Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: nilak on 09/10/2016 11:54:27
-
Starting from the wave / particle duality when we observe usual waves like sound or water waves, we know they are actually made of molecules, that we can imagine being particles. That means to have a wave you need particles interacting following some rules/laws. However, when we zoom in, it might slightly different, but the same idea.
We can define space as a made of infinitely small points (infinitely small is not equal to zero) close together. To correlate with what we know about relativity, we can define space as having different densities. An absolute density cannot be measured because there is always an infinity of points in a fixed volume. It is not quite an aether.
Each point in space has some properties. Mass corresponds to high density of space. Properties can be transfered to the next point. The speed of transfer between two adjiacent points is alwys the same and it is c. The time of transfer is infinitely small. c=dx/dt. A universal time cannot be set because we don't know what density of space to refer to.
Magnetic field is a distribution of properties and values for points in space.
Because space is not homogenous the time passing in different regions of space apears to varry. It is similar or possibly equivalent to spacetime concept from general relativity.
Now lets imagine how objects we know interact, like photons.
Heavy mass increases space density. All properties traveling in that region of space will slow down but their "internal clocks" will also tick slower, so they
don't feel the difference.
Photons have two properties we are interested now, the magnetic and electric properties.
Depending on how it is generated (length of emission), when the magnetic properties starts to travel in one direction. The magnetic values on a perpendicular axis will also travel at the same speed. But there is also the Electric field that acts on the magnetic field. The result is that somehow the magnetic and electric properties follow a straight line. The values that travel perpendicular cannot travel too far and always follow the wave. Thus the photon information is not lost sideways and sideway interactions are whith some small limits.
When more information is pushed into a photon, it cannot increase its speed because the space in front has the same density. Hence, it increases its frequency similarily to an object traveling through air. Or, say we have a wave and want to push it faster. You can't. When you let it free, it keeps it frequency and then the speed is the same. (On the other hand water waves also have amplitude that if changed, speed changes, so we compare same amplitude).
Heavy "particles/objects" like electrons have their mass generated by the density of space. The density travels along with the electron and the electron frequency appears to increase when compared to light "particles". The electrons are simply a collection of space properties gradually condensed in the space it occupies.
I didn't have time to analyze the quantum behaviour or more complicated objects like quarks and gluons. It is only a simple concept, that I want to know wether it can be a starting point or not. For example entanglement could occur if the density of space on the line of entanglement is infinitely small ( not zero). However, apparently there is nothing to cause the space density to change.
Retrocausality would ony be an illusion for simgle waves. If the wave is reflected perfectly back it is equivalent to going back in time but only for that wave alone.
This concept assumes globally time is always one way. Locally, it may appear to go backwards but it is still forward. For example if an universe in a box at some point information would start going exactly in reverse it would still be going forward it time. When it reaches the starting point the direction of motion can't switch back and breaks the cycle backwards.
I'm not an expert so things I' ve said here might be silly. If you can falsify this concept or some aspects no problem.
-
Eventually the dual concept of mass and energy will be accepted by main stream. Your ideas have a basis in change but do not follow relativity in a logical manner. In order for c to be a uniform constant, the energy state of the universe has to be constant. So fundamental energy is the same throughout the universe. Time is fundamental energy that causes motion and that motion causes time. If everything were frozen in place where electrons did not move time would not exist (like in a black hole). So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.
Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.
Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.
-
Starting from the wave / particle duality when we observe usual waves like sound or water waves, we know they are actually made of molecules, that we can imagine being particles. That means to have a wave you need particles interacting following some rules/laws. However, when we zoom in, it might slightly different, but the same idea.
We can define space as a made of infinitely small points (infinitely small is not equal to zero) close together.
An interesting post, I have not long been awake so will re-read it all later when I am awake enough to give it my full attention.
The part I quoted you explain so much better than myself.
We can define space as infinitesimally small ''points'' of negativeness, adjoined by 0.
-
... So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.
Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.
Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.
My model shows that local time relates to local c. For an object, Locally c0= dx0/dt0; but for an object close to a bigger mass space is shrinked and also locally, c1=dx1/dt1. dx1<dx2. Always dt0=dt1. Then c1<c0. However they define as c0 and c1 their own causality speed and cannot be exceeded locally.
The particles of space are not quite particles because their motion is limited by how much space stretches and contracts. The source of relativity is the space itself and the time between two adjiant points which is fixed but cannot be measured since it is infinitely small.
-
Each point in space has some properties. Mass corresponds to high density of space. Properties can be transfered to the next point. The speed of transfer between two adjiacent points is alwys the same and it is c. The time of transfer is infinitely small. c=dx/dt. A universal time cannot be set because we don't know what density of space to refer to.
I think, I need to change the definition here. I had something else in my mind. The time of transfering information from one point to next one is fixed, not the speed.
-
In relativity the speed is fixed but not the distance. Only mass affects the distance.
-
... So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.
Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.
Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.
My model shows that local time relates to local c. For an object, Locally c0= dx0/dt0; but for an object close to a bigger mass space is shrinked and also locally, c1=dx1/dt1. dx1<dx2. Always dt0=dt1. Then c1<c0. However they define as c0 and c1 their own causality speed and cannot be exceeded locally.
The particles of space are not quite particles because their motion is limited by how much space stretches and contracts. The source of relativity is the space itself and the time between two adjiant points which is fixed but cannot be measured since it is infinitely small.
I think, I need to change the definition here. I had something else in my mind. The time of transfering information from one point to next one is fixed, not the speed.
As for an example, a river is flowing, and in the middle of this river is a rock, the rock will be influenced by this river it will start to move, but if this rock had so little density that it could litteraly ignore the water flowing, than from a tirth perspective, when observed by someone that is still influenced by the river flow, the rock would seems to be moving at the river's velocity, when from the river perspective, the rock was simple stood still on its own, with the only reference as being the point of origin (A) and the destination (B)...
I can relate with your perspective, specialy with "the time of transfering information from A to B is fixed (adrifting), not the speed (does not posses acceleration on it's own)...
Intristing point of view, can you tell me, "I'll consider the awnser only as especulation", the question is, do you consider that, the light, has a speed when in reference to space, if so, witch number would describle this speed of light, our current one, or if not so, to be something (concept) totaly different from "speed of light"?
-
....
I can relate with your perspective, specialy with "the time of transfering information from A to B is fixed (adrifting), not the speed (does not posses acceleration on it's own)...
Intristing point of view, can you tell me, "I'll consider the awnser only as especulation", the question is, do you consider that, the light, has a speed when in reference to space, if so, witch number would describle this speed of light, our current one, or if not so, to be something (concept) totaly different from "speed of light"?
I realize, my concept is wrong because all observers will agree on the same time everywhere and we know that it is not the case.
-
The speed of light is constant no matter your speed or gravitational state. The speed of light can be viewed as the energy state of space. Equivalency between SR and GR is dilation of space energy for GR and percent of energy used for SR in velocity. c is total zero point energy being used for velocity c. Even between galaxies dilation is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. Galaxies have their own dilation we view as their lensing. 75% of the light produced in a galaxy is in the center. This is where the lensing is the greatest and red shifted the most compared to our position in our own galaxy. So we view all galaxies as red shifted from our observed position. The big bang is based on SR red shift calculations when the red shift is actually GR. The background radiation is from the energy state of space being affected by mass. The increased red shift with distance is a prism effect of convex lensing needed to view further into the universe. What is wrong with current science allowing magic to rule our understanding?
-
The speed of light is constant no matter your speed or gravitational state. The speed of light can be viewed as the energy state of space. Equivalency between SR and GR is dilation of space energy for GR and percent of energy used for SR in velocity. c is total zero point energy being used for velocity c. Even between galaxies dilation is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. Galaxies have their own dilation we view as their lensing. 75% of the light produced in a galaxy is in the center. This is where the lensing is the greatest and red shifted the most compared to our position in our own galaxy. So we view all galaxies as red shifted from our observed position. The big bang is based on SR red shift calculations when the red shift is actually GR. The background radiation is from the energy state of space being affected by mass. The increased red shift with distance is a prism effect of convex lensing needed to view further into the universe. What is wrong with current science allowing magic to rule our understanding?
I thought it might be a more natural explanation for wave and particle behavior and also to match the empirical evidence about relativity.
-
Yes of course like sound uses air the spectrum uses dark mass energy. There is a mechanical reason for relativity.
-
Yes of course like sound uses air the spectrum uses dark mass energy. There is a mechanical reason for relativity.
Could you tell me where I can find some explanation about this ? I would like to know how the "spectrum" you said, relates to dark mass energy.
-
[Quote Could you tell me where I can find some explanation about this ? I would like to know how the "spectrum" you said, relates to dark mass energy \Quote]
Main stream uses dark mass and dark energy to relate it to the standard model. Like a photon is a particle and a wave called a virtual photon. This is because relativity can not allow a photon to have any mass and space is empty. This cannot be correct mechanically. A virtual photon cannot transfer energy and relativity fails when the photon has mass. Here comes Dark Mass and Dark Energy to explain why galaxies move as a rotating disk rather than at different speeds along the disk. Mechanically a Dark Mass Energy would have to have certain properties and physically real separate from macro mass. It has to propagate the spectrum at c. It also has to move electrons relative to c because measured light and measured time are confounded in every frame. If this is not correct relativity runs on magic. Electrons move by magic. Where is it written that dark mass energy is the cause of the spectrum? Logic is self evident and there is no proof without a knowledge of the mechanical process. Main stream only has postulates not mechanics in their standard model. Dark mass energy and a virtual photon is incoherent to describe relativity. Energy appears to be of space and not macro mass. Something has to move electrons in macro mass. So fundamental energy is not of mass but of space. You can chose to believe magic or mechanics. I chose mechanics.
-
Concept update:
The idea of properties travelling from one point to another is not correct because the waves would disipate evenly to surrounding point.
Instead, points in space have a fixed amount of properties(At least 2), like electric and magnetic properties. The values of these properties can travel at speed c, but in a different way. For example a static electrical charge value at a point in space creates values on next points similarily to pulling a perfect elastic, infinitely long band, at speed c, with propagation of values also at speed c. But stationary charges do not exist, only slow waves, do. Slow waves are generated by spacetime elasticity. Apparent slow waves can be the effect of waves making closed loops.
The properties of space points overlap and interract with each other creating waves of different behaviours. All matter in the universe is waves of these values. The universe is a field of these values.
This concept now it needs to be consistent witn relativity and the behaviour of electric and magnetic field.
-
My example with the lower density rock adrifiting on a river was not based on magic nor relativety, just rising a question:
lets satate that C is the fastest thing on an ordinary field that has certain density and constant acceleration (galaxy/universe)
Let's assume that Earth for example, does indeed moves at its speed in function of the suns mass bending this very medium...
Accept that the earth and the sun both have something in common, energy base, great density that is producing mass, this alone force them to cause friction on space, reason why they bend it...
Acept the fact that if one trows a rock up it will fall back, so there is gravity, but if one trows the rock with enought acceleration it will escape thi very gravity...
Now thinking about this, at least I, conclude that the rock adquired enought velocity to surpass its own weight, reducing the effect os it's own mass on space for a brief moment, now accepting that as soon as the rock reaches the vaccum of space it will conserve its momentum (but will not gain any speed from its mass), means that the mass is limitating once again the acceleration byt still once again subjecting the dense rock to the medium, so it will not speed up nor slow down on it's own...
I'm just wondering if "C" is not a speed of it's own, I indded considering the possibility that light is simple "adrifiting" on the medium that is constantly acceleration...
I do nto accept this, only reviewing it, that "C" is not a trully speed or acceleration from A to B, but simple a "null state", where mass of light reaches a limit that is so insignificant that it is able to adrift from A to B simple by using it's initial push, (at the very moment it was formed, this moment being "C"), all the rest of the path it travels, and during each different dilatation on space it finds, it simple reajust "C" to the state of the medium, what I mean is Light is originated at "C" and light remains at "C", but (C), not being a "speed to achieve" but a state when mass susrpasses the minimum density to be affected by the mediun's density and acceleration...
I'm not questioning that "C" is not the reason behind the spping of the electron, only wondring that the electron and particles also have reached and exist closely to this limit of mass, enought to almost reach "C", assuming some of the light effects, for this I also only thinking if the particles are sppining just because (individualy) their masses are very closely to "C", this allowing the acceleration to force them to accelerate "individually" on their own...
Such acceleration of individuall particles, would result in charges and lot of ramifications of different effect, probably when interaction with one another resulting in complex matter and its bounds...
The photon for being so massless reaches C, it is still carring energy, but probably with not enough energy to cause electromagnetism on it's own, not resonating on masses, only adrifiting at state of "C" from A to B, while everything is being constantly realocated their place in time, including the ray of light, reaching B only by being null...
Sounds weido but if space is a road, and light is the car, this car posses so lower mass that it can stood still above this road, while the road is doing all the job, also being massless this car would not be subjected by gravity, thus there would be no orientation on its own, spping freely in function of the road... This "massless state as being "C", a state of energy/mass, and not trully a physical acceleration of a massless particle...
Remember, I do not believe in magic, stick with relativety and matematicians, but never the less at each new discovery the base must be reviwed in all its possibilities, witch only one would be correct, from 100 different options one need to equality consider the other 99 worng awnsers, this can't be interpreted as magic or ignored by convenience, the only thing that we know is that speed of light is C, we name it, we gave a simbolic number, "C" is from relativety, but reconsider what our "C" is, does not change relativety, only reveals that we where simple confused...
It's a static equation, E=mc2, seems to be correct, but if we where to have reached the right awnser blaming the wrong subjects, it could morph into X=YZ2, but, still being the same relativety we know, one should accept this when thinking about the universe...
So I ask, can the speed of light "C", being not a limit speed of space-time, but instead, "C" being a state of mass, both reachable by possing lower mass or by compensating the own mass by accelerating on time, "C" being adrifiting on space, reasambling to us, that light was indeed accelerating on it's own, when by all means ti was stood still at "C" from A to B?
It's difficult to state when do stick with your last explanations on "what gravity is", that was the most short acertive resume of what we know that I can remember, my question comes from the fact that nothing will ever move faster in time, than something that is adrifiting on it, like a liquid flow, light would be moving at "C" right becose for being massless it is able to stood still in space, from A to B, it still does exist in time, and for so it is relocated frame to frame along with everything else, but never submited to influence of space...
In a short sentence, a medium that is accelerating, nothing will ever be more fast on such field that something that can ignore it's flow, nothing should be able to move freely and faster than something that is doing so by being stopped...
That being said, I do believe in relativety, just relativety says how to run the universe, not how the universe runs...
-
You are trying to combine the standard model with a totally new one. That is like trying to use a mac program in windows. They are incompatible. You need to throw out one operating system to create a different one. We have a problem with virtual photons where we are trying to propagate bullets (particles) as photons. If we have a matrix (aether type) of operating system relativity has a completely different cause. The cause becomes mechanical rather than postulates.
If we have a matrix it has to be the reason for electron movement, light speed, magnetism, gravity, weak and strong force. It cannot flow in a direction to move light although it might flow. Because light is constant in every direction. This only leaves one possibility for the propagation of light. c is a spin of particles (dark mass) and the spin of the particles dark energy at c. This is a definition of a different operating system. All observations need to be redefined through this system for mechanical relativity. The standard model has no mechanical basis for relativity. Postulates was a good start but only a start.
What is your basis of a mechanical operating system for relativity?
-
You are trying to combine the standard model with a totally new one. That is like trying to use a mac program in windows. They are incompatible. You need to throw out one operating system to create a different one. We have a problem with virtual photons where we are trying to propagate bullets (particles) as photons. If we have a matrix (aether type) of operating system relativity has a completely different cause. The cause becomes mechanical rather than postulates.
If we have a matrix it has to be the reason for electron movement, light speed, magnetism, gravity, weak and strong force. It cannot flow in a direction to move light although it might flow. Because light is constant in every direction. This only leaves one possibility for the propagation of light. c is a spin of particles (dark mass) and the spin of the particles dark energy at c. This is a definition of a different operating system. All observations need to be redefined through this system for mechanical relativity. The standard model has no mechanical basis for relativity. Postulates was a good start but only a start.
What is your basis of a mechanical operating system for relativity?
As awnser for your question, I do believe on the same process you describled so well on"what is gravity", it's the logical awnser achieved by observation, rather than postulate...
I editing the previous awnsers for I usded with write down a lot, so I'll be brief as possible...
I do believe that light, are not made of single particles (photons)
But as for alternative perspective of the same E=mc2, I wondering a speed of light that is not provinient form the massless photons traveling at "C", as C being a speed that these photons are able to achieve...
wondering if "C" is not a massless state, in this case of light, cause light would be like a photography of this very eather,,
See I do not believe that a ray of light and empty space are completely two different things, in fact I seeing light and space, photons and aether as being the same thing...
A "C" that is the speed of light cause it is is the maxximum speed wicth the "temporary construction of aether"(photon) can be created...
For an example as one turn on a light bulb, at the very moment the energy start to be released, aether respond to the energy at "C", and by respond to it I ment, "sort of envelop the energy" with some sort of temporary spiral construction at the minimum level...
Light energy is being released, not in form o photons, as single real particles, but as contructions of aether itself, around the energy, photon as being not virtual but temporary carrier to transport the information...
For me we commited a hudge mistaken on Einstein experiments with photonic space fabric, the experiment when he decided that photons where real particles...
For me if ether is to be real, it would be acting as a carrier of energy, at the moment light occurs, it's already at "C" cause "C" wouldn't be a speed, as for speed of light, but "C" as being the proprierty of being apart from it's inflence by being practicaly massless...
So I wondering around the same formulas and math, but on the possibilitie that "the photons" never were real particles, but construction like particles made from aether, as conclusion "photon" being a contruction, a shape made of spping around energy, consequently and instantaneously setting particles to spin "individually".
The individually sppining of such particles, as the electron, only a catalistor to interact with this very aether, forming photons all the time, and each of this constructions"photons, as being the true source of energy of all sorts, all energy comming from space, atomic structure being bounded by the sppining of particles, at the same time, as each photon would be space itself, presented everywhere, on space, inside a bar of metal, inside a rock, inside sun, the space within the particles, within the atoms, all this space being massless aether, photons apearing and desapearing, shaping and reshaping in function of atomic structure...
It's hard to make it short cause despising following the same E=mc2, and the same constancy of "C", the simple divergion from the photon concept changes a lot of perspective, no much to add cause looking for the ramifications, the math is still the same, just very different perspective, if possible what it would allowed is for someone that can work with formulas and math...
But all the logic let me to believe into relativity too, maybe jsut subjection, but our eyes evolved to do simple stuff, they can betray us...
When inside this possibilitie many things change on perspective, as for example, at this moment, one in any dark room, would be already srrownded by "photons" or more specificaly aether, its simple there transmiting spectrun, gravity, and acting normally, but when light is occuring is not that photons are being produced, much less photons that exchange place with other photons, only simple constructions happening at "C" around bits of energy, with pratically no mass, but for effects photons were already against the eyes of the observer, even before, during and after any light was added to the frame...
As many presume, including I, that when a photon hits a dense atomic structure, the energy is released and the photon is still existing and exchanging place with antother one that get loose, photon as being a construction of the ather as soon as it hits a dense atomic structure the energy is absorbed and deflected, new photons will be created at "C", but new photons nonentless, the carrier that have hitted the wall was simple a shape in function of the energy that was present there, when the energy left, the photon construction simple left to be, return to be what it was...
Can be only subjection, and part of it is, but there is a persistent tought that light is a state of massless energy that achieved sppining and "C" state... But as for the aether, it is there, except inside macro mass (more specificaly outhercores), the same principle goes for the nucleo of the atoms, the very reason why both exist...
About models I'm not trully interested in none of both models, but despise my opinion and puting asside alternatives, I agree with you 100% about relativity and observation, is just that there is already milhons of people working on it for years, ok that Einstein was so genius, but talking about math again, the time is taking for a real breaktrough on this area, is not matching, so despise my beliefs one need to wonder if something is not out of place with the correct relativity, something that does not allowed real progress... I understand that experimentation and observation both takes time, but still so many genius outhere, some more than Einstein, altoguh, by some reason, we are still struggling with the same issues...
-
As you yourself said, "energy shouldbe of space, not mass", there is only one type of energy correct, different wavelengthts, different process, but you agree that there is only one "source of energy", don't you?
I reading as much as I can to fix the wholes on this alternative perspective, that I trully believe will achieve nothing, but seems logical to explore all possibilities...
Resuming into a question, do you believe on the possibilitie that "photon" is a temporary contruction of the aether, proving its existence, that are created and dismissed wherever energy is not traveling, occuring?
For gravity, electric and magnetic field, I believe there is only one source. A disturbance in either, electric or magnetic field can create everything. However, I don't know much about the strong force and weak force, only the basics.
Second question: I think, based on my model, that the energy is always traveling but, yes, photons should be a creation of the aether.
An example can be the big bang. To create the disturbance you first need the space (aether). This space initially is a singularity, infinitely small (again not zero), then you can create a disturbance in the magnetic field as a potential energy. Space itself cannot expand by itself because it is own gravitational effect. The disturbance should make space dilate. Travelling waves, within this space should be at a speed proportional with space density. Now I just realized there is another weird problem. The space singularity must be infinitely big. If it isn't then you can't create the disturbance because it reaches the space limit before you release it. Hence, the potential energy of space is infinitely big. You need to make the expansion happen, so, probably you need again infinitely big energy the same value and then release it. This example is not clear to me actually, but I'll think about it.
-
Alex Siqueira
« on: 13/10/2016 20:37:01 »
Yes we are not making progress in the area of gravity and magnetism. This is because the main stream standard model does not have anything to work with. They cannot distinguish between mechanics and magic for the motion of the electron.
You and I view the issues very similarly.
Nilak
« on: Today at 00:31:37 »
I am afraid I do not have faith in the BB. That is magic to my way of thinking. Rather than SR red shift it is more likely to be GR red shift dilation. We can view the GR lens in galaxies. This dilation of space causes dilation red shift from the center of galaxies where 75% of the light is produced. We are 75% out from the center in less GR dilation. So by position we view all galaxies as red shifted.
Fundamental Energy is always spinning and possibly rotating with mass. This is the aura around massive objects. A change in the density of dark mass particles that spin at c. The dark energy from dark mass (fundamental energy).
Light is the stretching of dark mass energy (Aether) when an electron jumps from its rest state. The hf is the jump distance of the electron. The red shift is the dilation in GR or speed in SR. The jump is longer in more dilated space. The jump is longer with speed in SR. There is an equivalence between SR and GR.
-
What is your basis of a mechanical operating system for relativity?
The basis is the space density concept with constant t intervals.
Concept update:
There are two possibilities:
1. space density changes close large mass object (that are in fact higher values of this density). It means constant time between each point is space, but where the density is increasing there are more points that occupy the volume. It has the advantage that in between points there cannot be empty space, which is more plausible for my understanding. Also space has a structure, but empty void doesn't. This means beyond the boundaries of this structured space (which can be finite, mathematicaly), there is "absolute nothingness"(see recent topic on this forum). The downside of this concept is that it allows generation of new points from nothing. The new space created has new potential energy, but you need energy to create extra space, so conservation of energy is obeyed.
Constant time intervals vs. constant speed makes more sense since speed in not a fundamental property but time and distance are.
2. Space density doesn't change, but the scale expands. If you draw gridlines, the distance between them is increasing, but also the time between gridlines does, it means constant c, that is in fact GR, nothing new. But the novelty o want to bring here is that space has a structure as an aether made of points and matter is also part of it, not distinct entities.
This second concept allows absolute nothingness (empty void) between points of space and prohibits the propagation process.
So the first model is in my opinion a better description of the reality.
Even in simulation programs when trying to simulate gravity ot whatever you want, you first need to alocate space, before you place the position or information, and you can do it dinamically as well.
Light can travel "through"absolute nothingness (it creates the space) but that is part of the expansion of the universe. But our universe has space already allocated.
I've just found a paper where Einstein also said:
"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."
-
[Quote/ I've just found a paper where Einstein also said:
"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it." \Quote]
I read that many times. He had a subjective opinion. Its only when we ascribe spin state of motion to it can we describe relativity mechanically. Einstein was only human. He made many mistakes although relativity was not one of them.
[Quote\ Concept update:
There are two possibilities:
1. space density changes close large mass object (that are in fact higher values of this density). It means constant time between each point is space, but where the density is increasing there are more points that occupy the volume. It has the advantage that in between points there cannot be empty space, which is more plausible for my understanding. Also space has a structure, but empty void doesn't. This means beyond the boundaries of this structured space (which can be finite, mathematicaly), there is "absolute nothingness"(see recent topic on this forum). The downside of this concept is that it allows generation of new points from nothing. The new space created has new potential energy, but you need energy to create extra space, so conservation of energy is obeyed.
Constant time intervals vs. constant speed makes more sense since speed in not a fundamental property but time and distance are.
2. Space density doesn't change, but the scale expands. If you draw gridlines, the distance between them is increasing, but also the time between gridlines does, it means constant c, that is in fact GR, nothing new. But the novelty o want to bring here is that space has a structure as an aether made of points and matter is also part of it, not distinct entities.
This second concept allows absolute nothingness (empty void) between points of space and prohibits the propagation process. /Quote]
Depending on the operating system you use to describe a theory there are many more than two.
If energy is of space as I suspect dilation and clock tick rate slowing is expansion of dark mass energy particles increasing the distance and measuring stick. If energy is of magic electron motion than it is more particles hindering speed of tick rate. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum.
So you have to describe your operating system before your claim relativistic effects. Unless you are not following Relativity. If that's the case you can claim anything.
Relativity has a mechanical cause. Either a substance to transfer energy (an Ether type) or the void type by main stream. Only you can chose to which you subscribe.
-
So you have to describe your operating system before your claim relativistic effects. Unless you are not following Relativity. If that's the case you can claim anything.
Relativity has a mechanical cause. Either a substance to transfer energy (an Ether type) or the void type by main stream. Only you can chose to which you subscribe.
Relativity, like quantum mechanics are theories that use mathematical concepts, based on observations. But they don't explain all observations. My model is based on some assumptions that I consider to be correct like in GR: clocks work faster away from large mass objects and slower when closer to them. I use a different idea to get to this result, not constant c but constant t. Hopefully I will be able to make new predictions or explain unknown misteries.
However, the main idea of the concept is not relativity but the space as a stucture of points with properties and not waves and particles in empty void. Currently, I'm in favor of constant t, but a similar model can be design for constant c.
-
Yes relativity postulate is constant c. Time is a man made concept that is explained very well by relativity mathematics. Tick rates change depending on the space you occupy. So what we measure as time is different by the math of relativity. Saying time is constant is going backwards.
Time is just a relative speed of reactions while we all are in the present. We are just a biological clock. SR speed reduces the available energy of c by using it for speed. This is reflected in tick rate of clocks.
-
Yes relativity postulate is constant c. Time is a man made concept that is explained very well by relativity mathematics. Tick rates change depending on the space you occupy. So what we measure as time is different by the math of relativity. Saying time is constant is going backwards.
Yes, you are right. My mistake was I think because I didn't separate coordinated time by proper time. When I said time is constant, that was actually coordinated time, but proper time it isn't. Proper speed is constant. This is relativity, and not a different concept.
Time is just a relative speed of reactions while we all are in the present. We are just a biological clock. SR speed reduces the available energy of c by using it for speed. This is reflected in tick rate of clocks.
Now if I follow my model:
If part of E is used for speed, m1c1^2=m2c2^2. c1,c2 are coordinated speeds. If c1>c2 then m1<m2. if mass is coordinated space density (sd), sd1<sd2. This means that, when comparig two particles, with different masses, we compare space densities which are different. Proper densities are the same.
-
Einstein used proper speed as a constant. This aspect of Relativity is very important. Measured distances change by dilation and speed. There is an equivalence between SR and GR. We can show by math the visual length of a measuring stick lengthens as we approach c. This has nothing to do with the Lorentz contraction of an observer at rest. The physical size of a measuring stick does not change with speed (SR) just the visual length. It is the same with the Lorentz contraction. This can be shown geometrically with the finite speed of light competing with the speed of an object. In GR (gravity) dilation is the equivalence. What is amazing, the photon and electron are confounded to measure the same speed of light, in a vacuum, in every frame. A clock can be placed in any angle compared to the vector speed and geometrically, shown to tick at the same rate. Both a light clock and a mechanical clock tick in synchronization. This is proof there is a control mechanism fixing both the electron cycle and photon distance, in every frame to be the same measured ratio.
Your idea is a higher density of micro particles slowing down the speed of light to take longer. I thought through that process in the past and had to abandon that approach. The reason for me to abandon it was it did not satisfy all four pats of Relativity. Specifically it fails dilation. We know light curves around a celestial body by expansion of space. Your first thought is, correct there must be more particles and it curves around them. But when you think deeper you begin to realize, there is a control mechanism of space time measurement. This has to be in the form of energy. Now the question becomes where is the fundamental energy. Two choices come to mind. It is either mass as science now believes or it is of space. We can consider the electrons as fundamental energy but that does not satisfy electrons and photons being confounded in every frame. In relativity mathematics photons have to be virtual or just not part of mass. This leaves us with one logical choice. The energy has to be of space to move electrons and photons in a confounded manor.
Energy spin state of c would have to be stretched in the presence of mass occupying space. The physical clock electron based moves further to remain the same relative speed of c. There is no logical reason for more particles/mass. Mass would reduce the density of energy by taking up space energy once occupied and removing that energy to move the electrons. Gravity being caused by mass attracted to a lower energy density.
I might be incorrect in my logic but you need to find a operating system for relativity as a whole and not just one specific cause of one observation.
We are in a catch 22 in our understanding using postulates. We are all making claims based on our own operating system of beliefs. Main stream has nothing to work with because of the MMX. Rather than disproving one type of Ether which is all it disproved, main stream science refuses to consider an Ether not yet disproved.
Main stream removed the tools needed to understand the four forces. They traded mechanics in for magic.
-
There are some things that I find interesting analizing, considering my model.
About dark matter.
Based on my model, mass is a space density index and space is a field of points. Mass can only be attributed to a volume of space. So it is spacedensity*volume=the number of points. The number of points is actually infinite. But mass is a relativistic concept so you can chose a fixed value for it. Dark matter is the made of the points we can't measure. Basically the mass of the visible matter plus the mass of the univisible matter makes the entire universe. We can attribute the whole universe a mass.
Universe expansion.
From Big Bang the universe has expanded to a certain value. That mean the field of points reached a certain limit.
The distribution of particles and their state gives the expansion rate. It is possible to estimate this distribuition if we could measure the coordinated speed of light in certain directions and at certain distances. Also, the increasing expansion rate could be the cause of higher space density at the outer edge of the universe. It is like a big dark matter shell around the universe.
-
Yes your idea is logical for two issues of an operating system. What in your model moves the electron and photon confounded in every frame?
-
The reason for me to abandon it was it did not satisfy all four pats of Relativity. Specifically it fails dilation. We
I don't see right now, why it fails dilation. The coordinated time is constant, proper space and time dilates and contracts proportionaly creating a field of density regions, leaving the measurement of c in proper reference frame constant. C=dx''/dt''=dx'/dt' the external observer sees c'=dx'/dt, c''=dx''/dt. Also, density of space is constant in abery reference frame, and it varies when viewed from an observer.
In relativity mathematics photons have to be virtual or just not part of mass.
If I follow my model, photons are propagating values of space points properties. So, their mass can be viewed as mass of the space they occupy at a particular moment. That mass would be not detectable and could be associated with dark matter. These photons would't produce mass, but only propagate information. Do you think there is a problem here ?
-
Yes your idea is logical for two issues of an operating system. What in your model moves the electron and photon confounded in every frame?
I didn't analyze this part very well and this seems to me, by far, the hardest part. The values of space points properties propagate from one point to the next. I see it similarily to pulling a string. The easier way to analyze this may seem, by studying static fields, however, according to my model, nothing is static, except when stopping time.
The string pulling analogy may lead to a conclusion that photons are generated in pairs, which I have to check. When you pull a string, the waves go both ways.
Imagine turning on a electromagnet and watching the effect on a piece of paper on which you sprinkle a layer of iron powder. If you slow down time, you should see how the pieces of iron move. The propagation of values should be at speed c. The magnitude of the values of magnetic field in each space particle will decrease with distance but the spreading out never stops. Whem turning off the current, the values should propagate like when releasing a string. The energy of the magnet is released and will continue manifest it's presence in this space of property points.
-
Einstein used proper speed as a constant. This aspect of Relativity is very important. Measured distances change by dilation and speed. There is an equivalence between SR and GR. We can show by math the visual length of a measuring stick lengthens as we approach c. This has nothing to do with the Lorentz contraction of an observer at rest. The physical size of a measuring stick does not change with speed (SR) just the visual length. It is the same with the Lorentz contraction. This can be shown geometrically with the finite speed of light competing with the speed of an object. In GR (gravity) dilation is the equivalence. What is amazing, the photon and electron are confounded to measure the same speed of light, in a vacuum, in every frame. A clock can be placed in any angle compared to the vector speed and geometrically, shown to tick at the same rate. Both a light clock and a mechanical clock tick in synchronization. This is proof there is a control mechanism fixing both the electron cycle and photon distance, in every frame to be the same measured ratio.
Your idea is a higher density of micro particles slowing down the speed of light to take longer. I thought through that process in the past and had to abandon that approach. The reason for me to abandon it was it did not satisfy all four pats of Relativity. Specifically it fails dilation. We know light curves around a celestial body by expansion of space. Your first thought is, correct there must be more particles and it curves around them. But when you think deeper you begin to realize, there is a control mechanism of space time measurement. This has to be in the form of energy. Now the question becomes where is the fundamental energy. Two choices come to mind. It is either mass as science now believes or it is of space. We can consider the electrons as fundamental energy but that does not satisfy electrons and photons being confounded in every frame. In relativity mathematics photons have to be virtual or just not part of mass. This leaves us with one logical choice. The energy has to be of space to move electrons and photons in a confounded manor.
Energy spin state of c would have to be stretched in the presence of mass occupying space. The physical clock electron based moves further to remain the same relative speed of c. There is no logical reason for more particles/mass. Mass would reduce the density of energy by taking up space energy once occupied and removing that energy to move the electrons. Gravity being caused by mass attracted to a lower energy density.
I might be incorrect in my logic but you need to find a operating system for relativity as a whole and not just one specific cause of one observation.
We are in a catch 22 in our understanding using postulates. We are all making claims based on our own operating system of beliefs. Main stream has nothing to work with because of the MMX. Rather than disproving one type of Ether which is all it disproved, main stream science refuses to consider an Ether not yet disproved.
Main stream removed the tools needed to understand the four forces. They traded mechanics in for magic.
i'm very impressed with the lack of emotion and sharp focus you demonstrate on your awnsers.
Tell me, I know trough observation of photons is impossible cause the very interaction with the enviroment invalidates the experiment, photons can be only theorized by using logic over GR..
So I would apreciate if you try to exchange the "particle photon", for not a virtual particle, but for a temporary construction of the whole (aether) that happens wherever there is another particles, photons as being nothing else but energy surrownded by a "shape", only a temporary container of energy, provinient from aether itself reacting to the energy, sort of enveloping it on some sort of constant spiral "shape", and due this constant precense of new photons being possible activated and deactivated wherever other particles are presented, as the true source of the sppining of the other particles...
in other words, do you believe, following logic, that is possible that each photon is simple a "shape" of the whole, with that in mind reaching to the possibilitie that there is no "one photon" as single particle, but instead the very aether that when in contact with these particles, force itself to spin around of them at "C", (C being the maximum speed in with the shape photon can be created by space).
I'm only wondering if is possible to photon being only a spiral shape of the whole to carry energy, would it, if possible, explain why photons are able to move at C? And most important, this alternative perspective of what photons are, would not invalidade GR, Correct? I'm assuming that a photon that is creating from space at "C" would not require the photons to be massless anymore, correct? Preserving E=mc2, onyl with a different perspective....
I do ask cause my knoledge about GR is not even close of the one your displaying this topic, perhaps you could awnser...
In a rudimentar example:
Space/void = Aether
Aether/particles=Photons (this very shape and sppining aether, the source from whom the particles are extracting the fundamental energy...
Photons as being a spiral shape of the aether happening at C due the precense of other particles, seting those very particles in motion, in large escale seting whole planets in motion folowing the same process...
Light being only as any other photons presented in matter, with the only difference of the lacking of density, so each spiral photon presented on a ray of light, wouldn't be traveling from A to B at all, but intead photons happening at "C" all the time from A to B. And each spiral photon contruction where the energy is passing by, resulting in resonating empty photons around of it in all dirrections, like empity resonating replicas of the original one, resulting in waves?
I'm not looking at virtual photons, and the resonating photons not even different of the first one, since they are all constructions, each photon would be as real as the one that desencadeate the event...
What I mean with temporary spiral construction of space, is sort of , aether contantly trying to collapse at "C" over the energy (gravity), since different from macro mass that has density, light would have almost none.
Without any density aether would be constantly trying to colapse ove the light, sicne it can't it would than start to built aorund of it, contantly trying to colapse and failing, this process resulting in some sort of sppiral propagation of light, once again would be constantly happening at "C"... "C" being not the speed of the energy itself, but "C" being the maximum speed of witch those atempts of colapse would be happening... Sort of "C" not being the speed of light at all, but the maximum speed with aether can produce the photon?
Possible?
-
On reply #29
No offense, but I think we should refrain ourselves from making aggressive and impulsive comments and find a more polite manner to reply to issues. I appreciate the simple interest in folowing my post even though statement might not be correct. Your comments are very appreciated as well but I suggest not offending other persons. Sorry for this.
-
On reply #29
No offense, but I think we should refrain ourselves from making aggressive and impulsive comments and find a more polite manner to reply to issues. I appreciate the simple interest in folowing my post even though statement might not be correct. Your comments are very appreciated as well but I suggest not offending other persons. Sorry for this.
Sure, wherever that suppose to mean, no problem at all, and thank you for answering on his place... Although, is rare to me to ask a direct question to a specific member, for more that I respect your opinion as much as my own, after being following his work. I sincerely do not believe that we both together have the clarity of mind that he does about GR on all its aspects, for that very reason my curiosity still remain despise of anything...
To not extend this much further, I'll submit a PV to the specific user, do not worry wherever it was, wont happen again...
all the luck...
-
Concept clarification.
I had a conversation on a different forum, an I was suggested some clarifications.
Space points are (entities) exhibited relatively never having an absolute position in some preferred coordinate system. "It does not behave like a classical fluid. Points define LOCAL space as there are no extant fixed points non-locally or globally."
-
I want to apologize for my lack of emotion. I have struggled with this aspect of my nature all of my life. I come across as being rude without the understanding of the feelings of others. While I have empathy for visual physical pain I am not able to process emotional pain properly to what is considered average. I have a below average emotional understanding. I might not have the capacity to learn. I can only apologize when accused and continue to offend.
[Quote/]Alex Siqueira
« on: Today at 03:06:12 » Nilak
« on: Today at 11:00:40 » [\Quote]
Both of you are understanding there are particles beyond mass that we can perceive. This is a size and motion problem that we will never detect other than orthogonally. Motion of macro mass is possible because of the motion of micro mass c. Einstein Suggested we cannot assign motion to an Ether. A flow of ether would invalidate relativity. A static Ether was disproven by the MMX. There is only one motion left and that is micro particle spin c that actually causes relativity. We can only postulate micro particles spin at c because like electron movement, currently there is no mechanical cause being expressed by main stream. I will postulate a cause for electron motion. Nilak you are in the first stages of understanding and Alex perceives most of the mechanical process to understand a possible explanation for relativity mathematics.
Nilak if you give your particles spin c the views you express will take the form of relativity. No micro particle in space occupies that space indefinitely unless the spin function is a ridged matrix of the universe. I am leaning towards a grid matrix of spin c because light has a different distance east to west than west to east. New York to San Francisco is fourteen ns further for light to travel than in the opposite direction. If you go north to the axis and then south and reverse the direction atomic clocks remain synchronized. So it might be likely that the Earth as it travels through space dilates the new particles in space same as light traveling through space dilates new particles.
The spin nature of the micro particles create a rotational path forward with its own dilation of the particles not enough to make a wave other than background noise. When the electron jumps its orbit it changes its path abruptly causing a wave to be generated. The rotation causes a backward and forward wave with a mirror image on the reversed side. When you bring those sides back together the one affects the other as spooky at a distance entanglement. In reality the reverse wave was created from the start and the wave spin when measured by one is opposite of the other. similar to you being tricked by a magician by not understanding the trick.
Dilation of energy is of course density of micro energy particles being expanded by moving the electrons of macro mass. Particle spin does not slow down its just the light wave moves through more space between particles. Light curves around dilation trying to stay as close to the original wave density of space as possible.
Gravity of course is mass trying to occupy the least dense energy space possible by the inverse square of the distance to the most dilated position. The moon pulls up the ocean 6 inches by its dilation of space and inverse square affect.
This brings us to galaxies having an accumulated dilation we view as the lensing affect. The light produced in dilation is red shifted because of the accumulated expansion of micro energy particles. They are most expanded in the center of galaxies where 75% of the stars create the galaxy light. So we can explain red shift from our less dilated position in our galaxy by GR rather than main stream claiming it to be SR red shift.
The big bang is not necessary to magically produce mass. Macro mass is produced in suns by creating electrons. They are created from micro energy by fusion.
I can explain relativity mechanically with just the postulate of spinning micro mass. Space time, micro mass energy, Dark mass energy call it anything you like.
It may take 500 years before main stream quits floundering in their belief in magic and not having the tools (spinning micro mass) to understand relativity both mathematically and mechanically.
-
I want to apologize for my lack of emotion. I have struggled with this aspect of my nature all of my life. I come across as being rude without the understanding of the feelings of others. While I have empathy for visual physical pain I am not able to process emotional pain properly to what is considered average. I have a below average emotional understanding. I might not have the capacity to learn. I can only apologize when accused and continue to offend.
[Quote/]Alex Siqueira
« on: Today at 03:06:12 » Nilak
« on: Today at 11:00:40 » [\Quote]
Both of you are understanding there are particles beyond mass that we can perceive. This is a size and motion problem that we will never detect other than orthogonally. Motion of macro mass is possible because of the motion of micro mass c. Einstein Suggested we cannot assign motion to an Ether. A flow of ether would invalidate relativity. A static Ether was disproven by the MMX. There is only one motion left and that is micro particle spin c that actually causes relativity. We can only postulate micro particles spin at c because like electron movement, currently there is no mechanical cause being expressed by main stream. I will postulate a cause for electron motion. Nilak you are in the first stages of understanding and Alex perceives most of the mechanical process to understand a possible explanation for relativity mathematics.
Nilak if you give your particles spin c the views you express will take the form of relativity. No micro particle in space occupies that space indefinitely unless the spin function is a ridged matrix of the universe. I am leaning towards a grid matrix of spin c because light has a different distance east to west than west to east. New York to San Francisco is fourteen ns further for light to travel than in the opposite direction. If you go north to the axis and then south and reverse the direction atomic clocks remain synchronized. So it might be likely that the Earth as it travels through space dilates the new particles in space same as light traveling through space dilates new particles.
The spin nature of the micro particles create a rotational path forward with its own dilation of the particles not enough to make a wave other than background noise. When the electron jumps its orbit it changes its path abruptly causing a wave to be generated. The rotation causes a backward and forward wave with a mirror image on the reversed side. When you bring those sides back together the one affects the other as spooky at a distance entanglement. In reality the reverse wave was created from the start and the wave spin when measured by one is opposite of the other. similar to you being tricked by a magician by not understanding the trick.
Dilation of energy is of course density of micro energy particles being expanded by moving the electrons of macro mass. Particle spin does not slow down its just the light wave moves through more space between particles. Light curves around dilation trying to stay as close to the original wave density of space as possible.
Gravity of course is mass trying to occupy the least dense energy space possible by the inverse square of the distance to the most dilated position. The moon pulls up the ocean 6 inches by its dilation of space and inverse square affect.
This brings us to galaxies having an accumulated dilation we view as the lensing affect. The light produced in dilation is red shifted because of the accumulated expansion of micro energy particles. They are most expanded in the center of galaxies where 75% of the stars create the galaxy light. So we can explain red shift from our less dilated position in our galaxy by GR rather than main stream claiming it to be SR red shift.
The big bang is not necessary to magically produce mass. Macro mass is produced in suns by creating electrons. They are created from micro energy by fusion.
I can explain relativity mechanically with just the postulate of spinning micro mass. Space time, micro mass energy, Dark mass energy call it anything you like.
It may take 500 years before main stream quits floundering in their belief in magic and not having the tools (spinning micro mass) to understand relativity both mathematically and mechanically.
I have to admit, that I do suffer from the same ill, the offense must me on the cultural side witch I would no know, the best I can do is accept... The point is, when I suggest the lack,"on the text", I was purely doing a complement, it's very pleasant to read well explained contend...
it was away easy to to read mind based on the patterns on their texts or speeches. Much fake or lack of fate on the own beliefs. Every time you explain relativity, for more I try to find a gap that transparent convenience, although this time I could not find...
In resume it must mean that this member truly understands relativity. It's not my other language, despise of whatever it sound like, be sure my friend it was a sincere complement...
In some cases, for me given our history lack of emotion and sympathize with other, is just what saves society from total collapse, and the excess of emotion what sedate the rational mind and allowing someone to be manipulated by, on this case, mainstream.... Like when one read on the paper about a terrible accident, and instead of feel something, realizes that the history is not perfect told, there is fact that must remain unknown to press, thus inevitable gets to the conclusion, that feel something about such thing, would be unreal... You can relate with what you see, as most of us here, anyway believe me, it is a complement friend...
In respect with the explanation you provide, I still not entirely sure, I'll try to figure out...
May be subjection, I can't stop to believe that, photons, are the wrong concept, although seems, that we did the correct calculations...
-
just saying the word photon brings a particle to mind. Visual nm for the wave, the electron jumps from one state to another rotationally disturbing the spin state of c particles. The rotation and length from the rest state creates the wave where 180 degrees one side is a push forward and the other side a pull backward. This wave front is propagated in all directions. the 180 degree shell is perfectly opposite so it is considered entangled when you determine the spin state of one side the other side is the opposite spin state. Entangled wave information does not travel faster than light. They are opposite spin states at the creation of light. Main stream is being tricked by their understanding of light being a particle.
It is only the wave on spin particles already at c that are disturbed and propagate that disturbance at c until the pattern is dissipated by mass and detected as work energy.
-
just saying the word photon brings a particle to mind. Visual nm for the wave, the electron jumps from one state to another rotationally disturbing the spin state of c particles. The rotation and length from the rest state creates the wave where 180 degrees one side is a push forward and the other side a pull backward. This wave front is propagated in all directions. the 180 degree shell is perfectly opposite so it is considered entangled when you determine the spin state of one side the other side is the opposite spin state. Entangled wave information does not travel faster than light. They are opposite spin states at the creation of light. Main stream is being tricked by their understanding of light being a particle.
It is only the wave on spin particles already at c that are disturbed and propagate that disturbance at c until the pattern is dissipated by mass and detected as work energy.
The spin state at the creation of light was disproved by Bell' Theorem, although that might require more evidence.
The concept of spin for c particles is not very clear to me. However since my concept includes point entities that have a set of properties, the possibility that one of them could be spin, can be analyzed.
The values of some properties can be stored as spin.
If your c particles spin, do you mean they also have mass ?
My space point entities also can have some infinitesimal mass, but the mass is more like their own existence not a property. It is for equivalence purposes with other theories.
P.s. The angular momentum of point particles is not very clear either. If there are infinitesimal radius and mass then there will be an infinitesimal angular momentum.
-
Entropy properties following this concept.
Space point entities tend to collapse to a single point. This can be viewed as negative energy. The information pushed into the system, also known as energy, does the opposite and can be viewed as positive energy.
The tendency to collapse is a factor that, reduces the entropy of the system while the information, as positive energy increases the entropy. The positive energy is always matches the negtive energy. The total entropy depends on the definition of entropy. As a degre of disorder, the total entropy varies with time.
Gravity.
Instead of time space curvature, the gravity is simply a tendency of space to collapse to its initial state. As it collapses its mass/density increases. To balance this you need energy. An high density space near an even higher density will require more energy to be pushed away so the effect is that those density will travel toward each other.
-
The reason for me to abandon it was it did not satisfy all four pats of Relativity. Specifically it fails dilation. We
I don't see right now, why it fails dilation. The coordinated time is constant, proper space and time dilates and contracts proportionaly creating a field of density regions, leaving the measurement of c in proper reference frame constant. C=dx''/dt''=dx'/dt' the external observer sees c'=dx'/dt, c''=dx''/dt. Also, density of space is constant in abery reference frame, and it varies when viewed from an observer.
In relativity mathematics photons have to be virtual or just not part of mass.
If I follow my model, photons are propagating values of space points properties. So, their mass can be viewed as mass of the space they occupy at a particular moment. That mass would be not detectable and could be associated with dark matter. These photons would't produce mass, but only propagate information. Do you think there is a problem here ?
Yes, the model has issues with relativity.
Also, photons mean energy into the system, and that affects the space. The wave can't propagate without affecting the space it is traveling through, which involves mass.
-
Nilak,
I believe you are on the correct path. I am trying to move you to see the whole picture. Your points in space are correct if mechanics apply to relativity. Entropy is of mass and not space. Your points in space have to spin to mechanically move electrons and photons in a confounded manor we observe. A Flow of information is in the form of particle wave without entropy. Space energy from the spin state of space particles propagate the wave in all directions equally. Bells theorem does not disprove spinning particles at c. I can describe the spin direction of 2d grid particles that create relativity's electron flow and propagation wave caused by the electron jump we understand as a photon. Your particles do not flow they spin. A spectrum observation is different wave propagations on the same particle spin grid. Particle flow is not part of the wave propagation.
-
Analogy with conventional space.
The metric of space coresponds to the point entities of this concept. Near objects the metric of space is contracted. This translates to increased point entities density.
-
Entropy properties following this concept.
Space point entities tend to collapse to a single point. This can be viewed as negative energy. The information pushed into the system, also known as energy, does the opposite and can be viewed as positive energy.
The tendency to collapse is a factor that, reduces the entropy of the system while the information, as positive energy increases the entropy. The positive energy is always matches the negtive energy. The total entropy depends on the definition of entropy. As a degre of disorder, the total entropy varies with time.
Gravity.
Instead of time space curvature, the gravity is simply a tendency of space to collapse to its initial state. As it collapses its mass/density increases. To balance this you need energy. An high density space near an even higher density will require more energy to be pushed away so the effect is that those density will travel toward each other.
Despite, energy expanding space being more intuitive, it might be exactly the opposite. Energy, makes these point entities gathering , otherwise they have the tendency to dissipate.
-
The metric of space coresponds to the point entities of this concept. Near objects the metric of space is contracted. This translates to increased point entities density
You cannot have dilation of space and contraction of space mean the same thing. In Relativity it is dilation of space. Less dense energy particles. But the caveat is energy density being less. This creates red shifted light in dilation. Longer waves slower clock tick rate due to increased distance between points.
Despite, energy expanding space being more intuitive, it might be exactly the opposite. Energy, makes these point entities gathering , otherwise they have the tendency to dissipate.
Yes in suns that are so large that the attraction becomes greater than the speed of light energy is no longer able to separate atoms and a black hole is formed. This dilates space energy away from the black hole. An electron travels proportionally from a marble to a football field. A black hole is a football field full of marbles by comparison.
The gamma term in Relativity is dilation of energy not contraction of energy. Dilation differences in energy state cause greater attraction but not greater mass.
-
Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass, which is more space density. Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not. Space is more dynamic than I thought. But somehow acceleration is harder to explain because I need to imagine waves accelerating other waves. On top of this all waves like EM or waves corresponding to strong/weak force travel at the same rate (x/t=ct=c). Then a velocity below c in a x direction must be because of field values propagating in y an z direction in a circular pattern. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true. When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.
If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.
-
Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass,
In my opinion only mass gets attracted to mass.
which is more space density.
Why do you view it as more space density?
Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not
Equilibrium is the point between two bodies where a third body between has equal attraction.
Space is more dynamic than I thought. But somehow acceleration is harder to explain because I need to imagine waves accelerating other waves.
The possibility exists that gravity is not a wave but a linear static dilation to the center of gravity. Different elements change the center of gravity of course. Energy to move electrons towards the center of mass would become less dense due to moving more electrons. Simple geometry. A wave would be Doppler effects on space not gravity effects. A type of macro massless kinetic wave of fundamental energy.
On top of this all waves like EM or waves corresponding to strong/weak force travel at the same rate (x/t=ct=c).
Yes of course space is the potential battery c and the electrons are the engines always running.
Then a velocity below c in a x direction must be because of field values propagating in y an z direction in a circular pattern.
That describes electron motion as rotation and vector movement. The photon and electron are both moving at c but the electron rotates while moving forward. Quantum mechanics is energy c. The circular pattern is the rotating jump of the electron displayed as a wave packet propagating through space at c. The wave length and rotation is the pattern of the jump of the electron creating the photon on fundamental energy c.
. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.
When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.
When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.
It is the decrease in energy density in mass that causes the refraction of light direction that causes the trajectory change.
If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.
You are confusing Doppler and gravity as the same cause. They are not.
In Relativity we first had postulates. Then the math that fell from those postulates mimicked observation to show the power of Relativity as reality. The third part is the mechanics. This is what scares those in science today. What if you worked on something all your life and found it to be false? It would be as difficult as convincing the Pope there was no God. No disrespect intended. And the followers are even more committed to follow the subjective interpretations wanting to be with the group of professed knowledge.
I totally believe in Relativity postulates and math. I make suggestions of a mechanical process that may or may not be true but like the postulates my mechanical view follows relativity. If you were to go into the rabbit hole (Relativity) You would need more than the math to know why things grow and shrink or why you can only see the eyes of the cat. The mechanics o relativity is the next step in the process of understanding.
Why do you think the voyagers slowed down? Or did they?
-
First of all, I appreciate your effort in trying to respond to my statements and your support. Thank you.
Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass,
In my opinion only mass gets attracted to mass.
It is what my concept says. Space attracts space. But this way a region of higher density can only propagate not literally move like you move a point on a line. Space dilation can also create an aparent additional motion. These things should be confirmed by GR, but until we hava some equivalent equations it not very clear if the idea really works.
which is more space density.
Why do you view it as more space density?
The first thing that made me think of this possibility was the de Broglie theory which says all particles have an associated wave. Secondly, since space in not flat it must have a real structure, a sort of lattice, which expands and contracts. The particle wave duality fits better in this model. I don't agree the idea of free moving objects through space but rather propagating field values because I don't see how causality can restrict this motion. Causality can only restrict propagating information or values.
Space attracting space is not felt like a force because it is the dynamics of a whole reference system.
A recent confirmation is the quantum foam and the fact the mass of a proton is much greater than the mass of the individual quarks within the proton.
Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not
Equilibrium is the point between two bodies where a third body between has equal attraction.
Yes, but when thing move it means the equilibrium is not established. In a newtonian scenario a planet orbiting the sun has an equilibrium established on a radial axis between centrifugal and gravity force, but it is still moving. It is a quasi equilibrium.
When things move towards each other they are not in equilibrium. There are things in a quasi equilibrium around a black hole, which are those that orbit and other things falling into it. Those that fall into it are not in equilibrium. There are always thing falling into black holes, just as there are always things falling on Earth.
. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.
When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.
Why higher density space? I think they went into lower density space, thus tick rates increased. I don't know what you mean by closer signal.
When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.
It is the decrease in energy density in mass that causes the refraction of light direction that causes the trajectory change.
It was a different idea. I meant to say, light is zigzag-ing through the glass. When it gets out most photons escape at an angle dependent of the refraction index. But, honestly I don't know much about the phenomenon.
If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.
You are confusing Doppler and gravity as the same cause. They are not.
In Relativity we first had postulates. Then the math that fell from those postulates mimicked observation to show the power of Relativity as reality. The third part is the mechanics. This is what scares those in science today. What if you worked on something all your life and found it to be false? It would be as difficult as convincing the Pope there was no God. No disrespect intended. And the followers are even more committed to follow the subjective interpretations wanting to be with the group of professed knowledge.
I totally believe in Relativity postulates and math. I make suggestions of a mechanical process that may or may not be true but like the postulates my mechanical view follows relativity. If you were to go into the rabbit hole (Relativity) You would need more than the math to know why things grow and shrink or why you can only see the eyes of the cat. The mechanics o relativity is the next step in the process of understanding.
Why do you think the voyagers slowed down? Or did they?
Doppler effect only makes sense if there are free objects travelling through space. If you draw an axis and place a point that can move in one direction that pont is moving freely. If you have a source that sends points in one direction at a frequency, when moving it can generate Doppler effect. The problem is that according to my model, you can't do that, because there are no free moving points, only space points that form a continuous universe. Space contraction can increase frequency of a wave, but tick rate of a clock decreases because the clock is counting some loops rather than a EM or other field frequency.
When you can't give up something that you believed for a long time, that is not science anymore, it is religion. However scientists are also biased sometimes this complicates things.
I also believe relativity but perhaps there are some aspects that we can improve. I don't see my model being in conflict with GR.
The voyagers could have slowed down because of the gravity exerted by our galaxy. But also being in a more dilated space would make them sent the same signal. Waves would redshift but clocks tick faster. At first glance I would say both things happened. The were slowed down but they also went into a less dense space.
But I don't know the whole story. I'll have to check on that.
-
Quote
Quote
. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.
When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.
Why higher density space? I think they went into lower density space, thus tick rates increased. I don't know what you mean by closer signal.
First you need to understand how NASA computes speed of the Voyagers. It is the duration between signals sent to Earth. The longer time between signals means the ship moved further away by SR because the signal traveled further. What current science believes is the signals are returned faster because the voyagers slowed. There is no reason for the voyagers to slow down by SR. The slow down was an increase in tick rate due to GR. The energy density increased outside of the solar system. The solar system has a dilation (expanded energy). So the clocks within the solar system cause the light to travel further along with the electrons traveling further in dilated space. When the clocks reached the threshold of the solar system dilation they went into was less dilated space and clocks ticked faster by GR. The voyager contracted slightly and the clocks on board contracted slightly in the less dilated space. So the tick rate increased and duration between ticks decreased. The voyager remained at a constant speed in the new frames measurement of distance and time. This is different from the frame within the solar system.
Planets have dilation. Solar systems have dilation. Galaxies have dilation. We view the galaxies dilation as lensing at the threshold of combined dilation within the galaxy.
So mass dilates energy not the other way around. Space is energy c.
The voyagers could have slowed down because of the gravity exerted by our galaxy.
Gravity is a difference in dilations of space. This does cause attraction between masses. But the affect between the weight of the voyagers and the solar system is insignificant by volume.
But also being in a more dilated space would make them sent the same signal.
I believe relativity would beg to differ. The center of the moon would tick slower and be more dilated than the surface. The signal duration decrease is more likely to be GR clock speed increase (less dilated space energy c) than SR change in velocity. The signals should be less red shifted by GR also and not SR red shifted.
Science will have to realize electrons do not move themselves. There are only two choices. Mechanical transfer of motion or magic. c is a qualifier for motion of the electron and not the other way around. In the tree of knowledge science today is going down a branch that leads nowhere but the end of the branch. For true knowledge we need to remain on the trunk of the knowledge tree. But logically it does not matter whether we are on a branch or the trunk. it is the emotions that we follow for greater knowledge. Emotional logic forces us to be illogical in the face of logic.
I am not above average in intelligence but apparently I am below average in emotion. I do not have a God detector as many claim to have. and I do not believe in something for nothing as a logical interpretation of scientific views. Something moves the electrons. Something moves the photons. The electrons always measure the photons distance the same in a vacuum independent of the frame. So each are controlled by the same background. While this is true for logic it is not necessarily true for emotional logic.
-
Gravity is a difference in dilations of space. This does cause attraction between masses. But the affect between the weight of the voyagers and the solar system is insignificant by volume.
That is what I thought initially. The Minkowski spacetime diagram presents the universe as a single 4d block. This creates the appearance of a static universe. My idea is that the time dimension is totally different. Energy conservation is along the time axis only. The time as a distance dimension is only a mathematical tool. The universe is not static. When you say 'bent spacetime' you think of fowllowing a curve in spacetime, and this is correct. But this deprive you intuitively by the idea of motion. Therefore gravity is not difference in space dilation. Gravity is relative motion of space structure. Gravity is caused by a continuous process of space contraction and it is not a force itself. It doesn't follow the rules of newtonian forces. But this is what Einstein says but not quite explicitly when explaining GR. You simply follow the time line in a spacetime diagram and see that space contracts. When light is moving through this space its trajectory becomes curved.
You are saying "Gravity is a difference in dilations of space". "Difference in dilations" is not very clear. Dilation is not density, but a process of decreasing density. Did you actually mean the same thing I've described? I've described it simply as a process of space contraction.
Space dilation process is the opposite of gravity also known as antigravity. Negative mass is simply a structure that creates space dilation in all directions. Black Holes probably do that but only at poles. Since mass is given by space density multiplied by volume, negative mass is not mass but an energy that makes space dilate.
Where I said space density is mass, I wasn't quite correct. The number of points in a volume of space cannot be measured and is basically infinite. The volume of space can only be defined relatively. Mass of an object is the sum of all points of space it occupies. The points and their mass are infinitesimal, but the sum is a finite number. That is what mass essentially is.
-
It turns out that this problem of mass as the source of gravity is not really a problem because Einstein field equations of GR don't use the newtonian mass neither.
Acording to GR, the gravitational field is caused by stress-energy tensor. In newtonian gravity, mass density is the source.
Basically this part of GR seems to describe the reality very precisely.
Einstein doesn't deny the aether either. I understand he says that completely rejecting the existence of an aether deprives space from all the properties, making it a flat space and that is not true.
-
That is what I thought initially. The Minkowski spacetime diagram presents the universe as a single 4d block. This creates the appearance of a static universe. My idea is that the time dimension is totally different. Energy conservation is along the time axis only. The time as a distance dimension is only a mathematical tool. The universe is not static. When you say 'bent spacetime' you think of fowllowing a curve in spacetime, and this is correct. But this deprive you intuitively by the idea of motion. Therefore gravity is not difference in space dilation. Gravity is relative motion of space structure. Gravity is caused by a continuous process of space contraction and it is not a force itself. It doesn't follow the rules of newtonian forces. But this is what Einstein says but not quite explicitly when explaining GR. You simply follow the time line in a spacetime diagram and see that space contracts. When light is moving through this space its trajectory becomes curved.
You are saying "Gravity is a difference in dilations of space". "Difference in dilations" is not very clear. Dilation is not density, but a process of decreasing density. Did you actually mean the same thing I've described? I've described it simply as a process of space contraction.
Yes but our direction is reversed. The center of mass being the most dilated and space contracting to the surface of say a planet. You haven't accepted that something is moving electrons. Once you accept that space energy c is actually moving electrons in macro mass you will realize that energy is being dilated to follow Relativity.
Space dilation process is the opposite of gravity also known as antigravity. Negative mass is simply a structure that creates space dilation in all directions. Black Holes probably do that but only at poles. Since mass is given by space density multiplied by volume, negative mass is not mass but an energy that makes space dilate
You would need to mechanically relate your ideas to relativity. How does each of your physical descriptions contribute in the process of Relativity mechanics?
The points and their mass are infinitesimal, but the sum is a finite number. That is what mass essentially is.
That appears to be a logical statement.
It turns out that this problem of mass as the source of gravity is not really a problem because Einstein field equations of GR don't use the newtonian mass neither.
Acording to GR, the gravitational field is caused by stress-energy tensor. In newtonian gravity, mass density is the source.
What is your understanding of a stress energy tenser? To me the stress of moving electrons causes dilation of energy c. Different elements stress energy c differently. But there is an accumulation.
Einstein doesn't deny the aether either. I understand he says that completely rejecting the existence of an aether deprives space from all the properties,
Rejecting a reason for relativity is a main stream issue that will not be resolved easily.
-
Go C, I agree now the idea of this kind of aether doesn't quite work.
Your question wether space contraction in relativity is real or visual made me go back to the basics and I've thought of a completely new possibility.
Apparently this idea of a dynamic space made of point entities doesn't seem to work, and here is why. It can't explain gravity as is described in relativity and as empirical evidence suggest. It leads to the conclusion that space is dragged towards an object that has mass without any speed limit. I can't make it work I've seen explanation of gravity produced by black holes that seem to suggest that space can be dragged in at a speed higher than the speed of light. An example is here : time 6:00. By Leonard Susskind on "The World As Hologram". This seems to contradict relativity because an object falling into the black hole reaches near speed of light and it will go asymptotically towards c as viewed from a hovering observer.
There is another concept I'm currently studying posted on another thread of mine(How time works): http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68884.0
Following this idea it space indeed doesn't need to be a medium in which waves propagate although it can also be viewed as a medium.
In this conception the space is simply flat, no properties needed. Waves like electromagnetic self propagate like classical theories say. An aether would require a certain shape lattice geometry which complicates matters.
This concept is extremely simple compared to my previous one, but still, can explain the mechanics of relativity.
The illusion of variable space geometry made thing interact as if there was an aether with properties, but it is not the case.
We were deluded by our clocks in thinking space changes geometry still confirming space is not a medium. Space variable geometry without being something physical is a contradictory idea. You can only have one or another. Apparently, space is flat after all. Our clocks hold the key. They are not measuring time. Clocks have disturbed our original idea of time. We need to make time absolute again to escape out of this relativity illusion.
These are the conclusions following this idea.
-
We need to make time absolute again to escape out of this relativity illusion.
These are the conclusions following this idea.
This is another false lead.
Apparently this idea of a dynamic space made of point entities doesn't seem to work
This was a true lead but not the way you imagined.
Our Universe is 3d and motion. [pi] is a proof we live in a point entity universe. There is no such thing as a perfect circle. Only points closer together are possible. You were on the correct path in my opinion. We both had our similar understanding but with different conclusions. The cause of relativity is the goal that we cannot veer.
Relativity is a point entity structure. [pi] does not allow a perfect circle.
That structure is ordered. c appears to be constant
That structure is the same throughout the Universe. c is measured to be the same in every frame
Quantum mechanics is that structure c. c is constant
The c structure cannot have velocity in any direction. Measured c is the same in every direction.
That leaves us with what is the cause of motion? We know electrons have a cycle and considered a clock. But a clock that is frame dependent. The photon and electron cycle are confounded in every frame. Now we need to reverse engineer Relativity. Math is our greatest tool but a mathematician without engineering skills along the lines of a mechanic will jump to the easiest conclusions. They are:
1. Space is a void where a particle photon can travel the speed of light. This is a violation of Relativity so the term virtual was added to put a band aid on the problem.
2. Electrons move themselves in a type of perpetual motion due to charge. Mass has entropy and the term charge reduces energy for motion. Anyone who believes electrons have perpetual motion believes in magic. No engineer worth his salt would believe in mechanical magic. Something is moving the photon and electron in a confounded way.
Reverse engineering Relativity:
The point structure is some grid structure to produce an ordered ratio following mathematics. [laws of the physical nature we observe]. The MMX proves this to be incorrect by itself. The Aether is a false lead. Photon motion fails with a stationary point structure. But what about a Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)? The spectrum would be propagation of a packet wave created from a slower electron jump causing friction on the spin point structure c. That propagation wave packet would transfer energy and appear as a particle and a wave (virtual photon). The photon is not part of mass so the relativity math remains intact. The speed of light from any point would be the same in any direction. The spectrum would be independent of the source. So we have a system that follows the postulates of relativity by postulating a spin point grid structure to space (quantum mechanics). Yes something is causing the spin structure but we have to take it one step at a time.
I believe I have a spin grid structure worked out that would follow relativity postulates.
-
GoC, An absolute space works better with the idea of an aether. My new idea does not necessarily exclude aether but as Relativity says it makes it unnecessary. The mechanics seem straight forward, nothing magical. My previous idea was more exotic but unfortunately I can't make it work.
Particle spin is only expressed as orbital motion, hence angular momentum is generated. Unidirectional propagation like light only has orientation (polarisation) not angular momentum.
The c as a speed limit in absolute space works because c is the propagating speed of all fields. All fields move at a constant speed, only orbital trajectories make the appear like slowed down.
In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.
You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).
-
Particle spin is only expressed as orbital motion, hence angular momentum is generated. Unidirectional propagation like light only has orientation (polarisation) not angular momentum.
Nilak- I am becoming more impressed by you.
Yes angular momentum. If the spin state of c is complimentary than the path of the electron is an angular momentum in a straight line. Say the speed of the electron is c but the angular motion would revolve around a straight line path to reduce the vector speed. So the jump to a longer orbit would cause friction with c spin to create a propagating wavelength equal to the electron jump. The photon packet being a disturbance in zero point energy c. A right hand wave on one side and a left hand wave at 180 degrees. The spooky entanglement issue not being faster than light just created with opposite spins. Not so spooky just predetermined.
The c as a speed limit in absolute space works because c is the propagating speed of all fields. All fields move at a constant speed, only orbital trajectories make the appear like slowed down.
Very Good!
In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.
Here we have to understand how we measure time. Relative 0.5c does not make a clock slow down by half the tick rate of relative rest. The tick rate slows down by ~13.3924%. This can be shown using geometry. The geometry and Lorentz contraction of tick rate are the same. The contracted tick rate is due to the longer path the two way direction of light has to take with velocity of mass.
You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).
Ok here is an example of spin Ether. Consider a large marble sphere as the electron. We have wheels moving at c which move the marble in an angular path The angular path takes up twice the size of the marble to go in a straight line. We first have two wheels than another two wheels at 45 degrees from the first two and 90 degrees in rotation with complimentary spin. One channel is right hand and the one next to it is left hand electron rotation. Matter and anti matter. This goes on indefinitely like 2d plates 45 degrees offset and 90 degree spin state. Dilation is how far apart the wheels are while they remain spinning at c. It is mathematically impossible for the axil length between wheels at the 45 degree angle to be the same as the perpendicular axils. So there is some flexibility. That flexibility is expressed as propagation waves. This represents ordered spacetime. All observations can be explained using these mechanics. Is something moving the spinning particles (wheels)? Yes. What I do not know but something is holding back the c spin particles from each other.
How can the mechanics work and the mind reject the mechanism? This is a burden to my sense of reality. PhysBang suggests I am crazy. I can only reply Maybe
-
In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.
Here we have to understand how we measure time. Relative 0.5c does not make a clock slow down by half the tick rate of relative rest. The tick rate slows down by ~13.3924%. This can be shown using geometry. The geometry and Lorentz contraction of tick rate are the same. The contracted tick rate is due to the longer path the two way direction of light has to take with velocity of mass.
Yes, but I didn't say time will slow down by half. Obviously it is by Lorentz factor gamma, since the mechanics is the same used for finding the Lorentz factor.
You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).
Ok here is an example of spin Ether. Consider a large marble sphere as the electron. We have wheels moving at c which move the marble in an angular path The angular path takes up twice the size of the marble to go in a straight line. We first have two wheels than another two wheels at 45 degrees from the first two and 90 degrees in rotation with complimentary spin. One channel is right hand and the one next to it is left hand electron rotation. Matter and anti matter. This goes on indefinitely like 2d plates 45 degrees offset and 90 degree spin state. Dilation is how far apart the wheels are while they remain spinning at c. It is mathematically impossible for the axil length between wheels at the 45 degree angle to be the same as the perpendicular axils. So there is some flexibility. That flexibility is expressed as propagation waves. This represents ordered spacetime. All observations can be explained using these mechanics. Is something moving the spinning particles (wheels)? Yes. What I do not know but something is holding back the c spin particles from each other.
How can the mechanics work and the mind reject the mechanism? This is a burden to my sense of reality. PhysBang suggests I am crazy. I can only reply Maybe
[/quote]
The example you use for mechanics seems to far from a fundamental level to me. For example the wheels on a flat surface experience friction but we an asume it is a perfect grip (no energy loss). At the fundamental level friction doesn't make sense. The closest thing I can think of, that looks in a way like friction is the interaction of particles with Highs bosons. But it is called interaction not friction.
The electron model you describe seem too sophisticated to me. To reduce it to simple elements would require an entire text book. I think the electron is something much simpler. It is only a high frequency wave in a circular pattern. If at rest in the absolute frame it describes a circle. When. Observed at rest is any reference frame also describes a circle. When it moves it describes spirals when the angular momentum is parallel to the direction of propagation. Since more energy means more mass, the electron having a high frequency has a greater mass.
You need to explain your model using fundamental elements to be taken into account.
-
Nilak
At the fundamental level friction doesn't make sense.
Of course not in the way we experience friction of macro mass. It becomes difficult to explain using pre-existing knowledge of a totally different system. Its like having a native language and trying to learn a foreign language.
All bosons are propagations of a Boson wave. Bosons are the wheels that propagate waves recognized as particle constructs.
The example you use for mechanics seems to far from a fundamental level to me. For example the wheels on a flat surface experience friction but we an asume it is a perfect grip (no energy loss).
Wheels on a flat surface are flexible due to uneven axil distances between 2d grid plates of 45 degree angle and 90 degree spin. The wheels are spinning at c, spacetime, Aether spin, Dark Mass Energy, Bosons it does not matter what you call them. There is no charge there is only spin direction of one wave vs. another wave of particles. This is the spectral side of propagation c waves but not macro mass, the true meaning of virtual mass.
Now to the friction issue. Dark Mass spins at c to create Dark Energy c. When an Electron passes the spinning dark mass it remains at c but moves (dilates, Gamma) away without energy loss. Dilation of space is accumulative. So the larger the mass the more dilation. The center of mass has the greatest dilation of space energy. Lets assume we have a ball of like material say a planet. There would be a linear dilation to the center of mass So what is the speed of attraction to the center of mass? We use the inverse square law which follows geometry using c. Mass is attracted to the most dilated position using the inverse square law. More space to move electrons. The furthest object (the surface) is attracted to the next furthest object until in the center there is no attraction of macro mass. The attraction on a Earth composition at 32 ft/s/s on the surface having a radius of 8,000 feet would have an attraction of about 8 ft/s/s at a radius of 4,000 feet. This is straight geometry same as volume, view or pressure. Our Universe is ordered by our mathematics.
Trees and humans are constructed from cells but look at the difference. Cells are created from atoms so we come from the same source. If we take the atom down we might find atoms are positrons and negatrons (different spins) in a stable pattern created by fusion in suns from dark mass energy. Fission causes the electrons to revert back to ark mass energy releasing propagation waves on the spectrum Neutrons are a self balanced while protons are unbalanced spin states of mass. The electron moves out at c dilation and moves into more restrictive spin energy where the electron curves back to the proton and pushes another electron out to start the process over. Gravity at the atomic level.
To get from the standard model to a spin boson model would be near impossible.
PS it would take 10 Bosons to complete one angular forward cycle of the electron. Any more would stop complimentary spin and any less would cause a chaotic electron path. I can not think of any other spin path but I am only of average intelligence.
This is my reverse engineering Quantum mechanics to produce relativity observations. I would like to view scenarios from others with greater intelligence.
-
Yes, the idea is that my model needs to be proven wrong using accepted theories not using new theories like yours. It can be done using your model but I don't understand it. Your model also need to be confronted to modern theories to see if it is correct and not using my concept.
This new model of mine suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry. Complex particles inner geometry change time and space. An atom moving faster changes geometry and its internal tick rate changes. Because the same thing happen to electrons, it means they also have an internal cycle you could use as a clock. When travelling faster the geometry of the electron changes and makes it complete the cycles in a longer time. Most probably it is a spiral motion. Moving at c makes the spiral a single line. At rest there is a circle. The electron particle also has a wavelength associated with it (de Broglie). This wavelength experiences Doppler effect. Hence the moving electron will be measured with higher frequency / lower wavelength. However the Doppler effect is a different aspect. The clock tick rate is not the same thing as the associated wavelength. This has only to do with what a wave detector reads. Doppler effect is an illusion. It is like when you move toward pulses the appear to increase frequency. In reality they don't. This is the advantage of using the absolute reference frame. There are many other advantages.
It is the complex particles geometry (any particle that has mass) that give the illusion of changing the geometry of spacetime.
-
All bosons are propagations of a Boson wave. Bosons are the wheels that propagate waves recognized as particle constructs.
You need to make drawing of this because what you mean by wheels, could be anything.
If we take the atom down we might find atoms are positrons and negatrons (different spins) in a stable pattern created by fusion in suns from dark mass energy.
Why do you say atoms could be positrons? Positrons are the particles that anihilate electrons. Electrons are the 'negatrons'.
PS it would take 10 Bosons to complete one angular forward cycle of the electron. Any more would stop complimentary spin and any less would cause a chaotic electron path. I can not think of any other spin path but I am only of average intelligence.
Why 10 bosons ?
This is my reverse engineering Quantum mechanics to produce relativity observations. I would like to view scenarios from others with greater intelligence.
The ability of a man to solve problems doesn't depend on a single number (IQ). There is a huge amount of factors we can't even think about. IQ is only a orientative value. Einstein had a good IQ though and made discoveries nobody could, but there are people with insanely high IQ that didn't. How much you dedicate your time studying a particular problem matters more than anything.
-
You need to make drawing of this because what you mean by wheels, could be anything
Wheels were meant to convey spinning material on an axis. like a spinning galaxy. The wheels were an attempt to signify c propulsion.
Why do you say atoms could be positrons? Positrons are the particles that anihilate electrons. Electrons are the 'negatrons'.
When two cars are on a highway most pass each other without crashing but some have head on collisions. The quantum grid structure I conceived allows complimentary paths for positrons and negatrons each in there own lane. Eventually I reduce all matter down to spacetime with a grid pattern. Similar to cells down to protons and neutrons. From the bottom up and not from the Big Bang down. Suns create positrons and negatron pairs from energy and gravity fusion create protons and neutrons. When we collide atoms with a destructive force fission returns the positrons and negatrons back into spacetime energy with a ripple on the grid structure we call radiation.
Why 10 bosons ?
Bosons may be an incorrect term since they are the wave propagation on the grid structure. 10 wheels at c is a better description to maintain continuity of understanding. Actually it is only eight the other two starts the process over again. Each binary pair of complimentary spin c wheels moves the electron a quarter of the angular path forward. any more or less would cause electron entropy. Pinball machine type disorder. Energy keeps mass from colliding.
The ability of a man to solve problems doesn't depend on a single number (IQ). There is a huge amount of factors we can't even think about. IQ is only a orientative value. Einstein had a good IQ though and made discoveries nobody could, but there are people with insanely high IQ that didn't. How much you dedicate your time studying a particular problem matters more than anything
That maybe true I use relativity as an escape from boredom and I am bored quite often. The cause of relativity is a challenging undertaking without the expectation of success for your efforts.
Yes, the idea is that my model needs to be proven wrong using accepted theories not using new theories like yours. It can be done using your model but I don't understand it. Your model also need to be confronted to modern theories to see if it is correct and not using my concept.
No, all theories are subjective opinions. What theory follows Relativity the best? This is all we can hope for. Proof is beyond our technical ability at this point.
This new model of mine suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry. Complex particles inner geometry change time and space. An atom moving faster changes geometry and its internal tick rate changes. Because the same thing happen to electrons, it means they also have an internal cycle you could use as a clock. When travelling faster the geometry of the electron changes and makes it complete the cycles in a longer time. Most probably it is a spiral motion. Moving at c makes the spiral a single line. At rest there is a circle. The electron particle also has a wavelength associated with it (de Broglie). This wavelength experiences Doppler effect. Hence the moving electron will be measured with higher frequency / lower wavelength. However the Doppler effect is a different aspect. The clock tick rate is not the same thing as the associated wavelength. This has only to do with what a wave detector reads. Doppler effect is an illusion. It is like when you move toward pulses the appear to increase frequency. In reality they don't. This is the advantage of using the absolute reference frame. There are many other advantages.
It is the complex particles geometry (any particle that has mass) that give the illusion of changing the geometry of spacetime.
All models have to come from the bottom up. I kept coming back to what moves the electron? This is the first consideration needed for a Quantum Relativity theory. The standard model fails because there is no explanation for electron motion. Space is a void so electrons move by themselves relative to the photon which moves faster than the electron. In mechanics that is a brick wall. Keep beating your brain on that and there is no progress.
-
We seem to agree on two points now.
1. electrons internal mechanics is sort of boson driven or has an internal causality c. You explain it using mechanical objects. I see it as a loop, 2d spiral or helix trajectory of the causality wave. The shape depends on what angle you see it or how it moves in absolute space. The width of the helix or spiral remains constant in the absolute frame. Frequency of the causality wave can change only by Doppler shift. The causality wave of the electron is specific to electron only but travels at c in the absolute space only. In other words the electron is like a chain of bosons driven. This is a classical explanation just like SR and GR. QM shows us there is something more than that. A beam of light in a helix motion interpreted by the standard model is a chain of photons traveling in a helix. But classically photons are only EM waves and the electron becomes a single object not an object composed of a stream of other objects. I will start my model in the classical form and then if proved correct I could go to QM aspects.
2.You wondered whether SR is visual or not. My idea suggest that it is indeed visual (and GR as well but you don't agree here).
-
2.You wondered whether SR is visual or not. My idea suggest that it is indeed visual (and GR as well but you don't agree here).
Geometry shows the visual distortion in SR. Gr on the other hand has to be physical to connect the clock to the measurement.
-
2.You wondered whether SR is visual or not. My idea suggest that it is indeed visual (and GR as well but you don't agree here).
Geometry shows the visual distortion in SR. Gr on the other hand has to be physical to connect the clock to the measurement.
The clock measurements are affected in SR as well, proved by the Twins Paradox thought experiment.
My model is different than SR or GR and if correct shows time is not affected, only clocks run faster or slower because they do not show objective time.
-
Here is a free electron vs. EM wave comparison. In this graph the electron and photon have no influence upon each other. The trajectories can be though as plotted at different times.
If we assume it is a 2d trajectory it means the electron is moving on a circular path in absolute coordinates. Viewed from a reference frame attached to an object moving in absolute space it describes the 2d path. The moving object measures light as constant due to decreased clock rate. It will measure a higher value of the electron speed than the actual speed of the electron in the absolute reference frame.
If thought as a helix, can be the actual trajectory in absolute space.
Notice the diameter of the spiral/helix must remain constant to get the same dilation factor as in relativity. This is obvious if the onserver is moving but not so clear if the electron is moving in absolute space. This is hard to test experimentally.
-
I do not view it as 2d electron angular motion. To me the electron touches 4 graphs which each graph reversing the x and y at 90 degrees with an offset of 45 degrees. Where the graph crosses to make a box, they all have spin states that are complimentary to the very next cross section. the next graph is the same with 90 degree rotation from the first. This creates a angular path forward. Energy is spin and order. The 2d graph gives order. The 3d graphs give us Relativity.
-
Old point entities concept:
I've found a way for the original concept of point entities to work although, the c speed limit is not as obvious as in the new model.
The reason it didn't work was that I didn't put any speed limit for the space contraction.
The point entities that make space must experience gravitational forces between them. The space gets curved by gravitation between the points it is made of. The gravitation produces an acceleration curve acording to newtonian formula. But that is in the co-moving reference frame. An object hovering would "see" these points accelerating asymptotically towards c.
In other words, space curving cannot exceed c. The speed limit for space curvature is because of the observations of c as constant. This limit is not clear why it happens.
New absolute space model:
In the new model c limit seems more obvious. The mechanics of the electron acquiring mass is obvious. The electron doesn't have rest mass either but it is always moving at c in pseudo loops, thus it can have relativistic mass. It also fits better energy / mass equivence which is clearly correct because if matter always has relativistic mass, it means it has the same properties as the photons from this point of view.
As a principle, all mater has relativistic mass, never rest mass because matter is alwasy moving.
Does GR explain how mass particles aquire mass ? It is though to be via Higgs Field but the mechanism is not very convincing at all.
-
In other words, space curving cannot exceed c. The speed limit for space curvature is because of the observations of c as constant. This limit is not clear why it happens.
You need to understand the curve is 3d dilation not a 2d curve. Electrons move like they are moving around a string. Since they are just points they have 360 degrees of freedom. Although changing vectors takes macro mass interference. c is constant but the distances between points become larger. An increase in size without an increase in mass. This dilation is the gamma term in GR.
Does GR explain how mass particles aquire mass ? It is though to be via Higgs Field but the mechanism is not very convincing at all.
First you have to decide which model fits better. The standard model suggests an increase in mass. The math suggests greater attraction and the standard model only has mass as the attractive agent. If as I suggest dilation of energy particles is the attractive force it becomes a density of dark mass energy (spacetime) issue where a decrease in spacetime (dilation) density increases the attraction force in macro mass. Its a question of which model do you follow to determine attraction. An increase in mass or a decrease in spacetime density.
If you consider the Higgs field really physical rather than a pseudo extension of mass which remains unexplained then we can discuss mechanics. Higgs would become zero point energy c with density issues for fields (spacetime).
Pushing the standard model avoids a mechanical process, other than hitting a brick wall of course.
Dilation is your graphs expanding. The expansion is linear to a mass increase.
-
There is another challenge for this model that is vital for it to work.
Although relativistic mass is rarely considered in scientific research, there is a very important phenomenon apparently experimentally confirmed. When two photons are sent in parallel there seems to be no gravity effect between them. However when sent antiparallel, the gravity effect becomes present(see Tollman experiment).
This can be explained by relativity in a way. If using near zero mass hypothetical particles the GR would predict the same thing. This means it must be true for photons and it is indeed since there is evidence for it.
In a comoving reference frame particles experience no relativistic mass increase and no additional gravity. When antiparallel the effect is doubled for a particle.
My model seems to be able to handle this. Since it says fermions like the electrons are orbital momentum unbalanced EM , these special kind of waves interact by gravity only when there is relative motion in the absolute space. When at rest they orbit around the centre and this means they are in motion relative to other objects arround and induce gravity effects.
The thing that makes electrons orbiting around an imaginary centre can be either an imbalance in a EM wave or the gravitational effect for opposite direction waves (orbiting motion can enable this). The gravitational effects is more likely but it need to be confirmed mathematically.
It becomes clear that gravity is not just a simple force toward an object that has mass nor a spacetime curvature around mass but a more complex field with a particular behavior. This field can be triggered by any particle but the way it is created depends on the relative speed between the particles.
-
The paper that confirms the behavior of parallel vs non parallel beams pf ligkt is Tolman, R.C., Ehrenfest, P., and Podolsky, B. Phys. Rev. (1931) 37, 602.
If we take the case of 2 electrons of 2pi*r circle circumferece and construct a hypothetical particle that instead of going in a circle forms a square pattern for simplicity, we can see that the fundamental waves will create a gravity effect of half total magnitude that is obtained if the two fundamental waves of 2pi*r length travel straight anti parallel and not following the square pattern. The study made by Tolman also says that the magnitude of the gravitational effect for two photons is twice the effect obtained using a quasi newtonian equation.
It is possible that in the case of electrons the gravitational effect within the circle can be enough to keep the EM wave orbiting around its center. If that is true the fundamental wave that the electrons are made of is the same EM wave. The gravitational effect could also be a simple interaction between EM waves that compose electrons or other particles with non zero reat mass and not a separate field. That would explain why the graviton hasn't been confirmed experimentally.
If we move to strongforce interacting particles we can ae that although apparently they are complsed of different waves of fields, the gravitational effect is still present. That means the fundamental wave for quarks is also the EM wave otherwise it means the gravitational field is real.
If the EM waves are the fundamental waves for anything then radiation can turn into matter and vice versa. If for example accelerate an electron close to c, the internal gravitational effect can disappear and the wave straightens up and becomes am EM wave. If the wave interacts with a heavy nucleus it can be caught into orbit and turned into an electron. I'm not sure about these but I hope someone can tell me if the idea can work or not.
-
Its not much of a stretch to suspect the EM field as a gravity field. Einstein's curved space of course is such a field. So the next question is what is the EM field? The question becomes do we need a different particle for all of the different fields? Magnetism, gravity, photon, weak and strong force is either a different quantum model or mass unwraps into a field. We haven't even discussed what makes electrons move in the first place. A Quantum Spectrum of c could preform all of the movements necessary for all we observe very simply. Or atoms can unwrap somehow to the ends of the universe.
Of course two waves on a collision course will affect each other while co moving photons will not. In a sense you can consider a photon as propagated dilated space. Dilation causes attraction of mass to mass.
The point of any description of relativity observations has to begin with what causes electrons to move. Then we can have a clue to the physical description of photons.
-
The point of any description of relativity observations has to begin with what causes electrons to move. Then we can have a clue to the physical description of photons.
I've already described how they move. Fundamental wave that it is made of travels at c the same way as EM waves. Interactions with other waves makes them to change shape (compress or extend the helix) and thus the forward speed changes. What makes photons to move makes electrons to move.
Regarding fields other than electro-magnetic, since they can interact with electro-magnetic filed through gravitational effects it means that probably they are also electro-magnetic. This explains the relativistic mass effects that apply to all particles.
Like Nikola Tesla said – "Everything is the Light".
-
I've already described how they move. Fundamental wave that it is made of travels at c the same way as EM waves. Interactions with other waves makes them to change shape (compress or extend the helix) and thus the forward speed changes. What makes photons to move makes electrons to move.
We fundamentally agree the photon travels as a helix similar to our own DNA. The electron motion is probably the cause of DNA and life itself. "What makes photons to move makes electrons to move" While you are correct you are missing the deeper question. What makes electrons move? I have designed a grid pattern of c spin that make electrons appear to be moving around a string going in any direction. Always moving at c both the electron and the photon. The electron total angular motion is c while the photon is vector motion c. So for me it is the structure of space that creates the helix light photon packet by its jump to a higher orbit. This jump causes friction in the grid pattern mimicking the electron travel distance and angular motion we view as hf.
Regarding fields other than electro-magnetic, since they can interact with electro-magnetic filed through gravitational effects it means that probably they are also electro-magnetic. This explains the relativistic mass effects that apply to all particles.
Using the term electro magnetic is probably confusing. We have to define a physical interpretation for different attraction affects. And we need to follow relativity.
Speed in SR reduces tick rates in clocks. We can understand the geometry issue with tick rate slowing down. Fundamental c being total energy available (an electron moving a vector c would not cycle) is reduced by vector speed. In GR we can follow gravity as a reduction of potential energy as gravity. Speed in SR also reduces potential increase in speed. While the mathematics of main stream suggests a difference in mass we can view gravity as a difference in energy potential while the mass remains the same. Main stream fudges a mass increase to follow relativity. It is actually an energy decrease that cause the attraction increase in GR. The equivalence in SR is energy available from c for the mathematics to be the equivalent gamma term.
Like Nikola Tesla said – "Everything is the Light".
While I believe everything is energy c light is just a propagation wave on fundamental energy c.
Fusion in suns compress energy into hydrogen atoms creating their own fuel from space with radiation waves on the grid.
Fission in suns release the frozen energy particles back into fundamental energy with radiation waves on the grid.
The sun produces higher elements as it ages using space as its fuel. The suns life cycle.
-
The little paper explaining this concept is now available here:http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239
-
Nilak
That was a very interesting paper. About 80% correct in my opinion. Its still slightly off because some of the foundation is missing which will lead to some incorrect conclusions that violate relativity. But you have mixed mechanics with most of relativity quite well. Putting mechanics to relativity is like following the rabbit into his hole in Alice in wonderland. While the math has been worked out precisely the accuracy of the mechanical gears have remained a mystery. A few tweaking's of the concept is all I suspect that is needed to accurately follow relativity. The one major piece missing is the correct understanding of the Alfa Frame which had no description of motion but use motion in examples. Why do electrons move in a helix. I totally believe they do and I have shown reason for why they do at c. You seem to have left out the very reason for motion itself. Once you figure that out I suspect it will change some of the positions you currently hold. The main one being light is the same as mass. This is just wrong. Light being the cause of gravity is also incorrect but the spectrum does cause gravity. Your distance issue with clocks is spot on in SR but misses the mark in GR. Dilation of space is real, observable as lensing in galaxies and increases the size of mass when the energy density expands. This is the equivalence between SR and GR. You correctly describe an Alpha Frame c of least amount of dilation as a fixed c distance for energy particles. While we can only use our clocks for relative dilations in GR and relative speeds in SR. We can never measure a fixed frame although there is one of least dilation. You can never measure a tool that you are using to measure with. We can not measure c with c. That was insightful and shows understanding.
There are no lines in 3d space only points of different special dimensions as proven by Pi.
Overall very good
-
Thank you.
Yes, AF can only be defined as an ideal thing but I don't know if we can find an object that is at rest in AF. Perhaps there is a way, if you can find one way speed of light.
There are no straight lines in real life, I agree. Straight line trajectory are imaginary. If everything is made of fileds and waves, perfect lines are only illusions.
-
Perhaps there is a way, if you can find one way speed of light.
In a sense this is correct. It's kind of like analytical chemistry where you can use an internal and external standard for purity of a product. You have all of the energy being used for distance while you can measure the distance. Unfortunately GR also interferes with distance measurements. So while we can have accurate measurements we can never have precise measurements because your AF is always confounded with mass dilated space. Even between galaxies but that is where we would be the most precise. If mass could have a vector speed of light the ability to measure time (energy available) would stop.
-
This link was posted on this forum:
http://www.nature.com/news/ligo-black-hole-echoes-hint-at-general-relativity-breakdown-1.21135?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20161215&spMailingID=52998738&spUserID=MjgzNDMxNjU2ODIS1&spJobID=1063046368&spReportId=MTA2MzA0NjM2OAS2
The chapter 13 in my paper explains how black holes work in a similar way. Instead of a firewall as the article says my model says the BH has a shell of spinning electromagnetic waves and accelerated particles up to c. I should 've mention there is no singularity since it doesn't make sense in my model.
Anyway simply applying the ideas in my concept can give you an idea if how BH work.
-
It is suggested BH has no time. Time is energy motion of atomic scale. Compact atoms in BH's would have no motion inside. On the outside c is trying to get in and cannot. Light is not necessarily trying to escape but curve around because there is no spacetime energy within the BH.
-
I've tried to use the model to predict what happens with accelerated particles. If the source or the observer accelerates or moves it is simply Doppler Shift. However when accelerating free particles like electrons (not the sources), there is no way to tell what happens to the frequency. Orbit periods decrease (this effect reduces the ticks rates of atomic clocks) but frequencies can only be deduced from experimental data I think.
-
A scenario of accelerating particles at c in the context of my model:
We can start with a pair of an electron and a positron that fall in a gravitational field. The deBroglie wavelength will gradually reduce as they gain energy and speed. We can monitor a similar pair made of two photons of the same initial wavelength as the e- / e+ pair. As the e- / e+ pair descents the speed increases thus the orbital period decreases and the deBroglie frequency increases. For the photon pair only the frequency increases obviously at the same rate. No mater how long they fall the orbital period will reduce but never reaches zero but the deBroglie frequency will go extreme. If the pairs are on a slightly convergent way at some point the e- / e+ pair will collide and decay into two pair of photons. These photons will be the same frequency as the pair of photons that started the journey with the electrons and will have the same energy. This is the electromagnetic wave - matter equivalence.
A recent paper describes the details of an electron which is similar to my description: http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0267v1.pdf
-
Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.
Could you explain please ?
-
LB7
What makes electrons move? They do not move by their own volition. There has to be a mechanism to move electrons or magic is real. Main stream believes the electrons move and stops there. There must be a mechanical reason for electron motion. It is also controlling photon motion because the electrons and photons are confounded in every frame. Since they are confounded they are controlled by c. c must be of space and not mass for fundamental energy. Mass only has kinetic energy. The more kinetic energy the less fundamental energy. BH's are all kinetic and no fundamental energy. What we measure as time.
-
LB7
What makes electrons move? They do not move by their own volition. There has to be a mechanism to move electrons or magic is real. Main stream believes the electrons move and stops there. There must be a mechanical reason for electron motion. It is also controlling photon motion because the electrons and photons are confounded in every frame. Since they are confounded they are controlled by c. c must be of space and not mass for fundamental energy. Mass only has kinetic energy. The more kinetic energy the less fundamental energy. BH's are all kinetic and no fundamental energy. What we measure as time.
Ok, I understood. It is only the electron/photon or it is the case for all particles ?
For me, the clock-particle rotates with the velocity 'c'. If that particle has an inertia, it is easy to explain the movements of the photon and the electron.
For the photon:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIwhQecj.png&hash=ac29ae36bf7449dc35ac449dabcc46d7)
For the matter like an electron:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI5VDz23.png&hash=80f160d75ad3e3e3e10426df810febfe)
But, if I'm right, the question now, is why the clock-particle moves at 'c' ? Maybe it is a motor, the motor I reached to create the energy. That motor creates its own energy and generates an electromagnetic field (the gravity). The rotor want to rotate at an infinite angular velocity. But it can't it has a limit: 'c'. So now, the question is why 'c' is a limit ? Maybe it is due of the size of the motor, or the geometry.
-
Now I understand why GoC keeps asking what moves electrons, as particles I suppose. I don't think there is a particle at all. I think particles and rigid body motion does not exist. For waves it is normal to think they propagate field values at constant velocity because if the free space has constant properties.
Starting from my postulates I have initially shown that either particles don't exist or they have to move on a helical trajectory. But a particle on a helical trajectory doesn't quite make sense. There are also further reasons they don't exist. For light the field already contains the energy and there is no reason to think the energy is also held in a point particle. The concept works without particles. Why make it complicated by adding particles?
-
I don't think there is a particle at all. I think particles and rigid body motion does not exist.
Particle, wave, like we don't know what it is exactly... it is a name we gave. I prefer to think with points, trajectory, motor, etc because my head works like that.
-
I don't think there is a particle at all. I think particles and rigid body motion does not exist.
Particle, wave, like we don't know what it is exactly... it is a name we gave. I prefer to think with points, trajectory, motor, etc because my head works like that.
Yes, but there's a difference between rigid body motion and wave like propagation. I don't think we have both of them.
Waves also interfere and obey the superposition principle .
-
Waves creating themselves is magic.
-
Waves creating themselves is magic.
Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.
QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.
I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not. If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest. In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.
If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.
-
Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.
You only describe affect without a cause. Relativity Math is the best at affects based on postulates. Your theory needs cause not affects.
Do we know there was a BB? If you look at the largest BH's in the universe 13,000 AU + its like saying man only existed on Earth for 6,000 years. And that book is still in circulation. Science should not be based on faith.
QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.
Time=Motion =fundamental Energy It's that simple.
I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not.
It's not.
If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest.
Nothing is ever at rest.
In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.
There is only mass and the spectrum. Fundamental energy is of the spectrum we recognize as c. The spectrum moves the electrons and photons as a wave of the spectrum.
If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.
Dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity. Mass is attracted to less dense energy state by having less restrictive volume increasing the electron path slowing the physical clock. Same for the photon increase in distance. The scalar of the electron and the scalar of the photon are equivalent.
-
Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.
You only describe affect without a cause. Relativity Math is the best at affects based on postulates. Your theory needs cause not affects.
Do we know there was a BB? If you look at the largest BH's in the universe 13,000 AU + its like saying man only existed on Earth for 6,000 years. And that book is still in circulation. Science should not be based on faith.
My concept needs to include a beginning unless the universe has been around forever. The cause of waves are initial excitations of the field. If you have an universe made of a perfect fluid lake and constant gravity, once you create a wave then waves continue forever. We don't know how the waves started, but something did. BB only says the universe once occupied a much smaller region than now, it doesn't say what whas before.
QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.
Time=Motion =fundamental Energy It's that simple.
No, time is not motion, but motion needs time and space.
I see fundamental energy as the EM potential energy only. If you measure the potential energy stored in the EM field within a volume you get all the energy. There is nothing left. Time only allows for the filed values to change location but the energy is conserved.
I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not.
It's not.
If you are a supporter of GR, then yes, you could see space like a dynamic medium.
My concept can work with something like that, but it is not quite GR.
If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest.
Nothing is ever at rest.
That means you exclude a static medium and believe GR is correct.
In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.
There is only mass and the spectrum. Fundamental energy is of the spectrum we recognize as c. The spectrum moves the electrons and photons as a wave of the spectrum.
Ok, but this is about gravity. I suppose you believe in GR, then gravity is spacetime curvature.
If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.
Dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity.
If you say the dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity then it doesn't sound like spacetime curvature.
Mass is attracted to less dense energy state by having less restrictive volume increasing the electron path slowing the physical clock. Same for the photon increase in distance. The scalar of the electron and the scalar of the photon are equivalent.
If mass is attracted to less energy state the why mass is attracted to objects that have a high energy density ?
Can you explain?
What is a scalar of an electron?
My model can work with a static medium but I don't have the mechanism for gravity. It is only a hypothesis that could be caused by EM interference. The idea of dilation of the energy that causes gravity could be something and it could work with the interference hypothesis, but I don't see something clear. EM waves are quite different than normal waves like water waves, sound waves or string waves and I find their behaviour hard to predict.
But if the medium can flow, I can explain it by a flow in the direction of the EM field excitation which corespond to an area with higher energy which is equivalent to higher mass. However, there are problems with this version as well, like what happens to the medium if it flows towards a volume of space? Its density should increase continuously. There are also other problems.
-
Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.
You only describe affect without a cause. Relativity Math is the best at affects based on postulates. Your theory needs cause not affects.
Do we know there was a BB? If you look at the largest BH's in the universe 13,000 AU + its like saying man only existed on Earth for 6,000 years. And that book is still in circulation. Science should not be based on faith.
My concept needs to include a beginning unless the universe has been around forever. The cause of waves are initial excitations of the field. If you have an universe made of a perfect fluid lake and constant gravity, once you create a wave then waves continue forever. We don't know how the waves started, but something did. BB only says the universe once occupied a much smaller region than now, it doesn't say what whas before.
We are dealing with density issues. Energy is the lowest form of density in our fractal distinguishable environment. The electron being on the order of a BH to a galaxy for density. Electrons cause energy density changes within its environment.
If we look at red shift through the eyes of GR relativity expansion is no longer an issue.
A realest has to say large comes from small. But the religious conundrum rears its ugly head. From where did the first small come?
QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.
Time=Motion =fundamental Energy It's that simple.
No, time is not motion, but motion needs time and space.
I see fundamental energy as the EM potential energy only. If you measure the potential energy stored in the EM field within a volume you get all the energy. There is nothing left. Time only allows for the filed values to change location but the energy is conserved.
Yes, energy is conserved but where, what and how is energy conserved. Main stream only counts kinetic as real energy while all other energy is virtual like the photon. What moves the electron? E=m*c to move the electrons and * c for energy being of space and not being of mass. There is always a ratio of conserved energy as a kinetic ratio to c total. BH's are total kinetic without c.
I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not.
It's not.
If you are a supporter of GR, then yes, you could see space like a dynamic medium.
My concept can work with something like that, but it is not quite GR.
I am in total agreement with Relativity. m*c dilates space c.
If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest.
Nothing is ever at rest.
That means you exclude a static medium and believe GR is correct.
The MMX proved a static Aether is extremely unlikely. GR is correct or the entire relativity theory falls apart.
In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.
Spacetime is never flat in a universe of mass.
There is only mass and the spectrum. Fundamental energy is of the spectrum we recognize as c. The spectrum moves the electrons and photons as a wave of the spectrum.
Ok, but this is about gravity. I suppose you believe in GR, then gravity is spacetime curvature.
Spacetime curvature is a 2d description of a 3d dilation of space. There are no tensors its just gravity caused by less dense energy and more space for the electron to move. Gravity is like a funnel for mass to the center of maximum dilation
If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.
Everything is right with the world.
Dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity.
If you say the dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity then it doesn't sound like spacetime curvature.
Not in the way main streams model of tensors explain. Dilation is the expansion of fundamental energy.
Mass is attracted to less dense energy state by having less restrictive volume increasing the electron path slowing the physical clock. Same for the photon increase in distance. The scalar of the electron and the scalar of the photon are equivalent.
If mass is attracted to less energy state the why mass is attracted to objects that have a high energy density ?
Can you explain?
BH's have no fundamental energy and yet main stream considers it the most energetic.
What is a scalar of an electron?
It's new radius from expansion.
My model can work with a static medium but I don't have the mechanism for gravity. It is only a hypothesis that could be caused by EM interference. The idea of dilation of the energy that causes gravity could be something and it could work with the interference hypothesis, but I don't see something clear. EM waves are quite different than normal waves like water waves, sound waves or string waves and I find their behaviour hard to predict.
But if the medium can flow, I can explain it by a flow in the direction of the EM field excitation which corespond to an area with higher energy which is equivalent to higher mass. However, there are problems with this version as well, like what happens to the medium if it flows towards a volume of space? Its density should increase continuously. There are also other problems.