0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Does it not seem strange that physics deals with gravity when there is no evidence it exists, yet pays little attention to the dilationary effect on time caused by a mass, that is, at what point does mass start to affect time and what is the process? Is it not also strange that both concepts fail to explain the behaviour of matter when it is separated by large distances?
GoC:There is evidence for gravity every time you step on a scale. G=A for equivalence in GR and SR. Dilation in GR is a dilation in zero point energy where energy density decreases in space. Mass causes this dilation by forcing energy to move its electrons. Mass is attracted to a more dilated position because there is less resistance in less dense energy particles (spacetime, Dark Mass Energy or Aether). Call it anything you like but electrons do not move by magic. Charge is a potential only and has nothing to do with electron motion. So gravity follows potential energy reduction to the center of mass where dilation of energy is the greatest. There is no attraction and you are weightless in the center of a moon or planet. It does not take a rocket scientist to follow the logic.
Thanks GoC and McQeen.Gravity keeps us on ground and allows the operation of satellites. However, a clock on the ground and a clock on the satellite cannot agree on where the satellite is. Can it be assumed the satellite has an effect on the Earth directly in proportion to the number of atoms from which the satellite is constructed? Or to rephrase the question, how many atoms does it take to cause time dilation and does the effect diminish with distance in exactly the same way as gravity?
GoC:You have to completely abandon the subjective opinions of the past to completely understand the true ratio relativity math explains. Yes there is a medium and there has to be unless there is magic in the universe. Electrons are a flow not a charged potential. Charge in chemistry is balance and unbalanced mass occupying the space energy. BH's are just the opposite. There is no energy in a BH. Electron motion causes friction to fundamental energy. There is no friction in a BH they just eat mass like a giant particle in a fractal universe where they might represent an electron.
QuoteGoC:You have to completely abandon the subjective opinions of the past to completely understand the true ratio relativity math explains. Yes there is a medium and there has to be unless there is magic in the universe. Electrons are a flow not a charged potential. Charge in chemistry is balance and unbalanced mass occupying the space energy. BH's are just the opposite. There is no energy in a BH. Electron motion causes friction to fundamental energy. There is no friction in a BH they just eat mass like a giant particle in a fractal universe where they might represent an electron. While it is completely acceptable to have a positive opinion on what Einstein achieved, maybe it is wrong to be overly ingenuous in accepting everything as gospel? After all take the synchronisation of clocks, one situated at the point of origin A and the other at the destination B, according to Einstein, the clock at A ran faster than the clock at B, (and this is the kicker) while the rate at which the clock at B slowed down was exactly the amount of time needed to allow the speed of light to be constant in the very strange sense that it was constant in a way that could not be detected!
While this may have been a more acceptable solution than an aether which was supposed to be millions of times more rigid than steel yet was undetectable and permeable to the planets and all other matter, when it was proposed a hundred years ago, it is hardly an acceptable proposal today. What I am asking you to do is to put things in context. The way you speak of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) as if it were the very latest in scientific achievements is disturbing to say the least. I repeat again here was an experiment (MMX) devised to detect an aether that was millions of times more rigid than steel but was also invisible and undetectable by any means whatsoever. What you can't seem to grasp is that the whole ethos behind the experiment was in itself flawed.
They should never have been looking for such a thing and it should have been NO surprise when it was not detected. Instead, scientists in a desperate bid to prove that something must exist to limit the speed of light and to prevent immediate action at a distance (AAD) were only too keen to grasp at straws in the form of Einstein's proposal that the speed of light was constant no matter in which context it was taken.(i.e., time and space adjusted themselves to maintain the constancy of the speed of light.)
Einstein used clockwork clocks in his examples:Look at the cogs, look at the springs! Think about what a far cry this is from your grandiose atomic clock view of theories based on these cogs and springs. Think about how far it is from your view of MMX!
In complete contrast to this early classical version of the aether, where it had to be millions of times more rigid than steel, is the Neo-Classical (Gestalt Aether Theory) version of the aether in which the aether itself is composed of virtual photons that align themselves in the direction of propagation of a real photon emitted by an electron within an atom and it is the energy of the real photon (not the photon itself) that travels along this line of aligned virtual photons. In this way every aspect of the propagation of light according to the inverse square law (and even for coherent light) is perfectly explained. How does light propagate according to special or general relativity? Special relativity in particular seems to give the impression that light travels in discrete straight lines!
The point is that when you have the whole of SPACE and TIME adjust themselves according to your bidding to maintain one factor as constant, it would be possible to do almost anything that came to mind. Even explain gravity for example, although it is almost painfully obvious that Einstein's explanation of gravity is completely based on Newton's discoveries and merely clothes those discoveries in a new motivating force, which it is hoped has been demonstrated does not hold water. It is totally confounding that such unrealistic theories supported by unrealistic proofs have so much credence.