Cosmic Rays And Relativity

The term "cosmic rays" is actually somewhat of a misnomer. Cosmic rays are really particles of matter, and not electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic rays are not the same thing as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation from the Big Bang, which began the universe. Most cosmic ray particles are believed to be protons. Alpha particles, helium nuclei, are also present and there are some nuclei of heavier elements.

There is a basic conundrum with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity involving these cosmic ray particles. According to Einstein's theory, an object moving at the speed of light would have infinite mass. Then according to Newton's Laws, the gravitational pull of an object is proportional to it's mass, so that an object with infinite mass should also have infinite gravity.

Yet, there are numerous particles in cosmic rays that have mass and move at, or near, the speed of light but do not have infinite gravity. If they did, they would twist the entire universe around with their gravity. Every such particle would be, essentially, a miniature black hole.

It does not matter how small these particles are, they should still have infinite gravity if they have the infinite mass that they should have if they were moving at the speed of light. A millionth of infinity is still infinity. The muons formed in the earth's atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions display relativistic effects, such as time dilation.

But yet, these particles clearly do not have infinite gravity, or any great gravitational pull at all. This must mean that Einstein's relativistic mass describes the increasing difficulty of accelerating the mass to higher velocities, but not the gravitational pull of that mass.

Consider also that the earth's magnetic field, which is relatively weak, deflects the particles in cosmic rays. How could it possibly do so if the particles had the tremendous mass that relativity theory postulates they should? Cosmic ray particles follow the earth's magnetic lines of force, which come together at the magnetic poles, creating the northern lights at the north magnetic pole.

The reason that cosmic ray particles do not have such extreme gravity is explained by my cosmological theory. I explain how the speed of light does not really exist, it is only the apparent speed of light that we perceive. So, the infinite relativistic mass of an object moving at the apparent speed of light is not really infinite, it is only apparently infinite.

An object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light is actually only a bundle of strings at right angles to our bundle of strings so that we perceive it as moving at the speed at which our consciousness is actually moving along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains.

We also perceive the entire length of the strings at one instant, instead of only one point on the strings every instant as we would if the bundle of strings were parallel to our bundle. This causes us the perceive the bundle of strings as having infinite mass while moving at the speed of light. The infinite comes from the essentially infinite length of the strings in the bundle.

Remember that the speed of light is really an angle, a 90 degree angle, and not a speed. We experience one dimension of space as time as our consciousness moves along our bundle of strings aligned primarily in that dimension. This causes us to perceive strings as particles, because there is one dimension of space that we cannot see but experience as time.

There actually is apparently infinite mass in an object or particle moving at what we perceive as the speed of light. But, in my theory, this is balanced by the fact that it's mass is spread over an infinite distance, the theoretical length of the strings composing the object.

If this model of the universe that I have presented were not correct, the gravity produced by the relativistic mass of cosmic ray particles should be warping and twisting the universe with their near-infinite gravitational pull, yet this is clearly not the case. Relativistic mass is only apparent mass, because the speed of light is only the apparent speed of light.

The relativistic mass of Einstein's theory is entirely a matter of perception. We would perceive an object moving at the speed of light as having infinite mass, but it would not perceive itself as having infinite mass. Instead, it would perceive us as having infinite mass. So, there is no real infinite mass. If there were, it would pull the entire universe in around it.

This is because, as my theory points out, there is no real speed of light to bring about relativistic mass. It is only something that we perceive. Einstein has a remarkable record of being right, but he explained how things would appear rather than how things actually are.

The speed of light, and all of the effects associated with it, is only a right angle between two bundles of strings as our consciousness rushes by on one of the bundles. This is why cosmic ray particles moving at, or near, the speed of light do not manifest anything like the infinite gravity that they should if they truly did have infinite mass.

What about kinetic energy? A particle with infinite mass should also have infinite kinetic energy, since that is proportional to it's velocity and it's mass. Yet, this is not the case either and it shows that the relativistic effects associated with the speed of light are only apparent because, as my theory describes, the speed of light itself is only apparent. It is only something that we perceive.

How does a nuclear reaction relate to relativity?

When an atom is split, the two resulting positively-charged nuclei will seek to get away from each other as efficiently as possible, in the shortest possible distance, without the binding energy to hold them together any longer. This is because like charges repel. The way to accomplish this is for the two new nuclei to go in diametrically opposite directions. This basically means that the bundle of strings comprising the whole nuclei will bend at right angles.

Since a right angle in four (or more) dimensional space is perceived by us as an object moving at the speed of light, the two new nuclei will seem to move in opposite directions from one another at the speed of light. This is why Einstein's formula for such releases of energy from matter is E = MC squared.

As I described in the posting on this blog, "Basic Physics And Cosmology", the C in the formula is for the speed of light, or Constant, is squared meaning that there must be two speeds of light. One is for the movement of our consciousness, and the other is for the sudden right angle formed by the new nuclei. The right angle forms the square in the formula.

The tremendous energy of the reaction is from particles, moving at what we perceive as the speed of light, colliding with other matter, and transferring it's kinetic energy to it.

This all makes sense for the E = MC squared, but what about the relativistic mass and it's energy implications for the two new nuclei? The concept that no matter can ever move at the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass at that point and so would require an infinite force to propel it to higher speeds, and such an infinite force is impossible, cannot possibly be correct.

The two new nuclei, resulting from the split of the larger atom, must initially move at what we perceive as the speed of light, at least until they collide with other matter, or else it would not be squared in Einstein's formula. If it really required an infinite force to accelerate matter to the speed of light, binding energy would have to be infinite. Since the universe is finite and does not have an infinite amount of energy in it, that would mean that atoms are not even possible.

Clearly, that is not the case.

What about the relativistic mass of the two new nuclei moving at the apparent speed of light? Going back to the finite binding energy in the nucleus, there would not have been the supposedly infinite energy required to accelerate the new nuclei to the apparent speed of light.

Furthermore, if it took an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the new nuclei from the split atom to the speed of light, then the kinetic energy possessed by these nuclei should be infinite. That should mean that a single small nuclear reactor would be able to provide much more than all of the energy requirements of the entire world.

Once again, clearly this is not the case.

So, these relativistic rules of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity cannot mean that it actually takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle or nuclei to what we perceive as the speed of light, or that the particle or nuclei would possess infinite kinetic energy if it did move at the speed of light.

We can only conclude that relativistic effects are correct, but that is only the way that it appears to us and not the way that reality actually is. The reason for this discrepancy is, as my cosmological theory describes, that the speed of light, upon which relativity is based, is not real but only something that we perceive.

I would like to write some more about the connection between cosmic rays and relativity.

Has anyone ever wondered about what relationship there might be between electric charges and the speed of light? In Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, the ordinary laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light. These include the rules governing mass, time and, distance. If the most fundamental aspect of the physical universe is the rules of electric charges of which everything is ultimately composed, then why shouldn't the rules of these charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, also be affected by the speed of light? Gravity is a force, but every planet or other gravitational mass has an escape velocity. Doesn't it also make sense that the rules of the positive and negative electric charges begin to change, with the other laws of physics, when the speed of light becomes involved?

Consider the phenomenon known as cosmic ray spallation. We know that heavier elements are cooked up under the extreme heat and pressure in the centers of stars as smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. If the star explodes in a supernova, these heavier atoms are scattered across space as cosmic dust. The atoms are thus exposed to the cosmic rays in space, and some of the heavier atoms may be broken back down into lighter elements as the high-speed protons and alpha particles strike the nucleus of an atom and the force splits the atom into two smaller ones.

The term "cosmic rays" is actually a misnomer from the days when it was thought to be electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic rays are actually positively-charged particles, mostly protons and alpha particles, travelling at nearly the speed of light. An alpha particle is essentially a helium nucleus.

Here is the question which immediately arises. We use neutrons as high-speed "bullets" in nuclear reactors to split atoms by striking the nucleus because the electron has a neutral electric charge and so will not be diverted from it's course by like-charge repulsion with either the positively-charged nucleus of a target atom or the negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around that atom. So how then can a positively-charged cosmic ray particle strike a nucleus, which is also positively-charged, so that it can split the nucleus in two? Wouldn't like-charge repulsion prevent that from happening?

We saw the reason why the speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself in the most famous formula of the Twentieth Century E = MC squared. This means that energy equal mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. In other words, a small amount of matter is equivalent to a tremendous amount of energy.

My theory defines what we perceive as the speed of light as simply a right angle to the directional alignment of the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. A particle, which is actually a string, will seem to us to be a particle rushing past at the speed of light if it is at a right angle to our bundles of strings. It is actually our consciousness which is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is in E = MC squared the first time.

The second speed of light in the formula is the direction which two like-charges go, to get away from each other with maximum efficiency, when the binding energy in a nucleus is suddenly released as the nucleus is split. Each would go in a straight line, in diametrically opposite directions. Since the nucleus was actually a bundle of strings in four-dimensional space, this would mean that the path of each freed positively-charged section of the nucleus would fly off at a right angle to the bundle of strings into which it had previously been bound. This would appear to us as if both were moving in directions opposite to one another at the speed of light.

The speed of light of our consciousness and that of the newly-freed like-charged sections of the nucleus which has been split are at right angles to one another because our consciousness is moving along the bundle and the two freed sections of the nucleus with like electric charge are moving away from one another with the maximum efficiency, which is opposite directions along a straight line which is at a right angle to the bundle within which they were previously bound to one another. There is no speed greater than the speed of light simply because there is no angle greater than a right angle.

The heat generated by a nuclear reaction results from the split sections of the nucleus moving outward at the speed of light, equivalent to a right angle, but then imparting momentum to the numerous other strings (perceived as particles) with which it collides. Heat is the kinetic energy of all of those particles. So, if matter and antimatter, where the electric charges are reversed from ordinary matter, are brought into contact the result is a tremendous burst of energy and mutual annihilation. If two like-charged particles, such as protons in a nucleus, are bound together by binding energy but then suddenly released, they will put distance between themselves with maximum efficiency by moving apart at what we perceive as the speed of light.

We can thus see how the behavior of electric charges, specifically like-charge repulsion, is related to the speed of light. So, it should then make sense that we can turn this around and overcome the rules of electric charges with the speed of light. Special Relativity stipulates that the fundamental laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light. Everything in the universe is ultimately based on these fundamental electric charges. So doesn't it make sense that the changing of the rules as we approach the speed of light would be based on a changing of the rules of electric charges as we approach the speed of light?

The reason that the basic rules of attraction and repulsion of electric charges must change as we approach the speed of light, and change the other laws of physics along with it, is based on simple geometry. If we consider two electric charges as two adjacent strings, the more parallel the two the greater should be the attraction or repulsion between them. If the two strings intersect at a right angle, the attraction of opposite charges or repulsion of like charges would be at a minimum.

We can see in my theory that the speed of light is actually a right angle, and that it is the greatest possible speed simply because a right angle is the greatest possible angle. The laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light simply because all of those laws are ultimately based on the underlying electric charges which comprise everything and the rules of electric charges change at what we perceive as the speed of light due to simple geometry, showing that matter is indeed composed of strings even though we perceive them as particles.

This is why cosmic ray spallation can take place, because cosmic rays are moving at near the speed of light even though the rules of electric charges state that the positively-charged nucleus and the positively-charged particle should mutually repel. They do not repel because such repulsion mean two like-charged strings bending at right angles in opposite directions, to maximize the distance between them, and the two are already at a right angle because the speed of light is really a right angle.

The true nature of cosmic rays was not known in 1905, when Einstein introduced the Special Theory of Relativity, or he may have included this in the theory.