0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I understood your first response. I suspect that the relationship is not linear because the distortions do not operate independently but must be taken together. Each distortion affects the other. The interrelationship requires the Lorentz solution. It is interesting that Poincare who completed the Lorentz transforms knew the possibility of the electromagnetic nature of the universe.
I really like your theory atom smasher.I just can't get my head around 1 thing....If the sun (for example) was consuming the vacuum around it, then why don't the planets move closer to the sun?In classic gravity, they have diagonal momentum which keeps them in orbit, but if the space between them and the sun is shrinking then they would move closer wouldn't they?I think its a really creative theory and deserves more readers, its a good start and you on your way to something big I hope.
Now either you model vacuum as something intrinsically empty or as something containing a hidden energy? Which of them do you see it as Atom Smasher?And then you seem to say that this vacuum gets eaten by mass (invariant) if i got it right?Assuming that vacuum, even if empty, still contains and constrains 'distances' like between the moon and Earth and the Sun,you still need to define it as 'something' as it contains that distance. This 'something' must then somehow replenish itself as we otherwise would shrink all distances as the vacuum gets 'eaten' by mass.
Ok, although I disagree on vacuum not being 'real' Or maybe you meant that it was real after all?You comparing it to imaginary numbers confuse me a little.To me it contains distance, therefore it exist as a constituent of SpaceTime. Therefore it is real, as 'real' as anything else that have a geometrical form.But your idea of vacuum creating mass is definitely a new one to me.So where would you think that infinite supply of vacuum would come from?
But I'm afraid it's not good enough to say "I suspect" or talk about "distortions" without defining exactly what those distortions are and explaining why and how they occur. I'm sorry, but I think this represents a big gap in your explanation.
Well, there's no saying you're wrong, but there's no saying you're right either. At this level we're dealing with concepts below what is known to be fundamental; it's all speculation until someone comes up with a provable experiment.(Oh yeah - and the funds to conduct the experiment)
A new model of gravity is offered at:http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html. This new model proposes that since:(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it. Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant. The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass. The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy. Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature. Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum? Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct? Who knows? What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?
Quote from: Atom Smasher on 08/12/2009 16:19:58A new model of gravity is offered at:http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html. This new model proposes that since:(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it. Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant. The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass. The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy. Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature. Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum? Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct? Who knows? What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.
This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.
Interesting that this old thread is revived and that the connection between the vacuum energy density of space (Cosmological Constant), and Aether inflow into mass is made. The conclusion of the last post is that the aether inflow gives gravity, and in that sense I interpret the action as an exchange, requiring the presence of mass and energy density in space.The exchange is between the vacuum energy density of space, which is the inflow to maintain the presence of mass, and the gravitational wave energy out flow from mass that traverses space between massive objects and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy of distant massive objects.
The action, then, is that gravitational wave energy is emitted by massive objects, and is absorbed by surrounding massive objects; a continual process of gravitational wave energy exchange.
The Quantum Mechanics of that process would be referred to as quantum action, where gravitational wave energy carries energy through space, gravitational waves intersect in space, the intersections between directional gravitational waves cause a convergence at a point in space, the resulting energy carried to the point of convergence by the converging waves is associated with a quantum of energy, and the quanta have a hint of mass at the point of convergence.
The existence of those hints of mass, in vast numbers, surrounding massive objects in space, is one explanation for dark matter. If so, the vacuum of space contains a huge amount of wave energy, coming and going in all directions from a potentially infinite history of gravitational wave energy inflow and out flow from mass. This action would mean that space would be filled with wave intersections, and their resulting quanta, that then contribute to maintaining the presence of massive objects, and those massive objects would move in the direction of the net highest directional source of inflowing gravitational wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.Yes i think GWs can exchange energy from object to object. But re massive objects, there is no other kind.I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/01/2019 05:42:25I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.Yes i think GWs can exchange energy from object to object. But re massive objects, there is no other kind.I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).You may be right. What I have done is try to connect some known science to the as yet unknowns.1) Take for example the first thing you said, “In aether theory, mass is a process”. Is it a process you can describe, or is it one of the unknowns that I mentioned?2) Can we talk about mass as if the mass of the entire universe exists and/or functions in accord with that process?3) Do you have a position on if mass has always existed, or was there a beginning point out of which the presence of mass emerged?I know that is an "as yet" unknown, so the answer, :"we don't know:" is fine, but if we are to go on to discuss what we think, you have to say what you think is the answer to question #3.
1) I read Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe, & Reg Cahill's process physics. Aether is annihilated in mass & resistance to the accelerating inflow of aether replacing the lost aether requires a force which we call gravity. Inertia is the reciprocal. There is no such thing as mass, it is just the property of annihilating aether. There is no such thing as mass kg -- all we have is inertia & inertial force -- mass is measured by inertial force methods. There is probly no such thing as the annihilation of aether -- annihilation is probly just a change in the state of something -- eg aether might be an excited state of an underlying substance called say praether. And gravity is due to the bulk flow of aether. Whereas other things like photons (& em radiation) are due to the excitation (vibration spin swirl etc) of aether. As is usual any attempt to explain something raises even deeper questions. Anyhow every quantum thing or force or anything that we feel or see are all due to a process involving praether.2) Ranzan describes an infinite universe made of cells where aether is created & destroyed, & photons are made & destroyed (& photons are the fundamental quantum particle). Aether has no mass & is subquantum. Re gravity, aether merely transmits force tween quantum particles, the transmission travelling at well over 20 billion c kmps (i think praps at 500 billion c), transmission being a reverberation process.3) The process that gives us mass has always existed. However mass is continually created & destroyed inside every Ranzan cell, the process lasting say umpteen years. Lemmeseenow -- if a cell is 200 million lightyears across, & the average aether flow from center to edge is say 1000 kmps (ie c/300), then the journey takes 30 billion years. Photons are made early on in that journey & photons become confined photons a bit later (forming electrons quarks etc), & then atoms & stars etc are formed later, & near the end near the edge we have concentrations of galaxies & blackholes etc, & mass is annihilated in blackholes (not silly Einsteinian blackholes, these dont exist). So praps the average photon (the primary fundamental elementary quantum particle) lasts for say 60 billion years. Ranzan describes annihilation of mass in blackholes, ie everything reverts to plain old boring praether (my term)(Ranzan doesnt say praether).
Unfortunately we dont share observables. Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null. And now we are in the Einsteinian Dark Age, exacerbated by that idiot Hawking.The universe aint expanding, & the expansion aint accelerating, hencely no bigbang. Ranzan explains how a photon's progress throo each cell causes extension of the photon during entry & during exit, giving redshift. Praps his best idea.