from? An answer comes from the ring hypothesis that permutes this whole journal. If every massive particle constitutes a folding or spiraling of the path that a photon takes, the Lorentz transforms geometrically emerge (see previous discussions–the Lorentz transform beta emerges from the fact that a cylindrical spiral unrolls into a triangle with c as the hypotenuse, v as one side, and the spiral speed around the cylinder diameter as the other side). The time interval of a single iteration of the spiral defines a clock for the particle, and as the relative speed of the particle increases via another frame of reference, the time to traverses a cycle increases, thus causing the time dilation indicated by the Lorentz transforms of special relativity. The photon, with its straightened out path, constitutes a particle with an infinitely long time interval. Measuring the speed of a particle in its frame of reference will always be zero–but we get a finite speed of light by measuring the limit of a particle such as an electron relative to a rest frame of reference. But here’s where we make a “mistake” in our measurement–we use a clock defined by the particle *in the rest frame* rather than in the particle’s frame. The resulting computation results in a ratio of infinities (assuming the ring hypothesis) that is finite and fixed for that particle.

Great, that explains how a finite speed arrives from a scaleless system with infinite speed–but why that particular number? In a scaleless system, the particular number means nothing–its only significance is the geometrical ratio of infinite speeds!

In my next post, I will discuss why this analysis explains the problem of particle size. The biggest objection to the ring hypothesis that I espouse is the fact that particle accelerator experiments show that the electron (for example) is infinitely small. But–the ring hypothesis posits that ring particles must get or appear to get smaller as relative speeds increase. I hypothesize that if a means to measure a static electron is found, it will be found to have a much larger size than an accelerated particle, and that the size will vary as the beta of the Lorentz transforms. It turns out it should be very difficult to measure a ring particle’s size! More on that in the next post.

Agemoz

## Leave a Reply