# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Gravity mechanism in LET  (Read 3025 times)

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Gravity mechanism in LET
« on: 04/03/2015 18:13:47 »
Four days ago I discovered something interesting which I've been trying to rule out ever since. Perhaps someone else can help with this, because it's putting up a strong fight. The key idea here is that if the path of light is deflected slightly by the existence of a massive object nearby (through any mechanism, including the one in General Relativity), it looks as if it could lead to an imbalance of forces in matter which will result in a force being generated that would accelerate it towards the massive object. In the case of GR, this would accelerate matter off the geodesic which it should be following.

I happened upon this mechanism while thinking about length contraction in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and what might happen in a gravity well, so the best place to start is there. Start out by imagining a room in which all walls, floor and ceiling are square. There is a light in the middle which illuminates all these surfaces equally, though each square surface will be a little brighter in the middle and darker in the corners due to the distance the light has to travel before it reaches them - the further it goes, the more it will spread out and the dimmer it will be when it arrives.

If the room is moving along at high speed, the light will have further to go before it can reach the leading wall, but it will also have less far to go to reach the trailing wall, so you would expect the leading wall to get dimmer with higher speed of the room and the trailing wall to get brighter, but that doesn't happen - the way the light is emitted is affected by the speed of travel of the lamp, so more light is concentrated forwards and less backwards, helping to reduce the difference in brightness between these two walls, but they will both be dimmer unless the room contracts in the direction of travel.

[This concentration of light forwards and reduction backwards can be understood mechanistically if you imagine sending the light out sideways and reflecting it off a flat mirror - the movement of the mirror will make it act as if it is curved. If you think things through with lenses, you'll find similar effects which ultimately show you why light has to be concentrated forwards and reduced backwards whenever a light source moves.]

But why should the room contract? Well, the forces holding atoms apart are also transmitted at the speed of light and they spread out in the same way, weakening over distance. This means that the atoms will naturally settle closer together in the direction of travel whenever they find themselves too far apart. By the time the forces have pulled all the atoms into the right places, the illumination will be equal again on both the leading and trailing walls, just as if the room was stationary.

Now we can turn to a situation involving gravity where we have a very slight curvature of the paths followed by photons (caused by the nearby presence of a massive object like a star or planet), but these deviations will affect force carriers in the same way as they do with light. The result will be an extra spreading out of the forces in the direction away from the massive object and a reduced spreading towards the massive object. With light, this means that the wall furthest from the massive object will be dimmer than the wall nearest to the massive object, and it will be the same with the forces being applied. The result of this is that the wall furthest from the massive object will be pulled inwards towards the centre of the room because it's sitting further out from where the balance of force requires it to be, but the wall nearest the massive object will be pushed outwards away from the centre of the room because it's sitting to close in from where the balance of forces requires it to be. Both walls are being pushed by this towards the massive object.

It wouldn't work quite like that, of course, because rather than a room we should be thinking about forces moving about within the atom nucleus, or even within electrons and quarks. The distances travelled by these force carriers would be very short and would have little opportunity to bend, but the effect would still build up rapidly over time as these forces are being applied continually, so the imbalance would be absolutely real and must generate a force towards the massive object.

So, can anyone shoot this down?
« Last Edit: 04/03/2015 20:08:59 by David Cooper »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #1 on: 04/03/2015 23:28:58 »
Four days ago I discovered something interesting which I've been trying to rule out ever since. Perhaps someone else can help with this, because it's putting up a strong fight. The key idea here is that if the path of light is deflected slightly by the existence of a massive object nearby (through any mechanism, including the one in General Relativity), it looks as if it could lead to an imbalance of forces in matter which will result in a force being generated that would accelerate it towards the massive object. In the case of GR, this would accelerate matter off the geodesic which it should be following.

I happened upon this mechanism while thinking about length contraction in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and what might happen in a gravity well, so the best place to start is there. Start out by imagining a room in which all walls, floor and ceiling are square. There is a light in the middle which illuminates all these surfaces equally, though each square surface will be a little brighter in the middle and darker in the corners due to the distance the light has to travel before it reaches them - the further it goes, the more it will spread out and the dimmer it will be when it arrives.

If the room is moving along at high speed, the light will have further to go before it can reach the leading wall, but it will also have less far to go to reach the trailing wall, so you would expect the leading wall to get dimmer with higher speed of the room and the trailing wall to get brighter, but that doesn't happen - the way the light is emitted is affected by the speed of travel of the lamp, so more light is concentrated forwards and less backwards, helping to reduce the difference in brightness between these two walls, but they will both be dimmer unless the room contracts in the direction of travel.

[This concentration of light forwards and reduction backwards can be understood mechanistically if you imagine sending the light out sideways and reflecting it off a flat mirror - the movement of the mirror will make it act as if it is curved. If you think things through with lenses, you'll find similar effects which ultimately show you why light has to be concentrated forwards and reduced backwards whenever a light source moves.]

But why should the room contract? Well, the forces holding atoms apart are also transmitted at the speed of light and they spread out in the same way, weakening over distance. This means that the atoms will naturally settle closer together in the direction of travel whenever they find themselves too far apart. By the time the forces have pulled all the atoms into the right places, the illumination will be equal again on both the leading and trailing walls, just as if the room was stationary.

Now we can turn to a situation involving gravity where we have a very slight curvature of the paths followed by photons (caused by the nearby presence of a massive object like a star or planet), but these deviations will affect force carriers in the same way as they do with light. The result will be an extra spreading out of the forces in the direction away from the massive object and a reduced spreading towards the massive object. With light, this means that the wall furthest from the massive object will be dimmer than the wall nearest to the massive object, and it will be the same with the forces being applied. The result of this is that the wall furthest from the massive object will be pulled inwards towards the centre of the room because it's sitting further out from where the balance of force requires it to be, but the wall nearest the massive object will be pushed outwards away from the centre of the room because it's sitting to close in from where the balance of forces requires it to be. Both walls are being pushed by this towards the massive object.

It wouldn't work quite like that, of course, because rather than a room we should be thinking about forces moving about within the atom nucleus, or even within electrons and quarks. The distances travelled by these force carriers would be very short and would have little opportunity to bend, but the effect would still build up rapidly over time as these forces are being applied continually, so the imbalance would be absolutely real and must generate a force towards the massive object.

So, can anyone shoot this down?

I don't think I've ever seen a post as interesting as this one. I will need to read this through a few times and think about it. I'll get back to you when I get it straight.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #2 on: 05/03/2015 02:54:41 »
I have worked it through and see your point exactly. Isn't this just a description of gravity? What makes you think this wouldn't follow a geodesic?

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #3 on: 05/03/2015 18:01:27 »
I have worked it through and see your point exactly. Isn't this just a description of gravity? What makes you think this wouldn't follow a geodesic?

In GR there is no force of gravity, so matter just follows straight lines through Spacetime. If you introduce a force into things, it should pull matter off the geodesic that it's supposed to be following. I have no idea how big or tiny this force would be and don't know if it would add up to being strong enough to account for gravity in LET, but the more interesting question to begin with is whether it would mess up GR.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #4 on: 05/03/2015 18:15:19 »
It is special relativity where no forces act. General relativity is different.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/gravity.html

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #5 on: 05/03/2015 18:35:20 »
David have a look at this video and in the still frame before the slow motion look at the compression of the slinky at the bottom compared to the top. Think of this in relation to you mass deviation.

Now how would this change with altitude? If at all.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 18:37:17 by jeffreyH »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #6 on: 05/03/2015 19:06:09 »
It is special relativity where no forces act. General relativity is different.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/gravity.html

But in GR, gravity is not a force - time and space are warped in such a way that things can just follow straight lines and make it look as if there's a force acting when there isn't one. It may be that things are so warped by this though that the room in my thought experiment is distorted in such a way that there is no imbalance of forces, but I'm still trying to work out whether that's possible.

David have a look at this video and in the still frame before the slow motion look at the compression of the slinky at the bottom compared to the top. Think of this in relation to you mass deviation.

Now how would this change with altitude? If at all.

Nice video - I was wanting to find one like that, but I'm not sure how it relates to this. You aren't seeing compression there, but the opposite, and the stretching at any point is just a measure of the mass further down.

[Someone should do a video of a slinky being dropped alongside a ball (dropped from the same height as the top of the slinky, and released at the same moment). I'd like to see if the top of the slinky would descend much more quickly than the ball.]
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 19:47:13 by David Cooper »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #7 on: 05/03/2015 20:35:03 »
It is special relativity where no forces act. General relativity is different.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/gravity.html

But in GR, gravity is not a force - time and space are warped in such a way that things can just follow straight lines and make it look as if there's a force acting when there isn't one. It may be that things are so warped by this though that the room in my thought experiment is distorted in such a way that there is no imbalance of forces, but I'm still trying to work out whether that's possible.

David have a look at this video and in the still frame before the slow motion look at the compression of the slinky at the bottom compared to the top. Think of this in relation to you mass deviation.

Now how would this change with altitude? If at all.

Nice video - I was wanting to find one like that, but I'm not sure how it relates to this. You aren't seeing compression there, but the opposite, and the stretching at any point is just a measure of the mass further down.

[Someone should do a video of a slinky being dropped alongside a ball (dropped from the same height as the top of the slinky, and released at the same moment). I'd like to see if the top of the slinky would descend much more quickly than the ball.]

I can't speak about Gr and forces as I don't know enough yet. However, when looking at the slinky this reminds one of wavelength redshift. The slinky is more stretched out away from the ground. This is also quite a pronounced effect here too. Someone else may be able to explain why. It is an interesting analogy though. What if your room has a gradient of compression in the direction of the mass it is passing. I doubt if it would be uniform. However it would only become pronounced at relativistic speeds.

Keep on thinking.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #8 on: 06/03/2015 17:48:57 »
With the slinky, the more mass there is further down from any point, the more stretch there will be at that point - that's all it shows. If you're looking for a distant parallel with how matter behaves in a gravity well though, there could be one. The bending of space that you have in GR could be achieved through a compression of space instead of curving, or by length contraction, and length contraction should indeed occur if the speed of light changes in different directions. In LET, at the event horizon of a black hole, the speed of light outwards is zero at that point and may be twice the normal speed of light inwards - this would result in infinite length contraction for an object being held at the event horizon, but an object falling in at high speed would not be contracted so much and might not be contracted at all if it's going fast enough. Things would generally be ripped apart before they've contracted completely and would race in towards the centre at speeds which could reach many times the speed of light. In GR it's quite different as there is actually more distance to cover the further in you go, so it would take a long time to reach the centre, if that's even possible - if the distance became infinite due to extreme curving, it would not be possible to reach the centre at all, but I don't know how extreme it's supposed to get (I would have thought it should already be infinite at the event horizon, but I haven't heard a description from anyone of what GR actually predicts in that regard).

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #9 on: 06/03/2015 20:26:13 »
Quote from: David Cooper
But in GR, gravity is not a force - time and space are warped in such a way that things can just follow straight lines and make it look as if there's a force acting when there isn't one.
That's a common misconception, David.

To see how to obtain the expression for the gravitational force in GR please see:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_force.htm

People think that the gravitational force is really a manifestation of curved spacetime. In the first place that has to do only with tidal forces and not gravitational forces in general. And spacetime curvature is quite literally just another name for tidal forces.

But you can certainly have gravitational forces in the absence of spacetime curvature. I've calculated it myself here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/uniform_force.htm

If you'll notice Eq. (12) you'll see that it's identical to the Newtonian expression.

The only think that GR introduces is the notion that all gravitational forces are inertial forces and that in GR inertial forces are "real" whereas in Newtonian mechanics they're mostly considered to be a manifestation of the coordinate system being a non-inertial one.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #10 on: 07/03/2015 20:37:42 »
Quote from: David Cooper
But in GR, gravity is not a force - time and space are warped in such a way that things can just follow straight lines and make it look as if there's a force acting when there isn't one.
That's a common misconception, David.

I thought that was the whole point of GR - gravity explained by things following straight paths through a curved Spacetime without any need for any actual force of gravity to be applied at all.

Quote
To see how to obtain the expression for the gravitational force in GR please see:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_force.htm

Due to a crucial year spent with one of the world's worst maths teachers, that's just a page of meaningless squiggles to me. However, it is always possible to get past such obstacles with a bit of help in translating them into normal language. When you talk about an expression for the gravitational force in GR, what exactly do you mean? Is this an expression for working out the apparent gravitational force when treating space as having Euclidean geometry (as used in LET) or is this a force within the non-Euclidean geometry of Spacetime? If the latter, then it appears to be in conflict with the whole idea of things simply following geodesics, and that means a lot of experts are misleading the public.

Quote
People think that the gravitational force is really a manifestation of curved spacetime.

That's because the experts keep telling the public that it is.

Quote
In the first place that has to do only with tidal forces and not gravitational forces in general. And spacetime curvature is quite literally just another name for tidal forces.

I wish I understood the difference between the two.

Quote
But you can certainly have gravitational forces in the absence of spacetime curvature. I've calculated it myself here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/uniform_force.htm

If you'll notice Eq. (12) you'll see that it's identical to the Newtonian expression.

Again I can't work out what's being discussed there from the page of squiggles. I'd need to see a description of it in normal words.

Quote
The only think that GR introduces is the notion that all gravitational forces are inertial forces and that in GR inertial forces are "real" whereas in Newtonian mechanics they're mostly considered to be a manifestation of the coordinate system being a non-inertial one.

Is there anywhere I can read a reliable explanation of all this written in ordinary language which doesn't send the reader down the wrong path with misinformation? Every time I think I've finally got to the truth, someone tells me it's all wrong.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #11 on: 08/03/2015 02:50:51 »
I got very good marks in mathematics many years ago and spent so long doing very little maths that I had to start from scratch. It is only now that I am becoming properly conversant with special relativity. I haven't gotten into general relativity yet although I have worked a lot of it out myself by a trial and error and checking method. You don't need the maths at all to understand as long as your mental spatial skills are very good. That was always my strong point. I can imagine sets of changes mentally. Do not be discouraged.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #12 on: 08/03/2015 09:57:10 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I thought that was the whole point of GR - gravity explained by things following straight paths through a curved Spacetime without any need for any actual force of gravity to be applied at all.
Not according to Einstein.

Quote from: David Cooper
Due to a crucial year spent with one of the world's worst maths teachers, that's just a page of meaningless squiggles to me. However, it is always possible to get past such obstacles with a bit of help in translating them into normal language.
All it means is that the gravitational force is not zero, that's all. The gravitational force is defined as follows. Choose a frame of reference which is at rest in a frame where the gravitational field is not zero. Your living room is such a frame. Now drop an object, making sure that no other force is acting on it. The only thing influencing it is gravity. Now calculate the derivative of the 3-momentum with respect to coordinate time. That will give you the value of the gravitational force on it. E.g. G = dp/dt.  That's all it says. If the field is a uniform gravitational field then G = -mgz.

Quote from: David Cooper
When you talk about an expression for the gravitational force in GR, what exactly do you mean?
G = dp/dt

Quote from: David Cooper
Is this an expression for working out the apparent gravitational force ...

Quote from: David Cooper
when treating space as having Euclidean geometry (as used in LET) or is this a force within the non-Euclidean geometry of Spacetime?
In my example space is Euclidean. As I explained above, the only role that non-Euclidean space and curved spacetime play is when there are tidal forces present. Spacetime curvature is all about tidal forces and nothing else.

Quote from: David Cooper
If the latter, then it appears to be in conflict with the whole idea of things simply following geodesics, and that means a lot of experts are misleading the public.
That's wrong. A body in free-fall will always follow a geodesic in spacetime, always. What I said doesn't change that one bit.

Quote from: David Cooper
That's because the experts keep telling the public that it is.
Not all the experts. Dr. John Stachel, a GR expert and a world famous Physics/GR historian will tell you the same things I have. He's the one who educated me on how Einstein himself viewed his work.

Quote
Is there anywhere I can read a reliable explanation of all this written in ordinary language which doesn't send the reader down the wrong path with misinformation? Every time I think I've finally got to the truth, someone tells me it's all wrong.
I'll ask around. Maybe my historian friend has something for the layman. Or maybe I'll create a webpage for it.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #13 on: 08/03/2015 20:45:37 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I thought that was the whole point of GR - gravity explained by things following straight paths through a curved Spacetime without any need for any actual force of gravity to be applied at all.
Not according to Einstein.

Then perhaps there's some distinction being made here between how Einstein saw GR and where other people took the idea on to, in which case the idea that gravity is not a force is not technically part of GR. That would then lead on to the question of what it should be called if it's wrong to call it GR. It's confusing when so many of the top scientists are pushing a model which is not GR while appearing to attribute it to Einstein.

Quote
A body in free-fall will always follow a geodesic in spacetime, always. What I said doesn't change that one bit.
That's important, because that means a force of gravity cannot pull something off the geodesic that it should be following. What I'm trying to work out is whether the force that I suggested might exist (in the first post of this thread) would pull something off its geodesic. It may be that when you translate things to the non-Euclidean geometry that force disappears. Hopefully that is the case.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #14 on: 09/03/2015 00:45:31 »
Think of a transparent tube upon the surface of which we have drawn a spiral that appears from a particular direction to be a sine wave. Then consider that we have started from the left hand side with a small wavelength and let this become progressively longer until it reaches its maximum at the right hand end. If we rotate this tube about the axis through its length then the wave will appear to move. The left hand end will then represent the maximum length contraction and the right hand end the minimum length contraction. However it will apear to take exactly the same time for a wave to traverse one wavelength at the left hand end as at the right. Now consider that the time dilation is represented by a change in the angular momentum along the length of the tube so that the left hand end rotates more slowly than the right hand end. If this was one continuous wave the length of the tube there would be stresses along the wave as it is twisted tighter by the difference in rotation. This is like a twist in spacetime.

EDIT: Actually it might make more sense for the left hand end to be rotating faster than the right hand end.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2015 00:52:19 by jeffreyH »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #15 on: 09/03/2015 17:09:15 »
Think of a transparent tube upon the surface of which we have drawn a spiral that appears from a particular direction to be a sine wave. Then consider that we have started from the left hand side with a small wavelength and let this become progressively longer until it reaches its maximum at the right hand end. If we rotate this tube about the axis through its length then the wave will appear to move. The left hand end will then represent the maximum length contraction and the right hand end the minimum length contraction. However it will apear to take exactly the same time for a wave to traverse one wavelength at the left hand end as at the right.

I'm not sure it's correct to apply length-contraction to light (unless a slowing is imposed by an atmosphere). Length contraction of light requires the speed of light to change or the frequency to shift, and the frequency cannot change - only the perceived frequency can change due to time dilation.

Quote
Now consider that the time dilation is represented by a change in the angular momentum along the length of the tube so that the left hand end rotates more slowly than the right hand end. If this was one continuous wave the length of the tube there would be stresses along the wave as it is twisted tighter by the difference in rotation. This is like a twist in spacetime.

EDIT: Actually it might make more sense for the left hand end to be rotating faster than the right hand end.

I don't think that's going to work either, because you're going to break the light by having different frequencies at different ends of it, and that's again impossible. It fits in with what someone might think if they measure the frequency at different altitudes and they insist on ignoring time dilation as an explanation for the apparent frequency changes.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #16 on: 09/03/2015 17:45:43 »
Think of a transparent tube upon the surface of which we have drawn a spiral that appears from a particular direction to be a sine wave. Then consider that we have started from the left hand side with a small wavelength and let this become progressively longer until it reaches its maximum at the right hand end. If we rotate this tube about the axis through its length then the wave will appear to move. The left hand end will then represent the maximum length contraction and the right hand end the minimum length contraction. However it will apear to take exactly the same time for a wave to traverse one wavelength at the left hand end as at the right.

I'm not sure it's correct to apply length-contraction to light (unless a slowing is imposed by an atmosphere). Length contraction of light requires the speed of light to change or the frequency to shift, and the frequency cannot change - only the perceived frequency can change due to time dilation.

Quote
Now consider that the time dilation is represented by a change in the angular momentum along the length of the tube so that the left hand end rotates more slowly than the right hand end. If this was one continuous wave the length of the tube there would be stresses along the wave as it is twisted tighter by the difference in rotation. This is like a twist in spacetime.

EDIT: Actually it might make more sense for the left hand end to be rotating faster than the right hand end.

I don't think that's going to work either, because you're going to break the light by having different frequencies at different ends of it, and that's again impossible. It fits in with what someone might think if they measure the frequency at different altitudes and they insist on ignoring time dilation as an explanation for the apparent frequency changes.

The point is the wave will never be that spread out. It was a hypothetical analogy to show how spacetime could twist. This twisting could in theory be the mechanism that draws matter together. I am not entirely sure if this is anything like twistor space. This twisting could also explain induced rotation in orbiting bodies.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2015 17:47:58 by jeffreyH »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #17 on: 09/03/2015 23:03:38 »
The point is the wave will never be that spread out. It was a hypothetical analogy to show how spacetime could twist. This twisting could in theory be the mechanism that draws matter together. I am not entirely sure if this is anything like twistor space. This twisting could also explain induced rotation in orbiting bodies.

A photon cannot spread out, but a group of photons can and will spread out. That is why the walls are darker the further the light has to go before hitting them, but each photon still delivers its full punch wherever it lands.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #18 on: 10/03/2015 00:49:51 »
The point is the wave will never be that spread out. It was a hypothetical analogy to show how spacetime could twist. This twisting could in theory be the mechanism that draws matter together. I am not entirely sure if this is anything like twistor space. This twisting could also explain induced rotation in orbiting bodies.

A photon cannot spread out, but a group of photons can and will spread out. That is why the walls are darker the further the light has to go before hitting them, but each photon still delivers its full punch wherever it lands.

That punch can be spread out over time due to dilation. It is all relative. The local observer will notice nothing different. This can only be considered from a remote frame.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #19 on: 13/03/2015 22:16:44 »
David do you have any reference material on LET? It is historically significant if nothing else and I would like to understand it properly.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #20 on: 15/03/2015 00:17:29 »
I haven't found much to go on. For the most part I just worked my way through it myself by constructing my own thought experiments and doing the maths my own way, and I was doing that to try to disprove it. One useful page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory and a site that's worth exploring is http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Conspiracy.html though I don't know how well the information there actually stands up to close scrutiny by anyone who can handle complex maths.

You'll see in the Wikipedia page that Lorentz got bogged down in complex maths. It's much easier to think about the thought experiment with the room (in a rocket) shaped like a cube with a lamp in the middle of it and about how bright the leading wall and trailing wall would be if the room was moving at high speed through the aether. Without length contraction, both of those walls would be a quarter of their normal brightness if the room was moving at 87% of the speed of light. However, with forces affected in exactly the same way as light (which they should be because they work under the same inverse square law), matter would find itself sitting too far apart in the direction of travel and would automatically settle together until the normal balance of forces was restored, at which point the walls of the room would be returned to full brightness and the length of the room in the direction of travel would be halved. It would be impossible for things not to contract in this way. You can see instantly that the same thing will happen inside every particle to apply length contraction to it in the same way, because all the forces that hold them together (whether or not they use forces currently identified by science) are ultimately going to be controlled by the speed of light regardless of any differences in their hidden mechanisms.

Quote
In 1907 Einstein criticized the "ad hoc" character of Lorentz's contraction hypothesis in his theory of electrons, because according to him it was an artificial assumption to make the Michelson–Morley experiment conform to Lorentz's stationary aether and the relativity principle.

I have shown that there's nothing ad hoc about length contraction in LET, but Lorentz failed to find a way of explaining why this length contraction is inevitable.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2015 02:14:10 by David Cooper »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Gravity mechanism in LET
« Reply #20 on: 15/03/2015 00:17:29 »