On November 16, at a session of the 26th General Conference on Weights and Measures in Versailles, France, representatives of countries from around the world voted to /…/ redefine several units of measurement, including the kilogram.

/…/

On May 20, 2019, Le Grand K will lose its special status, and the mass of a kilogram will be defined by a fundamental constant of nature known as the Planck constant. At the same time, other mainstays of the metric system will also be revamped: the ampere (the unit of electric current), the kelvin (the unit of temperature) and the mole (the unit for amount of substance).

/…/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/official-redefining-kilogram-units-measurement

]]>nb! in so many science lectures the scientists are laughing themselves about several components included in their formulas, which have been taken out of nowhere, just to get the right results, expecting these new inclusions to be proven by observations later. i personally see nothing there to laugh when scientific terms are misused — even as i understand the sense of humor in their talks and i like science presentations with some good humor included, one should take science more seriously and not call such things ‘theories’ but what they really are: scientific speculations. which is not in a bad sense though, you must try something to get to the truth, but calling a calculation with many baseless assumptions (or ‘conjectures’, as scientists like to say, to confuse and convert others into believers in the proposed formulas/logic) a ‘theory’ is a way of making science cheap and may end up with some scientific notions losing their value and respect.

about coincidences in mathematics: for example right now there are two completely different ‘theories’ in physics on how the universe began, with absolutely different starting assumptions about the reality, but both are leading to — by precise calculations built on the assumptions — exactly the same proven and measured results. only more precise measurements in future can perhaps discard one of the theories as not valid.

same with the gravity: some scientists assume that gravity is negative energy (regardless the theoretically presumed field never being measured directly nor particle being found), some say gravity doesn’t exist (einstein) but is only the effect we see due to the warped space, and yet others say that gravity is a statistical phenomenon, something like entropy. all of them provide their mathematical calculations and arrive to the correct results. oh, i forgot to mention the theory of quantum gravity which also claims to be correct. thus we can’t be sure which assumption about gravity corresponds to reality.

therefore, as long as physicists keep arguing between themselves about underlying truths of nature below our observable reality, i have all the rights to propose my own theories about the reality of relations between physical phenomenae, based on my observations, while discarding some accepted ‘truths’ about physics which are not making sense — don’t correspond to the reality based on my obsevations in nature.

here are some notes to think about:

it seems that einstein had made an error in his thought experiment about gravity, claiming that acceleration/deceleration and gravity are the same effect, that gravity doesn’t exist but is the phenomenon arising from curvature of space. these effects look similar but are off by factor of too many. imagine how much a small acceleration/deceleration must (un)bend the space to account for the same effect that gravity produces. solving this error could free us from the speed of light being the absolute speed limit in the universe, fixing it only to certain special circumstances.. which in turn would solve the mystery of “spooky action at distance” — the effect of quantum entanglement, the mystery of inflation and several other ‘impossible’ facts about our universe, like information exchange in cosmic scale not letting it to collapse into lumps. perhaps gravity acts faster than speed of light and is the result of quantum entanglement between objects (the latter i made just up, a quick speculation so to say).

if matter warps space-time, and black holes have so much gravity that even light can’t escape, why is it that the gravitational lensing improves our vision of farther away celestial objects, not diminishing the light as it should fall into the black hole which warps the space.. where is the logic? is it taking light in and gathering even more light from around? due to the lensing there should be areas with less visibility instead of improved visibility of farther away objects.. or.. perhaps the black hole shouldn’t be visible at all (as a black area in space) because the warped space should close in without leaving any trace of the black hole, like a visibility cloak does (invisibility cloak). and what about time differences due to the gravitational lensing? (please note there’s a huge difference between the lensing principle of light passing through a magnifying glass which bends gathered light and the lensing by a black hole which absorbs light).

]]>just imagine that time is like a flow of points:

more time in the system: ………………..

less time in the system: . . . . . . . . . .

in this sense “more time” doesn’t mean time is streched but in contrary to that — time is compressed, more time is squeezed into the local space, into the area of the system with high energy density. thus for yet another (third) observer, with whatever time density, the person in the “more time in the system” (more energy: heat, gravity) has aged more rapidly in comparison between the first two, when meeting at the point where two time flows have equalized.

thus i was correct that physics textbooks have an error in it. traveler at close to speed of light, with acceleration and deceleration pumping up gravity, increases local time, with that for outside observer in outside timeframe the traveler has passed more time, aging faster.. and is not arriving in the future (this is a fundamental error in reasoning, in the physics textbooks). the traveler had simply aged more than it would had happened by moving slowly. this makes way more sense than the commonly accepted description by physicists trying to describe time travel. there’s no such thing as time travel — you will always arrive to the same time flow where you left off (in the new point in time where the local time has arrived to), but you have aged faster at high energy densities, which also means at high time densities.

again, as i have mentioned in my earlier writings, everyday examples only prove my reasoning: we refrigerate food in order to preserve it, slowing its local time. even people are being frozen these days (cryonics), to wake them up in the future, to cure them from deadly conditions not curable today. one cannot travel to the future or to the past [sending data as quantum states may be possible, but not objects with a mass], only to speed up or to slow down local time. time flows like a fluid, like heat. there’s no doubt in my mind anymore that time is not constant but a flexible unit, we are just so used to the physical facts around us that we don’t realize how time flows at different rates in objects around us, depending how much energy is in them. perhaps heat (the temperature above absolute zero) is the very thing that we call time.. but that may be a leap too far in my thinking. definitely temperature and time are correlated.

__

please note that these results are based on general thought experiments, not on precise calculations. there’s a physical limit to how much i can take on in my life.. at this point in time i have other priorities. to make precise calculations i will need to revisit the truths of mathematics and physics, not to make any mistakes. i leave making of precise calulations to professionals in physics and mathematics.

]]>you only need two pairs of separately entangled particles. the sending side will measure the quantum states of particles let say thousands of times in a second while the receiving side only measures once a second, with precise intervals. if both particles on sending side will be in the same quantum state, it will be sending a ‘zero’, when different states then ‘one’. the sender will measure particles as many times as needed until the required pair of states comes up by the random results during measuring, then stops and waits the receiving side to measure the quantum states of the entangled particles. after one second has passed the sending side starts to measure the states of particles again thousands of times a second, to arrive at required combination before the measuring time on the receiving side, and so on.

thousands of times more is required at the sending side to ensure that by random outcome there won’t be hundreds of times in a row coming up a wrong combination of states. if i estimate correctly then a thousand times in a row to come up with a wrong (not desired) combination at random, just for two different states of equal probability, it’s something like once in a lifetime of the universe chance (with a huge reserve to account for any very improbable outcomes, for glitches in the system so to say).. a thousand measurements on the sending side to arrive at desired quantum states on a pair of particles is enough, for each measurement on the receiving side.

[writing it down took longer than coming up with a solution.. i consider it just having a right idea at the right moment, a lucky coincidence, as i’m not strong at complex math.. i prefer simple solutions and finding patterns, instead of solving formulas.]

ps. if that is a true solution and it is possible to send data this way faster than speed of light, through entangled particles, then the cause and effect principle is broken and in principle we could get information from the future and send information to the past, which will create many issues, at least in our brain, initially. but if physics allows it then we must just wrap our brains around the reality and solve the seeming issues.

__

addition: when reading the above description of the solution just an hour later, to fix possible errors in grammar, i realized you don’t even need two pairs of entangled particles — the same can be done with the single pair. i began with a more complex way to solve the problem, instead of a simpler solution, and got fixated on it. in any case i don’t understand why physicists are still talking about the impossibility of sending information by entangled particles, due to the random nature of their states at any given moment of measurement.. you measure as many times as needed till you arrive at desired result, in your allowed time frame, and wait for the receiver to measure the opposite state of the entangled particle. no problem whatsoever, only the clocks of both parties must be precisely calibrated, for the correct measuring intervals, but even (re)calibration of clocks can be done by separate entangled particles. therefore, because of the necessity to precisely re-calibrate the clocks at great distances (due to the difference in gravity, dark energy influence which may be at different levels etc.), to avoid errors in data transfer, at least two pairs of entangled particles is a better way to go.

]]>reference to my previous post on relation of temperature and time.

]]>there’s also a possibility that the slowing of time has been described fundamentally wrong as someone made an error in the thought experiment and the error carried on in physics textbooks with no-one daring to address the error. you see, if you move at high velocity everything flies past you at high speed.. same to the outside observer watching the speeding object, thus the relativity principle is preserved. or if the clocks are ticking at different rate you must admit the existence of ether, about which i argued with physics teachers already when i was perhaps in 5th grade or so. it has never made me sense why in absence of ether one clock should slow down at high velocity between observers while both reference points are equal.. in this case the relativity principle is lost. thus i always argued that existence of ether is proven to me by the very principle of slowing time at high velocity — the reference to the motion of time is not another observer with equal result regardless of from which side to look, but the ether. the error though is in how it’s described — the traveler at high speed should age faster in reference to those not speeding. in this case the fact that in heated up materials, where molecules move at much higher velocity, have also higher rate of entropy, makes sense — the time in the heated materials goes faster compared to the time of observer. the time is relative even in our everyday actions — this is why we refrigerate food for it to last longer, to preserve it, to slow down its rate of aging.

ps. by now i’m a bit smarter and have an understanding that slowing of time is not due to speed but due to gravity, while the speed only plays role during acceleration and deceleration, which creates local gravity, which in turn slows down the time. if one moves with high velocity at constant rate the time is equal for both observers, thus the relativity principle is preserved. but the heating process, accelerating of molecules, still bothers me — it should change the rate of time locally, relative to observers. bouncing molecules decelerate fast while accelerating other molecules, which process creates local gravity, which in turn slows down time.. or speeds up from reference point of an outside observer.

[it’s two o’clock at night here in italy.. i woke up about an hour ago and can’t sleep on this question, again.. so i had to write it all up fast to get some rest. therefore, any errors allowed]

]]>