[Colin2B]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the concept of quantum foam inflow, why is it not taken seriously.

Sorry, not had much spare time recently so haven’t replied on your question.

It isn’t taken seriously because the problems are mainly around the assumptions that it depends on:
Cahill assumes an absolute motion of earth in space, which he claims to have detected and measured, and this is disputed.
He claims MM experiment did detect absolute motion but the small fringes were ignored as noise.
   Repeats of the experiment using modern, more accurate equipment and vacuum have shown no fringes.
He claims MM experiment can detect gravitational waves which is disputed because it wouldn’t be sensitive enough.
He requires speed of gravity to be far greater than speed of light which doesn’t align with current measurements.
He claims to have detected absolute motion of earth relative to space with zener diodes. Attempts to replicate this have failed and suggest he was seeing effect of local em interference.
The maths in his paper has been heavily criticised.
He claims that the basic tenets of relativity are incorrect:
  - The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames.
  - Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
  - In the limit of low speeds the results should agree with Newtonian gravity.

In other words, he doesn’t have a lot of street cred.

[captcass]

For those who aren't following the Hubble Shift thread, I posted this update there today:

I realized 2 days ago that what I describe regarding gravity has deeper meaning. I originally wanted to show the evolutionary aspect but also wanted to show it created energy, but thought that was out of reach. I was wrong and had a "duh" moment. Energy is created as E_k = 1/2 mv². I therefore modified the paper to include this:

"Dilation creates a density at the faster end due to length contraction necessary to maintain c, and there is an increase in energy and pressure due to an increase in frequency. As the motion and densities appear when a dilation gradient is introduced, we see the creation of energy. Gravity then magnifies that energy by evolving the density down gradient into slower areas of time, giving the photons a greater relative frequency, energy and, therefore, mass. They also appear to increase in velocity, as below."

The manifestation of real energy from potential energy was the last step I needed. Once energy is manifested it can be converted to any form.

The updated version #8 is now up online at: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109

[captcass]

Hey, @Colin2B, Well, this is the very best solstice I have ever had.

One of my daughters is giving me my first grandchild tomorrow, a girl, and I learned tonight from other daughter, who is in town for the birth, that she will be giving me my second next January.

When I got home from dinner with them, I had an email from the Editor-in-Chief of the journal I mentioned above, after it had already been approved by an Executive Editor, that he had aproved it and had forwarded it on to two other specialists in fields they, themselves, weren't expert in, to check technical details, etc. He said it usually took 2 -3 weeks for them to respond.

Both of them are active professors at top notch US universities and the Editor-in-Chief is a world renowned astrophysicist at an ivy league school. The Executive Editor is world renowned in fluidics and cosmology.

I am not putting up the latest version yet on vixra as that might be published in the journal and they should now have first dibs.

I can tell you that I finally woke up to the fact that the kinetic energy is simply translated into thermal energy in the center of a spherical dilation pit where the GDE impedes on itself from all directions, duh, so I have now gone from kinetic to thermal energy manifestations.

The other major change is that I have switched from black holes to MECOs. With black holes I didn't have solid evidence of the empty space, but the MECO (Magnetic Eternally Collapsing Object) Rudolph Schild and team discovered, where the "black hole" in a quasar was supposed to be, has a 4,000 AU diameter empty space within it, making the empty space a property of MECOs. This confirms my theory at what was the black hole, and is now the MECO, end.

Cheers, I say, Cheers on this solstice night!

(This was copied from the Hubble Shift thread.)

[pasala]

2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.

Basic question, can you tell me how dark energy is driving the expansion.

Psreddy

[guest45734]

Sorry, not had much spare time recently so haven’t replied on your question.

join the club, its called pressures of work and other priorities.

Cahill assumes an absolute motion of earth in space, which he claims to have detected and measured, and this is disputed.

I havnt seen this claim in his papers.

He claims MM experiment did detect absolute motion but the small fringes were ignored as noise.
   Repeats of the experiment using modern, more accurate equipment and vacuum have shown no fringes.

The  MM experiment assumes we are moving through an ether, what has that got to do with cahills paper. Frame dragging has been experimentally proven in space due to the earths spin suggesting if anything an ether if it exists is being dragged by the earths spin.

He requires speed of gravity to be far greater than speed of light which doesn’t align with current measurements.

Dark matter does not align with current observations, an additional force might do away with the need for dark matter. Mond is barking up the same tree.

He claims to have detected absolute motion of earth relative to space with zener diodes. Attempts to replicate this have failed and suggest he was seeing effect of local em interference.

Frame dragging is part of Einsteins theories and has been proven to occur regardless of Cahill and Zener diodes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

The maths in his paper has been heavily criticised.

Which part of the maths in which papers have been critisized and by whom.

He claims that the basic tenets of relativity are incorrect:

I think you may have glanced at some different papers to me. The general concept is plausible even if his math is flawed.

In other words, he doesn’t have a lot of street cred.

I am guessing the guys suggesting dark energy is due to quantum foam dont have street cred either, or if it comes to it. Einstein with the idea of white holes must be a bit of a numpty, especially when he and his mates introduced EPR bridges and a month later came up with ER bridges and white holes. Both ER Bridges and White holes suggest an extra connecting dimension.

[Colin2B]

You asked why he isn’t taken seriously. These are some of the reasons, but I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing just quoting a few of the ones mentioned in conversations around the community.

[guest45734]

neither agreeing nor disagreeing just quoting a few of the ones mentioned in conversations around the community.

I neither agree or disagree with him either, but do note others seem to be barking(mad) up the same tree. The Dark energy concept as quantum foam is along the same lines.

The truth is no one knows, and very few are prepared to discuss what space is, at the quantum level or the cosmic level.

EFE  use ER Bridges Quantum mechanics can use EPR bridges they are both likely the same thing. Einstein and co must have had EPR bridges in mind when he wrote his paper on ER bridges one month after he and colaborators posted about EPR bridges.

Could we exist in a wormhole which is expanding in all directions of space time? unlikely but interesting to think about and ask questions about. with no edge to space time, how many additional dimensions may lay hidden from our view.

[captcass]

Could we exist in a wormhole which is expanding in all directions of space time?

In my paper mentioned above I have shown we are evolving between two event horizons where time seems to stop due to time dilation. One at ~13.9+ Gly and the other at the event horizon of the MECO at the center of the galaxy.

There is no Dark Energy and the continuum is not expanding. It is just time dilation in both directions, the one we are leaving behind, and the one we are evolving towards.

[guest45734]

Could we exist in a wormhole which is expanding in all directions of space time?

In my paper mentioned above I have shown we are evolving between two event horizons where time seems to stop due to time dilation. One at ~13.9+ Gly and the other at the event horizon of the MECO at the center of the galaxy.

There is no Dark Energy and the continuum is not expanding. It is just time dilation in both directions, the one we are leaving behind, and the one we are evolving towards.

Page 4 of your paper you appear to agree one of the speculatve ideas I put forward in earlier posts. An additional non space time dimension exists allowing connection to all points in space time regardless of distance akin to a wormhole. The expansion of space time is happening from our perspective, you claim it isnt, and modify einsteins field equations to suggest otherwise. You correctly point I think that, the hup, entanglement, and wave particle duality can be better understood via the additional dimension. Efe look at fields not at what causes them at the quantum level. Space at thequantum level is grainy, which allows weird quantum things to occur. The epr bridge is similiar to an er bridge, at a different zoom level. Plank length blackholes may be  connected via epr bridge to a mini whitehole. So either we are inside a wormhole between two event horizons, or we could be on the surface. Both of which give the appearance of an expanding space time.

Galaxies at the outer edge of the universe are movi g away from us at around 3c. This does not violate relativity because they are not mo I g through space, space is expanding between us and almost everyother galaxy in the universe. For want of a better anolagy they are in freefall and feel no acceleration wrt any other galaxy.



I have a tendency to fit equations to observations not the other way around. Space time is observed to be expanding so I do think you may be barking up the wrong tree in an expanding universe.
Do you have the einstein paper you are qouting in your paper, to post alongside your link.
I understand einstein was not religious other than stating goddoes not play dice with the universe. He may have modified your god statement atthe end of your paper to god is in everything. The god particle I think must originate from space with n dimensions, understand what space is and you might understandthe mind of god maybe 😉

[captcass]

Space time is observed to be expanding so I do think you may be barking up the wrong tree in an expanding universe.

There is much wrong with what you say, but I will just focus on this as I cannot copy my whole paper here.

The universe appears to be expanding. That doesn't mean it is expanding, as the red shift can also be explained through time dilation, as in my paper.

I do not alter Einstein's equations, I merely add the acceleration that creates the dilation effect to the equations, which eliminates illogical Big Bang singularities and infinite expansions, returning us to a logical universe, rather than the illogical one people are trying to grapple with that ignores the acceleration.

My theory does not alter Relativity, it completes it through an understanding of the time aspects and a proper understanding of the continuum..

[Colin2B]

I neither agree or disagree with him either, but do note others seem to be barking(mad) up the same tree.

The difference is that quite a few of these ‘others’ are offering reasoned arguments that are not full of holes. Anyone can come up with an idea that x happens due to y, but very few pur forward a credible argument to support their ideas.

[guest45734]

these ‘others’ are offering reasoned arguments that are not full of holes

A bit like the concept of the graviton which is a boson escaping a BH, and the concept of dark energy driving the expansion of space having nothing to do with gravity when it comes into contact with mass

Black holes, worm holes and white holes are based on Einsteins field equations. Exotic energy is required to maintain a worm hole, dark energy drives the expansion of space and appears to be the opposite of gravity and as I think Captcass above mentioned we could exist in a wormhole between the event horizon of a primordial BH and a WH.

We may well exist in a worm hole which would collapse around us, but is being maintained by the continual production of dark energy from the BH, in another dimension



 

[captcass]

I think Captcass above mentioned we could exist in a wormhole between the event horizon of a primordial BH and a WH.

No. In my paper I say we exist in an eternally evolving continuum that appears to exist between two event horizons where time appears to stop due to time dilation. Looking outward the dilation is created by the 2.2686*10^-18 s/s acceleration in proper time we all experience in our inertial frames. Looking inward towards the MECO (black hole) at the center of the galaxy the dilation is due to apparent mass accretion. I do not mention, nor do I believe in, "White Holes".

[guest45734]

I think Captcass above mentioned we could exist in a wormhole between the event horizon of a primordial BH and a WH.

No. In my paper I say we exist in an eternally evolving continuum that appears to exist between two event horizons where time appears to stop due to time dilation. Looking outward the dilation is created by the 2.2686*10^-18 s/s acceleration in proper time we all experience in our inertial frames. Looking inward towards the MECO (black hole) at the center of the galaxy the dilation is due to apparent mass accretion. I do not mention, nor do I believe in, "White Holes".

What constitutes your event horizons in your paper. EFE's indicate a BH could produce a WH, do you disagree with this part of the EFE's. Exotic energy is required to keep a worm hole open, this could be portrayed as dark energy.

I will have to have a read up on MECO Black holes as I have never heard of them before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object

[captcass]

What constitutes your event horizons in your paper. EFE's indicate a BH could produce a WH, do you disagree with this part of the EFE's.

I make that clear in the paper and gave you an abbreviated answer in my last post. In a dilation gradient, when time appears to slow by 1 s/s between frames, the rate of time = 0 and time appears to stop, which is the event horizon, and the transition point from timelike to lightlike to spacelike. We see this looking outwards at the cosmological horizon, and inwards at the MECO.

My paper completes EFE's by adding the above mentioned acceleration (which manifests the Hubble shift) to his time elements. This then prevents the formation of singularities or infinite expansions, as per my paper, by slightly distorting the geodesics.

I suggest you read Rudolph Schild and Darryl Leiter's paper on MECO's as it was Schild's team that discovered them. He suggested the change to my paper as I was just speculating a black hole was empty space, but his team confirmed it. This is the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748 

[Liz888]

In space, there is not even a drop of free expanse.

[captcass]

Just an update;...

Three months ago the Editor in Chief agreed to publish the paper. The hold up is on how. As you can imagine, there is a lot of controversy. Bangers are having a hard time with concepts in time.....
There are now 2 individuals supporting it and 2 not.......the 2 not did not provide demonstrable reasons why it does not work. It went back, I understand, to them, and perhaps to more, to see if anyone could find a demonstrable way to disprove it.

As I say, it has now been 3 months since then......

I am encouraged in that 3 months have now passed, regardless of the number of reviewers.....

I would remind readers of the current online version to just replace MECOs for black holes (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748) and understand that I also specify in the final, journal, version that the forces at the center of a spherical dilation pit translate the kinetic energy created by dilation into thermal energy.

The link, again, is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
This version now has 99 downloads.
Thanks again for being patient.

[mad aetherist]

1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing.

I dont like the idea that space is a substance -- i think that space is a void, ie that should be the definition.
Also i dont like the idea of a void expanding or contracting.
I am ok with quantum fluctuations etc, but i think that we-u should think of these as existing in space -- ie i dont think that the quantum fluctuations should be thort of as defining space or being space or forming space -- space is (should be) a void.

The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.

This sort of thinking is dangerous -- your-my brain might explode. Would space (the empty void) exist if nothing else (quantum stuff) existed?  This is a bad question. It overlooks the existence of subquantum stuff, ie stuff that is not void & not subquantum. But it then leads to the question of whether space (void) would exist if nothing else (quantum & subquantum stuff) existed? Keeping in mind that everything we feel & see is quantum -- including radiation (ie em radiation), & free photons (eg light), & confined photons (eg electrons & quarks etc). And subquantum stuff would include say aether & aetherons & quantum foam & dynamic space etc. Gravity is not included as a thing here -- gravity is a process of the aether (it is due to the acceleration of the flow of aether). Strictly speaking quantum stuff is also a process of the aether because all quantum stuff is due to photons, & photons are a vibration or spin or something of the aether.
A related question is whether space (void) is infinite. BigBangers say no.
A related question is whether space (void) existed before the BB.  BigBangers say yes (i think).

2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
Would anyone agree or disagree completely with the above statements or agree in part?

There is no dark energy, there is no expansion of space. There is no contraction of space (void) & no contraction of space (aether) & no contraction of space (pulsating somethings or others).

In support of the ideas above the following links may cast some light as to where my ideas grew from.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0309016.pdf Quantum foam inflow gravity.
https://futurism.com/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the concept of quantum foam inflow, why is it not taken seriously.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of quantum foam inflow.
It is not taken seriously because to do so would destroy the credibility of modern Einsteinian science. It would expose the censorship & bullying etc by the Einsteinian mafia that controls modern science in this current Einsteinian Dark Age. But change is coming.

[mad aetherist]

In the OP I referred to quantum inflow gravity by R Cahill, I gave a link to his paper, I have found this link refuting his claims https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0407059.pdf.
However various inflow concepts are persued by many other people.

T D Martin points out an error in Cahill's equations. Martin might be correct. But (1) that does not mean that quantum foam inflow into matter does not exist & (2) it does not mean that the acceleration of that inflow does not exist, & (3) it does not mean that that acceleration is not the cause of gravity. (4) Martin does not show that anything in Cahill's paper re Process Physics is wrong or silly, except for Cahill's equations (& here Martin might be wrong)(i havent looked at the equations).

Martin says that the simple superposition of flow (eg background aether wind) & acceleration of flow (eg aether inflow into a sink, eg Earth) is a problem in Cahill's theory. No it aint.
When Cahill says quantum foam he of course means aether. When Cahill says dynamic space he of course means aether.

It is unfortunate that Cahill says quantum foam, he should of course say subquantum foam. Aether is subquantum.
On the other hand if the foam is quantum then that rules out aether, & this then allows the foam being made of quantum stuff coming in & out of existence or something in a way that gives a nett zero something or other (eg virtual particles), which gives the appearance of a void, but is actually full of energy or potential energy. But that is unfortunate. It leads to threads like this thread.

[mad aetherist]

Just an update;...

Three months ago the Editor in Chief agreed to publish the paper. The hold up is on how. As you can imagine, there is a lot of controversy. Bangers are having a hard time with concepts in time.....
There are now 2 individuals supporting it and 2 not.......the 2 not did not provide demonstrable reasons why it does not work. It went back, I understand, to them, and perhaps to more, to see if anyone could find a demonstrable way to disprove it.

As I say, it has now been 3 months since then......

I am encouraged in that 3 months have now passed, regardless of the number of reviewers.....

I would remind readers of the current online version to just replace MECOs for black holes (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748) and understand that I also specify in the final, journal, version that the forces at the center of a spherical dilation pit translate the kinetic energy created by dilation into thermal energy.

The link, again, is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
This version now has 99 downloads.
Thanks again for being patient.

Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
Or the external effects are due to gravity (if gravity travels at much more than c), eg some sort of tidal effect (ie not magnetic).