This considerable internal control of the time, and thus the mass and energy may be by way of rest mass being internal. Relativity shows how rest mass can be changed, but not the cause of mass or why some masses are greater than others. I believe mass is spinning energy. Mass and energy are in perfect balance in relativity, so it’s a causology of kinetecs (motion without measure of cause). A more general causology like mine is about dynamics, both motion and cause. My belief is that with conservation of linear and angular momentum like mass and energy, if mass is just spinning energy, different masses any more heavy than the electron may spin at other speeds than the electric field and the speed of light would allow. More mass than an electron would have more internal spin but the electron spins at the speed of light so heavier particles would spin at faster than light internally. This would explain the lack of complete control of the relative observer about the chemicals and other power boosts seen by the slower ship.

If mass is spinning energy we may expect time of different masses has different rates of time, the more spin the faster the time would go. This would be why in subatomic physics the heavier a particle is in general the faster the time goes. Thus the half life of say and XI Hyperon is much faster than a mu meson, this is in contradiction of Relativity where Einstein believed that the more mass there is the slower time goes, like in General Relativity. This makes sense if time is actually actually caused by spin of energy.

 If mass and energy aren’t quite in balance and work is done when masses become more or less, the quanta may leak a bit, unlike the exact E mc2, and lower energy quanta may leak a bit more than higher energy quanta, and this might change the ratio of the strength of the strong force to the electromagnetic force, the Fine Structure Constant. Though if not proven in larger part this wouldn’t be proof of Relativity because it may be a smaller effect, the proof itself might be caused by this reasoning about Relativity, experiments are underway to definitely determine if the Fine Structure Constant is indeed changing over billions of years with distant stars.

 This is not the same as the famous Twins Paradox where the motion through the field slows time relative to the Earth for the high speed twin who returns to the older earth, about two high speed travellers. If the observation of the high speed events were unlike it would be relative to each observer at other speeds, including when they are unified like this to one speed. Relativity by this ruse holds that the observers wouldn’t be unified to one speed. The Twins Paradox isn’t about time asymmetry, it’s about rates of flow of the field, like a river and the bank when in contrast, obviously this is not disproven. The Twins of the Paradox are relative to the motion through what would be the ether, which is more absolute Einstein’s belief there is no field present, and the observers in my proof here would have to disagree on the age and history of the high speed star ship with more than one set of observations from the same place and time, and this is not probable. If you have observers at different speeds and the star ship they see is at one higher speed and the motion is relative to the observers, all the histories of the high speed ship would otherwise have to somehow be caused by the speed of these observers, and if the events were not reversible, they would retain the change if then seen at the same speed. While the twins are without the necessity of reversed time to prove Einstein, the ships of numerous higher speeds when unified need contradiction to prove Relativity, so this, not the Twin paradox is a disproof of Special relativity.

You may say this is not a change in the thermodynamics because Einstein believed that relativity was about empty space time because e.g. the light is unchanging in speed between the emission and the observer so nothing like a field is interacting to change it there. But evidence for the ether in not insubstantial including induction (action at a distance) the entire wave causology of light and all the experiments that go with the ether, and what a rocket presses on to move forward in “space”. And e.g. the distance to a star or the sun or a moon is always much the same, if nothing were filling the intervening space the speed to travel there would be infinite or zero. This is my causology of General Wave Dynamics, GWD. In truth the wavelength and thus the speed and momentum of light changes with acceleration, so at low speed the light’s speed is “faster” and at high speed it’s “slower” in wavelength to exactly match the speed of the observer. There are many speeds of light via momenta..Einstein used Maxwell’s physics the most and I believe in this way of resilience to explain the speed of light. Maxwell himself thought less of it later on, perhaps because of reasoning like Einstein’s. Even so Ptolmy held the world was the center of the cosmos (actually is round!) and this was believed for 1000 years.

  If gravity is lighter than light it may be much faster than light, so too in my belief it may be possible the strong force spins faster than light deeper in. (The strong force is a high energy acceleration with high density, gravity is a low energy with lower density, because two positives or two minuses multiplied are both positive, both gravity and the strong force may spin at faster than light even if one is with lower density and the other with higher.) Some here in the 21st century think it’s possible that gravity may be a common field like in subatomic physics that below a certain energy becomes a superfluid by a change of phase. This is common with many types of field in physics, for example water at higher or lower than room temperature changes phase and if gravity and the strong force (and perhaps the weak force) spin faster than light, this may solve the problem to this of faster than light if there is the infinite mass gain at the speed of light in Special Relativity and so on. If gravity and the strong force are at such unlike energies compared to the speed of light, like a music station and FM we listen to this isn’t viable if the reciever and transmitter don’t radiate and recieve at the same length of the wave. This is my best guess about how gravity may be faster than light without the problems of Relativity (Even so I think there might be a small correction in Special Relativity where gravity may act a bit like light because of energy conservation with a certain amount of interaction because gravity influences all the cosmos. If it’s all unified all of it would seem to act somewhat the same some of the time. The equation I use is with a much higher speed to stand in for the speed of light in the basic equations of Special Relativity, gravity may not be much relativistic because the Earth is more at rest than the Moon and the Sun is more at rest than the Earth. And the cosmos doesn’t spin around the earth each day (there would be a huge bulge around all the planets and other masses that spin if all motion is the same, the Earth would have to fall around the moon as much as vice versa if all motion were the same, and the center of mass would be at 125,000 miles, half the distance between the Earth and Moon.). Even so the basic field of gravity is the foundation field which would energise up to all the other fields each in turn by way of the field below it, so energy conservation is caused by the basic field being linked to all the other stuff around us, and with all the cosmos a starry messenger of a basic wave motion. In my equation, because gravity may be much faster than light if lighter than light, the change in gravitational mass for high speed motion in Special Relativity may be small. The value of this change would be as if gravity was somewhat like the Einstein’s belief because if all the field is unified by energy conservation (and for other reasons I have see my link below) the interaction of all the waves and other masses would lose some power by the process. Another related motif may be about gravity being slowed a bit when passing through a dense enough massive body. These effects may be so tiny they may not be within the range of our machines to prove them for a years, even so there are about five other proofs in my causology that may definitely prove if my conclusions are true about what Maxwell believed about the speed of waves.

 The change in the thermodynamics of the high speed observer is not during uniform motion between accelerations when wavelength of the light is constant, the heating or cooling would take place during the acceleration or deceleration, which Einstein ignores (actually he doesn’t consider both at the same time, the problem here is why aren’t all observers valid, including “all” observers both in linear motion and accelerating at the same time) and the change in the heat would be from resistance in motion through the field. The light is “frozen in” at one wavelength in uniform motion, and force “disappears” but the field is still there in a passive sense, if it was the assumption of the resilience of this field that Maxwell used to predict the speed of light exactly with before it had been seen. More or less resilience, more or less speed. In uniform motion, the pressure between the opposite electric charges (that create the field resilience Maxwell used) is balanced, so no force is felt in the rest frame of the high speed observer, rather like the weight and counterweight of an elevator, these being rather like the opposite electric charges with the speed of light constant in uniform motion. This is how I reconcile Maxwell and Relativity,

Click Here for more about how I use this causology.

Click here for my causology of Faster Than Light General Wave Dynamics