Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Atom Smasher on 08/12/2009 16:19:58
-
A new model of gravity is offered at:
http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html.
This new model proposes that since:
(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and
(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and
(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;
gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it.
Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant. The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass. The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.
The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy. Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.
The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature. Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum? Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct? Who knows?
What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?
-
Gravity is a natural consequence of the quantum nature of electromagnetic fields. The nature of the field is that it always moves as a ripple of potential electric and magnetic amplitude driving points of saturation through space. Left alone, the points always move in a straight line. But when the points of saturation move through the fields of others they must reach saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the other fields.
It is a little difficult to get your head around it, but when you see it, it is logically demanded.
-
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
-
Yep, the troughs and heights of SpaceTime.
-
Gravity is a natural consequence of the quantum nature of electromagnetic fields. The nature of the field is that it always moves as a ripple of potential electric and magnetic amplitude driving points of saturation through space. Left alone, the points always move in a straight line. But when the points of saturation move through the fields of others they must reach saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the other fields.
It is a little difficult to get your head around it, but when you see it, it is logically demanded.
Well, there is the little problem that electromagnetism doesn't work to attract everything, while gravity does. That would be an empirical problem.
-
Well, there is the little problem that electromagnetism doesn't work to attract everything, while gravity does. That would be an empirical problem.
I don't know if you read it and didn't understand it, or that you understand it and don't accept it as possible.
It seems consistent to me. Electric and magnetic fields extend out forever diminishing in amplitude as the square of distance from their point origins. The points of the fields origin are saturated electric and magnetic amplitude. Points of origin achieve saturation with the help of diminished fields in their path. So saturation happens at a very slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.
That is speculation; it may or may not be what happens; but it is consistent with observations; and it does work to produce the effect.
-
It seems consistent to me. Electric and magnetic fields extend out forever diminishing in amplitude as the square of distance from their point origins. The points of the fields origin are saturated electric and magnetic amplitude. Points of origin achieve saturation with the help of diminished fields in their path. So saturation happens at a very slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.
That is speculation; it may or may not be what happens; but it is consistent with observations; and it does work to produce the effect.
The observations and their implications are simple and clear.
Newton observed that massive bodies that are seemingly unconnected tend to move toward each other. Something has to be causing the motion. If the bodies are not connected, the simple explanation is that something exterior to the bodies must be pushing them together.
Einstein posited that a man in a closed chest, in deep space that is void of gravity, feels the sensation of gravity if a constant acceleration is applied to the chest. Again, something in the void of space must be pushing against the man when he is accelerated.
The acceleration a body A imparts on body B is proportional to the mass of body A, and the inverse of the square of the distance separating A and B. The dimensions of the proportionality constant (the universal gravitational constant), Newton-meters-squared per kilogram-squared, simplify to cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram, which implies that each kilogram of mass is processing a volume of something per unit time. Since the constant is negative, the processing the mass does appears to be either draining or consuming something.
Together, these seem to suggest that something in empty space, or space itself, pushes against matter to create the effect of gravity. Since there is no indication of coulombs involved in the observations, it seems unlikely that gravity involves electromagnetism. Because gravity seems to be pushing masses together, the motive force appears to originate away from, and move towards, the gravity source, like water moving toward an open drain, pushing objects with it. This seems contrary to the idea of the source mass emanating particles (gravitons) that interact with objects they encounter, causing the objects to move toward the gravity source. Both of these approaches to gravity have been pursued for many years with no conformation; which seems to suggest that, perhaps, they do not represent the true nature of gravity, just good approximations on some level.
-
Atom Smasher, I appreciate your efforts and will spend some time evaluating your theory. But I see a few problems with your theory. For one how do you explain the link between gravitation effects and the electromagnetic effects? For example, when objects travel near a gravitational mass, their acceleration is doubled as they reach the speed of light.
Sir Arthur eddington's observation of the bending of light around the sun during a solar eclipse was considered the first proof to einstein's theory of gravitation. However, the important fact of that experiment was that light appeared to bend twice as much as gravity would of bent a stationary object relative to the surface of the sun. That's why it is said that gravity is a bending of space itself, gravity has an additional component for relative velocities. Your theory provides a conceptual picture for an acceleration, but that picture doesn't appear to add up when you consider moving sources.
The other problem I have with your theory is that it doesn't appear to have a purpose. It's not simpler, and it doesn't predict anything new. So why this model of gravity?
-
Atom Smasher, I appreciate your efforts and will spend some time evaluating your theory. But I see a few problems with your theory. For one how do you explain the link between gravitation effects and the electromagnetic effects? For example, when objects travel near a gravitational mass, their acceleration is doubled as they reach the speed of light.
Sir Arthur eddington's observation of the bending of light around the sun during a solar eclipse was considered the first proof to einstein's theory of gravitation. However, the important fact of that experiment was that light appeared to bend twice as much as gravity would of bent a stationary object relative to the surface of the sun. That's why it is said that gravity is a bending of space itself, gravity has an additional component for relative velocities. Your theory provides a conceptual picture for an acceleration, but that picture doesn't appear to add up when you consider moving sources.
The other problem I have with your theory is that it doesn't appear to have a purpose. It's not simpler, and it doesn't predict anything new. So why this model of gravity?
Please provide a reference for the point made in your first paragraph. I am not aware of an observation supporting this claim, nor can I see how it connects gravity to electromagnetism based on what you offered.
The claims made by Eddington from his photographs of the eclipse in 1919 are commonly referenced as proof of the bending of light predicted by general relativity. However, there have always been questions surrounding the validity of those claims. The quality of the images on the photographic plates and the quality of the evaluation of the images continue to be questioned even today. Not saying that it is wrong, but many people then and now were not convinced of the result reported.
Finally, the purpose of the theory is to explain the source of gravity. Not how gravity behaves, but what causes gravity to happen. Newton conceded that he did not know what caused gravity and Einstein's warped space still does not explain why the space warps, only that it does around massive bodies. As far as I know (and I admit I don't know everything there is to know), the mechanism that causes gravity is still unknown. We've spent a lot of time and money trying to devise experiments to validate what we desire gravity to be in order to support our theories, but I haven't heard that it has been pinned down yet. If you know something different, please share it with me.
-
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are much more easily explained without it.
-
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are easily explained without it.
Even time dilation?
-
well atomsmasher, if you don't believe that gravity bends moving objects more than stationary ones than we are at an impasse. We disagree as to what experimental evidence says.
-
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are easily explained without it.
Even time dilation?
Yes; especially time dilation. It is case number six in the evidence. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
-
If something has to push on another to make it move, how do you explain the effects of quantum entanglement? Quantum Entanglement shows that objects here can affect objects way over there. And recent experimentation, has shown that it's not just random spins that are affected.
There is a new experiment that shows that objects can entangle momentum together. Meaning if you had two objects entangled regardless of how far apart they were their velocities would affect each other. Not many people know of this yet though, modern theory has some catching up to do. But even without this new experiment that appears to fly in the face of ether/stationary frame logic (and a lot of other things as well). I really don't see any reason why ether is needed to explain any experiment. It's also a step in the "more complicated" direction, you have to assume one more thing.
-
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are easily explained without it.
Even time dilation?
Yes; especially time dilation. It is case number six in the evidence. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
If I've understood that explanation correctly, the relationship between movement and time-dilation should be linear i.e. the degree of time-dilation is proportional to the speed, but the experimental evidence supports the Lorentz solution where the degree of time dilation is proportional to the square root of the speed.
-
The Lorentz solution is exactly correct. I think your assumption about linear speed is invalid. It doesn't take into account the forward to back reduction in distance. Taken together the two causes follow the Lorentz transforms.
-
"There is a new experiment that shows that objects can entangle momentum together. Meaning if you had two objects entangled regardless of how far apart they were their velocities would affect each other."
Link it.
-
The Lorentz solution is exactly correct. I think your assumption about linear speed is invalid. It doesn't take into account the forward to back reduction in distance. Taken together the two causes follow the Lorentz transforms.
It's not a question of linear speed but of the relationship between the speed and the degree of time dilation, which appears to be linear.
-
I understood your first response. I suspect that the relationship is not linear because the distortions do not operate independently but must be taken together. Each distortion affects the other. The interrelationship requires the Lorentz solution. It is interesting that Poincare who completed the Lorentz transforms knew the possibility of the electromagnetic nature of the universe.
-
If something has to push on another to make it move, how do you explain the effects of quantum entanglement? Quantum Entanglement shows that objects here can affect objects way over there. And recent experimentation, has shown that it's not just random spins that are affected.
Your statement is not correct. It is only theory. The idea that a remote object takes on a certain state when its entangled partner is observed is theory. There is no experimental evidence of it.
Statements like this show up continuously because the underlying philosophically unsound Quantum theory is never questioned. However, there has never ever been a single experiment that upholds this most fundamental part of the theory.
Edit: Most fundamental part: An object with equal probability of existing in several states takes on the observed state at the time of observation. Before observation it exists in a superposition of all its possible states.
The observed states of entangled particles could have existed from the time of the particles creation. There is no experimental evidence that suggests otherwise.
-
I understood your first response. I suspect that the relationship is not linear because the distortions do not operate independently but must be taken together. Each distortion affects the other. The interrelationship requires the Lorentz solution. It is interesting that Poincare who completed the Lorentz transforms knew the possibility of the electromagnetic nature of the universe.
But I'm afraid it's not good enough to say "I suspect" or talk about "distortions" without defining exactly what those distortions are and explaining why and how they occur. I'm sorry, but I think this represents a big gap in your explanation.
The Lorentz solution explains the relationship between speed and the degree of time dilation by saying that the sum of the speed through space-time is always 'c' i.e. the sum of the vectors of the rate of movement through space and time always equals 'c'.
Without your 'distortions', the relationship between the rates of movement through time and space appears to be linear to me, and need these undefined and unexplained distortions to account for the anomaly. But you have just replaced one anomaly with another.
-
I really like your theory atom smasher.
I just can't get my head around 1 thing....
If the sun (for example) was consuming the vacuum around it, then why don't the planets move closer to the sun?
In classic gravity, they have diagonal momentum which keeps them in orbit, but if the space between them and the sun is shrinking then they would move closer wouldn't they?
I think its a really creative theory and deserves more readers, its a good start and you on your way to something big I hope.
-
I really like your theory atom smasher.
I just can't get my head around 1 thing....
If the sun (for example) was consuming the vacuum around it, then why don't the planets move closer to the sun?
In classic gravity, they have diagonal momentum which keeps them in orbit, but if the space between them and the sun is shrinking then they would move closer wouldn't they?
I think its a really creative theory and deserves more readers, its a good start and you on your way to something big I hope.
The model does not change the way gravity works in space, it tries to explain what causes it to work. The vacuum in space is like water in a bathtub, and the sun is like an open drain. As the water in the tub drains, all of the water moves toward the drain and tends to carry objects in the water toward the drain. As the sun consumes vacuum, all of the vacuum in space moves toward it, tending to drag the planets (for example) with it. Because the planets are in orbits, they have orbital velocities which creates centrifugal accelerations that counters the drag and keeps them in their orbits.
Note that since the sun is consuming vacuum at a constant rate, near the sun, vacuum is moving at a faster rate toward it than at distances far away from the sun. The rate the vacuum moves toward the sun through a sun-centered spherical surface with radius R is 10,000 times faster that that of a sun-centered spherical surface of 100R. This is the case with the orbits of Mercury (58 million km) and Pluto (5,800 million km) around the sun. The orbital speed of Mercury is 48 km/s, which makes its centrifugal acceleration (v^2/r) about 4E-5 km/sec^2, whereas the orbital speed of Pluto is about 4.7 km/s, making its centrifugal acceleration about 4E-9 (about 1/10,000 that of Mercury). This indicates that at very large distances from the sun, for all practical purposes, the vacuum is not moving toward the sun at all.
-
Now either you model vacuum as something intrinsically empty or as something containing a hidden energy?
Which of them do you see it as Atom Smasher?
And then you seem to say that this vacuum gets eaten by mass (invariant) if i got it right?
Assuming that vacuum, even if empty, still contains and constrains 'distances' like between the moon and Earth and the Sun,you still need to define it as 'something' as it contains that distance. This 'something' must then somehow replenish itself as we otherwise would shrink all distances as the vacuum gets 'eaten' by mass.
If you assume that it contains a hidden energy you must also somehow explain why the concentration of that 'energy' doesn't show up as f ex. a disturbed 'space' around mass, containing a higher 'density' of 'virtual photons'?
As for entanglement, don't know about that Vern. There seem to have been some experiments done. Here is two.
nonlocality and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205171v1.pdf)
Physicists Demonstrate Quantum Entanglement In Mechanical System (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090603131429.htm)
But there seems still to be a heated discussion about the original 'Aspect's experiment' Predictive quantum gravity built upon observational facts (http://nige.wordpress.com/entanglement-lies-exposed-by-the-late-caroline-h-thompson/)
And there you will find her PDF too.
As for the rest of it I will need to reread this thread when I'm more awake I think :) and see what sense I will make..
-
Now either you model vacuum as something intrinsically empty or as something containing a hidden energy?
Which of them do you see it as Atom Smasher?
And then you seem to say that this vacuum gets eaten by mass (invariant) if i got it right?
Assuming that vacuum, even if empty, still contains and constrains 'distances' like between the moon and Earth and the Sun,you still need to define it as 'something' as it contains that distance. This 'something' must then somehow replenish itself as we otherwise would shrink all distances as the vacuum gets 'eaten' by mass.
I am proposing that vacuum is "something", but not what we traditionally think of as "something". It is not matter or energy, the things we normally consider "something", but it does exist as an entity in the universe that can affect what we commonly think of as "something" (matter and energy). A crude analogy may be found in real and imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are not real numbers, but operations performed with just imaginary numbers can produce, and therefore affect, real numbers (e.g., i*i = - 1).
The dimensions of the gravitational constant suggest that each kilogram of mass a body possesses is somehow associated with a volume of "something" being consumed per unit time. I am suggesting that since there does not appear to be matter (as we know it) disappearing, that it is the vacuum (discussed above) being consumed.
I am further suggesting that the existence of matter may be tied to the consumption of vacuum. I am speculating that mass is the product (or byproduct) of the vacuum consumption process. In other words, the gravitational constant may be indicating the amount of mass that is produced as a result of a volume of vacuum being consumed or used by an, as yet, undiscovered physical process.
As for the supply of vacuum, for now I am assuming an infinite universe provides an infinite supply of vacuum. Consequently, the vacuum that is used up by gravity is continuously backfilled by the infinite supply.
-
Ok, although I disagree on vacuum not being 'real' :)
Or maybe you meant that it was real after all?
You comparing it to imaginary numbers confuse me a little.
To me it contains distance, therefore it exist as a constituent of SpaceTime. Therefore it is real, as 'real' as anything else that have a geometrical form.
But your idea of vacuum creating mass is definitely a new one to me.
So where would you think that infinite supply of vacuum would come from?
-
Ok, although I disagree on vacuum not being 'real' :)
Or maybe you meant that it was real after all?
You comparing it to imaginary numbers confuse me a little.
To me it contains distance, therefore it exist as a constituent of SpaceTime. Therefore it is real, as 'real' as anything else that have a geometrical form.
But your idea of vacuum creating mass is definitely a new one to me.
So where would you think that infinite supply of vacuum would come from?
I do believe the vacuum is real. I just believe it is something that we cannot sense directly. Can't grab a sample of it for analysis.
My analogy with the imaginary numbers was probably a poor one. Just disregard it.
Infinity is infinity. If there is an infinite supply, there is always more to replace what is used. The universe is believed to be infinite and expanding. Perhaps more vacuum is made as the universe expands. This is certainly a question that must be addressed at some point; however, right now I'm just trying to establish the framework of the model so that this and other aspects of it can be explored.
I appreciate and welcome your questions and interest. Please do not hesitate to challenge the fundamentals of what I'm proposing. I have no problem with modifying or even abandoning a line of thought if I am convinced it is ill-conceived. I just want to make sure the idea gets a fair evaluation.
-
Well, you turn it around a little.
The other way to see it is that matter is what creates space, or rather that matter and space craves each other to exist. The last one is the one I lean too, even though it is matter that will 'expand' space as seen from a neutron stars perspective. How do you explain that space 'grows' around mass?
It will take me some time to see how you think here.
-
But I'm afraid it's not good enough to say "I suspect" or talk about "distortions" without defining exactly what those distortions are and explaining why and how they occur. I'm sorry, but I think this represents a big gap in your explanation.
The speculation does explain why and how the distortions occur [:)] I only suspect, because it is speculation. I am happy just to be self consistent.
The sum of two related vectors each of which contain direction and amplitude is solved with Pythagoras type equations, just like the Lorentz transforms. That's just another case in the evidence. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
-
Well, there's no saying you're wrong, but there's no saying you're right either. At this level we're dealing with concepts below what is known to be fundamental; it's all speculation until someone comes up with a provable experiment.
(Oh yeah - and the funds to conduct the experiment)
-
Well, there's no saying you're wrong, but there's no saying you're right either. At this level we're dealing with concepts below what is known to be fundamental; it's all speculation until someone comes up with a provable experiment.
(Oh yeah - and the funds to conduct the experiment)
Well, if at least the experiment was defined, it would be a good start. Funding might come later - or much later.
-
All experiments yet devised in the history of mankind do support it. The problem is that our definition of reality is so vague that the proofs do not matter. For example, once we accept variable space-time as the norm, all the proofs that rely upon relativity phenomena go out the window. It's like trying to build an elaborate structure with an elastic measure.
Edit: The "it" that is supported is the contention that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
My speculations are mere speculations that I hope are self consistent and show that the contention might be the most fundamental reality in this universe.
-
A new model of gravity is offered at:
http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html.
This new model proposes that since:
(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and
(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and
(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;
gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it.
Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant. The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass. The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.
The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy. Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.
The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature. Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum? Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct? Who knows? What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?
This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.
-
A new model of gravity is offered at:
http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html.
This new model proposes that since:
(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and
(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and
(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;
gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it.
Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant. The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass. The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.
The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy. Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.
The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature. Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum? Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct? Who knows? What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?
This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.
Interesting that this old thread is revived and that the connection between the vacuum energy density of space (Cosmological Constant), and Aether inflow into mass is made. The conclusion of the last post is that the aether inflow gives gravity, and in that sense I interpret the action as an exchange, requiring the presence of mass and energy density in space.
The exchange is between the vacuum energy density of space, which is the inflow to maintain the presence of mass, and the gravitational wave energy out flow from mass that traverses space between massive objects and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy of distant massive objects.
The action, then, is that gravitational wave energy is emitted by massive objects, and is absorbed by surrounding massive objects; a continual process of gravitational wave energy exchange.
The Quantum Mechanics of that process would be referred to as quantum action, where gravitational wave energy carries energy through space, gravitational waves intersect in space, the intersections between directional gravitational waves cause a convergence at a point in space, the resulting energy carried to the point of convergence by the converging waves is associated with a quantum of energy, and the quanta have a hint of mass at the point of convergence.
The existence of those hints of mass, in vast numbers, surrounding massive objects in space, is one explanation for dark matter. If so, the vacuum of space contains a huge amount of wave energy, coming and going in all directions from a potentially infinite history of gravitational wave energy inflow and out flow from mass. This action would mean that space would be filled with wave intersections, and their resulting quanta, that then contribute to maintaining the presence of massive objects, and those massive objects would move in the direction of the net highest directional source of inflowing gravitational wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
This response recognizes that the OP asked us what we thought, :).
-
This gravity theory (in 2009) is similar to Cahill's & to Ranzan's who both go back to about 2002. The vacuum inflow is actually aether inflow, into mass where aether is annihilated, the acceleration of the inflow giving gravity.
Interesting that this old thread is revived and that the connection between the vacuum energy density of space (Cosmological Constant), and Aether inflow into mass is made. The conclusion of the last post is that the aether inflow gives gravity, and in that sense I interpret the action as an exchange, requiring the presence of mass and energy density in space.
The exchange is between the vacuum energy density of space, which is the inflow to maintain the presence of mass, and the gravitational wave energy out flow from mass that traverses space between massive objects and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy of distant massive objects.
I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).
And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.The action, then, is that gravitational wave energy is emitted by massive objects, and is absorbed by surrounding massive objects; a continual process of gravitational wave energy exchange.
Yes i think GWs can exchange energy from object to object. But re massive objects, there is no other kind.The Quantum Mechanics of that process would be referred to as quantum action, where gravitational wave energy carries energy through space, gravitational waves intersect in space, the intersections between directional gravitational waves cause a convergence at a point in space, the resulting energy carried to the point of convergence by the converging waves is associated with a quantum of energy, and the quanta have a hint of mass at the point of convergence.
I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.The existence of those hints of mass, in vast numbers, surrounding massive objects in space, is one explanation for dark matter. If so, the vacuum of space contains a huge amount of wave energy, coming and going in all directions from a potentially infinite history of gravitational wave energy inflow and out flow from mass. This action would mean that space would be filled with wave intersections, and their resulting quanta, that then contribute to maintaining the presence of massive objects, and those massive objects would move in the direction of the net highest directional source of inflowing gravitational wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).
-
I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).
And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.
Yes i think GWs can exchange energy from object to object. But re massive objects, there is no other kind.
I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.
I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).
You may be right. What I have done is try to connect some known science to the as yet unknowns.
1) Take for example the first thing you said, “In aether theory, mass is a process”. Is it a process you can describe, or is it one of the unknowns that I mentioned?
2) Can we talk about mass as if the mass of the entire universe exists and/or functions in accord with that process?
3) Do you have a position on if mass has always existed, or was there a beginning point out of which the presence of mass emerged?
I know that is an "as yet" unknown, so the answer, :"we don't know:" is fine, but if we are to go on to discuss what we think, you have to say what you think is the answer to question #3.
-
I think that in aether theory mass is a process. If it annihilates aether then it has mass, & every quantum thing has mass (free photons & confined photons make every quantum thing we see & feel)(the photon is the fundamental or primary elementary particle)(albeit a quasi-particle).
And i think that gravity doesnt use energy or have energy. But i think that gravity waves (ie a change in gravity) can transmit energy (i know that this sounds silly)(its complicated), which is sort of what u said.
Yes i think GWs can exchange energy from object to object. But re massive objects, there is no other kind.
I am thinking that there is no quanta of GW energy. I dont understand quantum stuff but i think that praps quantum stuff is valid in other forms of energy, but not in GWs.
I doubt that GWs have energy (but they can transmit energy). EM radiation possibly doesnt have energy either (but can transmit energy)(not sure)(& probly has mass). But photons definitely have energy (& mass).
You may be right. What I have done is try to connect some known science to the as yet unknowns.
1) Take for example the first thing you said, “In aether theory, mass is a process”. Is it a process you can describe, or is it one of the unknowns that I mentioned?
2) Can we talk about mass as if the mass of the entire universe exists and/or functions in accord with that process?
3) Do you have a position on if mass has always existed, or was there a beginning point out of which the presence of mass emerged?
I know that is an "as yet" unknown, so the answer, :"we don't know:" is fine, but if we are to go on to discuss what we think, you have to say what you think is the answer to question #3.
1) I read Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe, & Reg Cahill's process physics. Aether is annihilated in mass & resistance to the accelerating inflow of aether replacing the lost aether requires a force which we call gravity. Inertia is the reciprocal. There is no such thing as mass, it is just the property of annihilating aether. There is no such thing as mass kg -- all we have is inertia & inertial force -- mass is measured by inertial force methods. There is probly no such thing as the annihilation of aether -- annihilation is probly just a change in the state of something -- eg aether might be an excited state of an underlying substance called say praether. And gravity is due to the bulk flow of aether. Whereas other things like photons (& em radiation) are due to the excitation (vibration spin swirl etc) of aether. As is usual any attempt to explain something raises even deeper questions. Anyhow every quantum thing or force or anything that we feel or see are all due to a process involving praether.
2) Ranzan describes an infinite universe made of cells where aether is created & destroyed, & photons are made & destroyed (& photons are the fundamental quantum particle). Aether has no mass & is subquantum. Re gravity, aether merely transmits force tween quantum particles, the transmission travelling at well over 20 billion c kmps (i think praps at 500 billion c), transmission being a reverberation process.
3) The process that gives us mass has always existed. However mass is continually created & destroyed inside every Ranzan cell, the process lasting say umpteen years. Lemmeseenow -- if a cell is 200 million lightyears across, & the average aether flow from center to edge is say 1000 kmps (ie c/300), then the journey takes 30 billion years. Photons are made early on in that journey & photons become confined photons a bit later (forming electrons quarks etc), & then atoms & stars etc are formed later, & near the end near the edge we have concentrations of galaxies & blackholes etc, & mass is annihilated in blackholes (not silly Einsteinian blackholes, these dont exist). So praps the average photon (the primary fundamental elementary quantum particle) lasts for say 60 billion years. Ranzan describes annihilation of mass in blackholes, ie everything reverts to plain old boring praether (my term)(Ranzan doesnt say praether).
-
1) I read Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe, & Reg Cahill's process physics. Aether is annihilated in mass & resistance to the accelerating inflow of aether replacing the lost aether requires a force which we call gravity. Inertia is the reciprocal. There is no such thing as mass, it is just the property of annihilating aether. There is no such thing as mass kg -- all we have is inertia & inertial force -- mass is measured by inertial force methods. There is probly no such thing as the annihilation of aether -- annihilation is probly just a change in the state of something -- eg aether might be an excited state of an underlying substance called say praether. And gravity is due to the bulk flow of aether. Whereas other things like photons (& em radiation) are due to the excitation (vibration spin swirl etc) of aether. As is usual any attempt to explain something raises even deeper questions. Anyhow every quantum thing or force or anything that we feel or see are all due to a process involving praether.
2) Ranzan describes an infinite universe made of cells where aether is created & destroyed, & photons are made & destroyed (& photons are the fundamental quantum particle). Aether has no mass & is subquantum. Re gravity, aether merely transmits force tween quantum particles, the transmission travelling at well over 20 billion c kmps (i think praps at 500 billion c), transmission being a reverberation process.
3) The process that gives us mass has always existed. However mass is continually created & destroyed inside every Ranzan cell, the process lasting say umpteen years. Lemmeseenow -- if a cell is 200 million lightyears across, & the average aether flow from center to edge is say 1000 kmps (ie c/300), then the journey takes 30 billion years. Photons are made early on in that journey & photons become confined photons a bit later (forming electrons quarks etc), & then atoms & stars etc are formed later, & near the end near the edge we have concentrations of galaxies & blackholes etc, & mass is annihilated in blackholes (not silly Einsteinian blackholes, these dont exist). So praps the average photon (the primary fundamental elementary quantum particle) lasts for say 60 billion years. Ranzan describes annihilation of mass in blackholes, ie everything reverts to plain old boring praether (my term)(Ranzan doesnt say praether).
Thank you for filling me in on that.
I am also an advocate of a dynamic steady state universe, but from the way you describe Conrad Ranzan’s dynamic steady state universe and Reg Cahill's process physics, the dynamics and processes don’t seem to correspond to the same universe that I envision, lol.
However, I always say when discussing the universe, we are all talking about the same universe, and we share the same observables. The words we use to describe what we see may differ, and the processes that we imagine to be at work quickly diverge into a patchwork that arises from different explanations for what we see.
The reason I invoke a steady state universe is that I start with the premise that there is one universe, it has always existed, it is infinite spatially, and is filled with an infinite amount of energy and matter. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ranzan would say something similar.
Since I refer to the universe as already being infinite spatially, I don't describe it as expanding as a whole. However, since I opened with the statement that we share the same observables, and it is generally accepted that our observable universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, that might seem to be an oxymoron. I reconcile it by my answer to the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”. My answer to that question is that the universe is a dynamic, steady state, multiple big bang universe.
That means that I envision the universe on a grand scale to be a landscape of multiple, active, expanding big bang arenas, and each arena arises from the same general preconditions. I describe those conditions by describing the process of Big Bang Arena Action that is going on all across the landscape of the greater universe. The action describes expanding big bang arenas that converge, overlap, contribute their galactic matter and energy to swirling rendezvouses, and that accretion, under the compression of gravity, forms big crunches here and there, across the landscape. Those big crunches reach a critical capacity, and collapse/bang into expanding big bang arenas. Our observable universe, called our Hubble view, is the observable portion of just one of those expanding big bang arenas.
-
Unfortunately we dont share observables. Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null. And now we are in the Einsteinian Dark Age, exacerbated by that idiot Hawking.
The universe aint expanding, & the expansion aint accelerating, hencely no bigbang. Ranzan explains how a photon's progress throo each cell causes extension of the photon during entry & during exit, giving redshift. Praps his best idea.
-
Unfortunately we dont share observables. Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null. And now we are in the Einsteinian Dark Age, exacerbated by that idiot Hawking.
The universe aint expanding, & the expansion aint accelerating, hencely no bigbang. Ranzan explains how a photon's progress throo each cell causes extension of the photon during entry & during exit, giving redshift. Praps his best idea.
Can understand where you are coming from. Right in line with what I said about having the same observables if you couple that statement with the words I used in stipulation: we describe what we see in different words, and we explain what we see based on different explanations. Nothing wrong with that.
Now Ranzan is unknown to me, except through your reference, and if he is a dynamic steady state thinker, he and I would have some common ground. Where it goes from here is based on evidence and logic. I gave you some of mine, and that thinking has me posting endless volumes of related word salad that people have no problem passing up, but that those same people give me a pass on because much of it is logic, and much of it is unfalsifiable. It just sort of sits there, and we wait to see if mold forms on it, lol.
Now if you throw all the offerings out before they show mold, get falsified, or are refuted by some logic, and replace it with something that requires us to reinterpret the discovery of fire and ice, and other generally accepted science, you (and Ranzan) risk being left right off the menu.
I need some more on what you mean, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null”. Give me a link or something to at least think about. We can get to Hawking later if you want.
-
Can understand where you are coming from. Right in line with what I said about having the same observables if you couple that statement with the words I used in stipulation: we describe what we see in different words, and we explain what we see based on different explanations. Nothing wrong with that.
Now Ranzan is unknown to me, except through your reference, and if he is a dynamic steady state thinker, he and I would have some common ground. Where it goes from here is based on evidence and logic. I gave you some of mine, and that thinking has me posting endless volumes of related word salad that people have no problem passing up, but that those same people give me a pass on because much of it is logic, and much of it is unfalsifiable. It just sort of sits there, and we wait to see if mold forms on it, lol.
Now if you throw all the offerings out before they show mold, get falsified, or are refuted by some logic, and replace it with something that requires us to reinterpret the discovery of fire and ice, and other generally accepted science, you (and Ranzan) risk being left right off the menu.
I need some more on what you mean, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null”. Give me a link or something to at least think about. We can get to Hawking later if you want.
Cahill has about 40 papers on google re all aspects of lots of MMXs, including some of his own. No gas mode MMX has ever been null.
Munera has some good papers on MMXs including a couple of his own.
Ranzan has his own website with lots of articles, much of it from his books, but he doesnt get into the nittygritty of MMXs.
De Meo's Orgone website has links to many good papers & websites.
The best paper of all re any MMX is by Demjanov who did a first-order bi-dielectric MMX in 1970 in Obninsk (air & carbondisulphide), about 1000 times as sensitive as the old second-order 1887-1932 MMXs. His paper blows my mind. The best X in history.
There is lots of stuff out there, despite the Einsteinian mafia's censorship.
-
Cahill has about 40 papers on google re all aspects of lots of MMXs, including some of his own. No gas mode MMX has ever been null.
Munera has some good papers on MMXs including a couple of his own.
Ranzan has his own website with lots of articles, much of it from his books, but he doesnt get into the nittygritty of MMXs.
De Meo's Orgone website has links to many good papers & websites.
The best paper of all re any MMX is by Demjanov who did a first-order bi-dielectric MMX in 1970 in Obninsk (air & carbondisulphide), about 1000 times as sensitive as the old second-order 1887-1932 MMXs. His paper blows my mind. The best X in history.
There is lots of stuff out there, despite the Einsteinian mafia's censorship.
OK, worth taking a look. One search leads here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75071.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75071.0)
So let me see if I like it :).
-
OK, worth taking a look. One search leads here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75071.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75071.0)
So let me see if I like it :).
That thread aint much good, but it has a couple of links, but best just google the names i mentioned, all links usually turn up on page 1.
-
That thread aint much good, but it has a couple of links, but best just google the names i mentioned, all links usually turn up on page 1.
Ok, Got it.
-
I’m getting up to speed with your meaning after doing the searches you suggested. MMX is Michelson Morley Experiments (Heel of hand strikes forehead), and when you say, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasn’t null” you are saying that there are objections to the generally accepted consensus that MM didn’t detect aether, explained by … http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0038v1.pdf
Let me spread some dressing on my own word salad by saying that I have no problem with the conclusion that MMX were not the definitive experiments to say there is no aether.
Now our difference is in what we call the aether. We still don’t end up on the same page, but we get closer. I agree that all space is filled with … (I don’t call it aether because my version of reality says that when objects move through space, they are moving through the gravitational wave energy density of space, and what might correspond to aether to some enthusiasts, corresponds to the high energy density spots that have a hint of mass, and that form at the convergence of intersecting gravitational waves. Beyond that, you’d have to read some of my stuff, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone who has anything else to do, lol.
Suffice it to say, to the extent that we view the universe as infinite and eternal, a dynamic steady state, filled with matter and energy, and to the extent that the nature of the energy that fills all space can be called aether or called wave energy convergences that individually have a hint of mass, we do have some common ground for discussion in a casual encounter, two people pausing to chat. Thank you for that.
-
(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and
(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and
You are exactly correct. There is something on Earth which we call it as Gravity. But there is no such thing in space. If this is clarified, Gravity is solved. EMF is different and Gravity is different. Why Gravity on Earth only and why not working in Space.
It is said that Planets are being attracted to each other and at the same time they also repel. Well, planets are also material objects only and they cannot move or do something. So, naturally no planet can attract other planet by themselves. There is certain force, literally acting on both of them.
In normal conditions, no particle can exert or influence other particle. Inner energy of the particle is different, though it may vary from particle to particle. But, the basic question is how a particle creates surplus energy and this extend up to space time.
Think, no particle on the planet is shedding additional energy into the open area. In fact it has no such capacity. But what makes or causes it to extend up to space time and to bend. Basic point is, particles are not creators of energy.
Finally, there is one medium which is doing all this. Why, we could not get it means, our research, our activity is going on within this strong energy. We are taking this as base.
This energy force is giving gravity on Earth and is making planets to attract and also to repel each other and to stay at an exact place.
Yours
Psreddy
-
I’m getting up to speed with your meaning after doing the searches you suggested. MMX is Michelson Morley Experiments (Heel of hand strikes forehead), and when you say, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasn’t null” you are saying that there are objections to the generally accepted consensus that MM didn’t detect aether, explained by … http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0038v1.pdf
Let me spread some dressing on my own word salad by saying that I have no problem with the conclusion that MMX were not the definitive experiments to say there is no aether.
Now our difference is in what we call the aether. We still don’t end up on the same page, but we get closer. I agree that all space is filled with … (I don’t call it aether because my version of reality says that when objects move through space, they are moving through the gravitational wave energy density of space, and what might correspond to aether to some enthusiasts, corresponds to the high energy density spots that have a hint of mass, and that form at the convergence of intersecting gravitational waves. Beyond that, you’d have to read some of my stuff, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone who has anything else to do, lol.
Suffice it to say, to the extent that we view the universe as infinite and eternal, a dynamic steady state, filled with matter and energy, and to the extent that the nature of the energy that fills all space can be called aether or called wave energy convergences that individually have a hint of mass, we do have some common ground for discussion in a casual encounter, two people pausing to chat. Thank you for that.
That link to Demjanov's latest english version of his paper is the best No1 most important mind blowing X ever done. He is my hero. I wish i could understand his explanation of how permitivity & permeability actually work in the X, & why he doesnt actually directly need to account for Fresnel Drag. All of which is not exactly critical to the main thrust of the work. What i do understand is that his MMX is periodic in a full turn, whereas ordinary single medium MMXs are periodic in a half turn. Wonderful stuff.
Yes its hard to envisage an empty space with things passing throo, like photons or gravity fields or em fields etc just passing throo. To pass throo then it has to be a thing, ie an object. If it aint a thing, eg if it is a wave, then it nonetheless has to be the waving of some thing. Aetherons (or Aethons) solve that problem (or if u like Praethons, if Praethons make Aetherons).
But anyhow everything we see & feel in our quantum world is not really a thing it is a process. And me myself i prefer to keep energy out of things, koz energy aint a thing, it aint even a process, energy is only math, it only exists in mathland, best dont ever mention energy if u can avoid it.
If u slowly work your way throo thems links etc, most papers giving a good further link, then after say 4 years u might sound like me.
-
…
Finally, there is one medium which is doing all this. Why, we could not get it means, our research, our activity is going on within this strong energy. We are taking this as base.
This energy force is giving gravity on Earth and is making planets to attract and also to repel each other and to stay at an exact place.
Yours
Psreddy
It would seem that you’re correct, if you are proposing that there is something in space related to the Earth and planets, to the presence of mass in general. What would you say it is?
-
…
If u slowly work your way throo thems links etc, most papers giving a good further link, then after say 4 years u might sound like me.
The way I would put it is that if we were to discuss our views for four years, we might start sounding the same.
We differ in what call “a thing”. Let me point to the examples you give in the following comments, “like photons or gravity fields or em fields etc just passing throo. To pass throo then it has to be a thing, ie an object. If it aint a thing, eg if it is a wave, then it nonetheless has to be the waving of some thing.”
I don’t imagine being able to convince you of this, but I am convinced that waves are things, and I am specifically referring to gravitational waves. My position is that they are emitted and absorbed by mass, and so I say mass is composed two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and both enter and leave the particle in quantum increments. I’ll spare us both any long explanation and don’t recommend you read my thread on "What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?" unless you are an insomniac, but will make one comment you might pick up on:
That comment is that photons have mass, and as such they fall into a category that I refer to as wave-particles (all particles with mass are wave-particles in my model), and so by my definition, they would absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.
I mention the case of the photon because while reading some of your other threads, it is possible that we may have some more common ground there, aside from the universe being a dynamic stead state, etc.
Photons emit light as they traverse space at the local speed of light and gravity. As I see it, those emitted light waves from photon particles are the outflowing gravitational wave energy component, one of the two components mentioned above that make up the photon wave particles.
-
The way I would put it is that if we were to discuss our views for four years, we might start sounding the same.
We differ in what call “a thing”. Let me point to the examples you give in the following comments, “like photons or gravity fields or em fields etc just passing throo. To pass throo then it has to be a thing, ie an object. If it aint a thing, eg if it is a wave, then it nonetheless has to be the waving of some thing.”
I don’t imagine being able to convince you of this, but I am convinced that waves are things, and I am specifically referring to gravitational waves. My position is that they are emitted and absorbed by mass, and so I say mass is composed two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and both enter and leave the particle in quantum increments. I’ll spare us both any long explanation and don’t recommend you read my thread on The Cause of Quantum Gravity unless you are an insomniac, but will make one comment you might pick up on:
That comment is that photons have mass, and as such they fall into a category that I refer to as wave-particles (all particles with mass are wave-particles in my model), and so by my definition, they would absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.
I mention the case of the photon because while reading some of your other threads, it is possible that we may have some more common ground there, aside from the universe being a dynamic stead state, etc.
Photons emit light as they traverse space at the local speed of light and gravity. As I see it, those emitted light waves from photon particles are the outflowing gravitational wave energy component, one of the two components mentioned above that make up the photon wave particles.
That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property. If so then what sorts of properties does it have. And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored. Can it be created. Can it have mass. Can it be destroyed.
-
That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property. If so then what sorts of properties does it have. And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored. Can it be created. Can it have mass. Can it be destroyed.
Consider the concept of a light wave, which is one variety of a gravitational wave that is continually emitted by the photon wave-particle, and carries energy, if you invoke my model of inflowing and out flowing wave energy from mass. The light wave travels at the speed of light spherically from the photon wave-particle, as the photon travels through space, and the light waves carry energy (wave energy) through space at the speed of light.
-
That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property. If so then what sorts of properties does it have. And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored. Can it be created. Can it have mass. Can it be destroyed.
Consider the concept of a light wave, which is one variety of a gravitational wave that is continually emitted by the photon wave-particle, and carries energy, if you invoke my model of inflowing and out flowing wave energy from mass. The light wave travels at the speed of light spherically from the photon wave-particle, as the photon travels through space, and the light waves carry energy (wave energy) through space at the speed of light.
In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.
-
In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.
The light wave is a series of wave intersections, called "third waves", that are advanced through space by the oscillating wave energy background that you would know about if you read any of my material, but try to avoid that if you want to stay awake, lol. The oscillating wave energy background advances meaningful waves, much like Christian Huygen's wavelets propagate waves through space.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
Look at Reply #130 in one of my main threads for an introduction to the oscillating wave energy background:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839
-
In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.
The light wave is a series of wave intersections, called "third waves", that are advanced through space by the oscillating wave energy background that you would know about if you read any of my material, but try to avoid that if you want to stay awake, lol. The oscillating wave energy background advances meaningful waves, much like Christian Huygen's wavelets propagate waves through space.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
Look at Reply #130 in one of my main threads for an introduction to the oscillating wave energy background:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839
Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves.
Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something.
U cant have temperature sitting somewhere on its own. U cant put love in a box & sell it (anyhow i have the patent). U can have stink on its own -- ie after the stinker has left -- but here the stink is made of things (in the air).
-
Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves.
Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something.
U cant have temperature sitting somewhere on its own. U cant put love in a box & sell it (anyhow i have the patent). U can have stink on its own -- ie after the stinker has left -- but here the stink is made of things (in the air).
Good points, and it goes without saying that my model is quite alternative. I will keep addressing it bit by bit as long as there is interest, but feel free to give up when my layman science enthusiast's model goes beyond your line of tolerance, lol.
To be continued ...
Edit: Watching the Blood Moon Eclipse from Florida
-
Reply #55
Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves.
Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something.
…
I’m going to work on conveying the answer to Mad Aetherist’s question, “What waves, what is waving”. The answer to that first question comes with a lot of boiler plate in which I outline in general terms, the nature of my model. In so doing, other questions will come to the top, and I will address them in this thread as they surface, for as long as there is interest and responsiveness to my return questions as we go. Most of what I say here about my model has already been posted in my main threads, and I may link to posts in those threads when appropriate.
It is appropriate to warn people that my model is quite alternative, and to be understood, you have to be willing to ignore many preconceived details that you may be attached to; not saying to forget them, but if they don’t fit in with my model, they may be confusing. When you realize you may have a preconceived idea that doesn’t fit in the ISU model, feel free to ask about it if you think it is too important for me to ignore.
My model is called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of the cosmology to the universe.
I have already set the stage by previously introducing my model as a dynamic steady state model that features multiple big bang events going on across the infinite landscape of the greater universe. I claim that those big bang events are orchestrated by a process that I call Big Bang Arena Action. I suggest you say it out loud: Big Bang Arena Action, because it is the major macro level process that orchestrates the perpetuation of big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe, and the result of arena action is the defeat of entropy on a grand scale. On that note, we can say the word “dynamic” includes in its meaning “perpetual” as it applies to describing the ISU.
Arenas are also known as big bang arena waves because they start out as hot dense expanding balls of plasma energy that emerge from the collapse/bang of each big crunch. Each big crunch starts out with the convergence of two or more expanding big bang arena waves, and where those “parent waves” converge and overlap, they produce a swirling rendezvous composed of galactic matter and energy that grows into a big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space. The crunches will grow through accretion from the galactic matter of the parent arenas until a certain “critical capacity” is reached, and at the point of critical capacity, the gravitational compression of the matter in the crunch exceeds the ability of the wave-particles in the crunch to maintain their individual space. As a result, there is an event called a collapse/bang of the big crunch (known as a Big Bang), as the particles in the crunch give up their individual spaces and collapse together into a hot ball of “dense state” wave energy. The collapse of the individual wave-particles results in a “bounce” off of natures maximum limit of energy density, and an expanding ball of hot dense plasma wave energy emerges from the “bang” and rapidly expands into the surrounding space formerly occupied by the converging parent arenas.
That is the big picture of arena action in the ISU. Most of us realize that our observable universe is just a portion of our own local expanding big bang arena, and according to the ISU model, our big bang arena is just one of a potentially infinite number of active arenas going on at any given time across the landscape of the greater universe.
What we see is our visible universe, our Hubble view, and according to the model, the observable universe surrounds us as we sit here within our Milky Way Galaxy, in the center of a vast number of galaxies, galaxy groups, and galactic structure in all directions. Unexpectedly, when we look far and hard, all of the galactic structure appears to be moving away from us, and away from everything else in all directions, and not only that, but the separation that is occurring appears to be accelerating at an acceleration rate. No matter where you are in the observable universe, it appears to you that you are at the center of expansion.
Those observations are generally accepted as part of the ISU model, and unfortunately the explanations for those observations are all over the map in the annals of alternative cosmology. The ISU model of cosmology has its own explanations for all of those observations, and don’t be afraid to ask, but in the mean time, now that you have a general view of the ISU, we can address the question, “What waves, what is waving?”
The initial response is that there is only one commodity in the ISU, and it is gravitational wave energy. It fills all space, and is coming and going at the speed of light, to and from all directions, at all points in space, at all times, and every object with mass is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. There is an infinite amount of it, everything in the ISU is composed of it, and so the answer to “What is waving” is gravitational wave energy. Gravitational wave energy has a characteristic that allows it to seem like the medium of space is waving, at all times, everywhere. My intention is to describe that characteristic of gravitational wave energy, but I know, OMG, the explanation so far must just leave you cold.
If that discourages you from following along, so be it. If you want more detail, then respond. I’ll be glad to clarify.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)
-
“What waves, what is waving?”
The initial response is that there is only one commodity in the ISU, and it is gravitational wave energy. It fills all space, and is coming and going at the speed of light, to and from all directions, at all points in space, at all times, and every object with mass is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. There is an infinite amount of it, everything in the ISU is composed of it, and so the answer to “What is waving” is gravitational wave energy. Gravitational wave energy has a characteristic that allows it to seem like the medium of space is waving, at all times, everywhere. My intention is to describe that characteristic of gravitational wave energy, but I know, OMG, the explanation so far must just leave you cold.
Energy needs a something if energy is to exist, u cant put energy in a box. Just like a wave needs a something, u cant buy a box of wave.
Gravity going at the speed of light or c doesnt work.
Einsteinologists say that gravity is instantaneous & that GWs travel at c.
Aetherists say that gravity travels at over 20 billion c (me myself i think 500 billion c). And there are no such things as GWs, or if there is something like that then it must travel at over 20 billion c (or 500 billion c).
Aetherists say that gravity is due to the acceleration of the aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated. Photons & every other quantum thing that we readily see & feel is due to an excitation vibration spin swirl of aether.
In a sense everything depends on a movement of aether, but only one class of movement gives gravity. Aetherists cant say that gravity gives that class of movement (it dont work that way)(ie arse about)(ie effect & cause). And certainly Aetherists cant say that gravity gives all of the other classes of movement. But at a micro level praps gravity does play a part in how electrons & quarks form subatomic particles & atomic particles (we dont really know)(extropolating macro gravity stuff that we dont even understand to the micro world where we dont even see is LaLa Land)(not a problem for Einsteinologists).
-
Energy needs a something if energy is to exist, u cant put energy in a box. Just like a wave needs a something, u cant buy a box of wave.
For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?
Gravity going at the speed of light or c doesnt work.
Einsteinologists say that gravity is instantaneous & that GWs travel at c.
Aetherists say that gravity travels at over 20 billion c (me myself i think 500 billion c). And there are no such things as GWs, or if there is something like that then it must travel at over 20 billion c (or 500 billion c).
Aetherists say that gravity is due to the acceleration of the aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated. Photons & every other quantum thing that we readily see & feel is due to an excitation vibration spin swirl of aether.
In a sense everything depends on a movement of aether, but only one class of movement gives gravity. Aetherists cant say that gravity gives that class of movement (it dont work that way)(ie arse about)(ie effect & cause). And certainly Aetherists cant say that gravity gives all of the other classes of movement. But at a micro level praps gravity does play a part in how electrons & quarks form subatomic particles & atomic particles (we dont really know)(extropolating macro gravity stuff that we dont even understand to the micro world where we dont even see is LaLa Land)(not a problem for Einsteinologists).
It seems to a layman like me that the speed of gravity to an Aetherist defies logic. Can you show how 500 billion c is indicated; any observations or experiments that support it? How does it even make sense?
-
For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?
Possibly harmonics from their calibration signals. I think that there is a thread back there that goes into other possibilities. Plus i think that there is a conspiracy. LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.It seems to a layman like me that the speed of gravity to an Aetherist defies logic. Can you show how 500 billion c is indicated; any observations or experiments that support it? How does it even make sense?
If u google Van Flandern that will show some papers etc that say at least 20 billion c -- anything less would ruin orbits. My own reckoning of 500 billion c is based on applying the ratio of electron drift (say 1 mm/sec) to c (ie 300 000 000 000 mm/sec) onto the aether drift near Earth (ie the aetherwind)(about 500 kmps)(ie c/600), so 300 000 000 000/600 equals 0.5 billion c. Hmmmm -- that aint 500 billion c, it aint even 20 billion c -- ok i will go with at least 20 billion c.
-
For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?
Possibly harmonics from their calibration signals. I think that there is a thread back there that goes into other possibilities. Plus i think that there is a conspiracy. LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.
I would call it the gravitational wave energy density effect. A strong gravitational signal from a distant massive event travels through space from the event to the LIGO apparatus. The LIGO apparatus lasers that point down each arm detect infinitesimal differences in round trip time light travel, right?
Since the arms are positioned at a 90º angle, a gravity wave will have a slightly different effect along each arm, making the light travel time down and back on each arm measurably different, which is a condition that sets off the LIGO alarm.
If there is some design flaw, possibly harmonics from their calibration signals, if there is length contraction or time dilation, or wave energy density factors at play, the LIGO device alarm will register the event of the passing of a very high energy gravitational wave, right?
My model predicts that the elevated gravitational wave energy density arriving from the direction of the massive distant event, as the gravitational waves from that event pass through the space occupied by the LIGO detectors, will increase the gravitational wave energy density to a slightly different level along each perpendicularly positioned arm, and that increase in density will affect the speed of light down each arm to a slightly different degree, and that difference in laser light return time between each arm will set off the LIGO alarm to indicate the detection of the gravitational wave. That is the ISU gravitational wave energy density explanation for the activation of the LIGO alarm.
Of the various possibilities, it is a logical explanation, according to the ISU model :) . What do you think?
Additionally, the model also predicts the cause of the chirping from an event that is caused by the in-swirling death spiral of two blackholes.
So now all I need to do is explain what it is that waves, and waves at a slightly different frequency down each arm, to be able to explain how an observed difference in gravitational wave energy density along each arm will change the velocity of light (and gravitational waves) through the local space. Right?
Are you up to reading about my explanation for how the change in gravitational wave energy density caused by the passing gravitational wave will cause something to wave, and explain what is waving, according to my model, so you can falsify it, lol, while I contemplate Van Flandern? OK?
-
LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.
If that was true, then it should have been breaking news everywhere as that would be an admission of conspiracy. Where is this reputable source that you have showing that LIGO admitted to hoaxing its gravitational wave detections? Be careful how you answer that question, as admitting to "hand-tuning" the data for illustrative purposes is not the same as saying "there were no chirps at all".
Also, if the new KAGRA detector in Japan ends up detecting gravitational waves at the same time as LIGO and VIRGO, are you going to claim that they are a part of the conspiracy as well? https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-gravitational-wave-detector-kagra-almost-ready-join-search
-
I would call it the gravitational wave energy density effect. A strong gravitational signal from a distant massive event travels through space from the event to the LIGO apparatus. The LIGO apparatus lasers that point down each arm detect infinitesimal differences in round trip time light travel, right?
Since the arms are positioned at a 90º angle, a gravity wave will have a slightly different effect along each arm, making the light travel time down and back on each arm measurably different, which is a condition that sets off the LIGO alarm.
If there is some design flaw, possibly harmonics from their calibration signals, if there is length contraction or time dilation, or wave energy density factors at play, the LIGO device alarm will register the event of the passing of a very high energy gravitational wave, right?
My model predicts that the elevated gravitational wave energy density arriving from the direction of the massive distant event, as the gravitational waves from that event pass through the space occupied by the LIGO detectors, will increase the gravitational wave energy density to a slightly different level along each perpendicularly positioned arm, and that increase in density will affect the speed of light down each arm to a slightly different degree, and that difference in laser light return time between each arm will set off the LIGO alarm to indicate the detection of the gravitational wave. That is the ISU gravitational wave energy density explanation for the activation of the LIGO alarm.
Of the various possibilities, it is a logical explanation, according to the ISU model :) . What do you think?
Additionally, the model also predicts the cause of the chirping from an event that is caused by the in-swirling death spiral of two blackholes.
So now all I need to do is explain what it is that waves, and waves at a slightly different frequency down each arm, to be able to explain how an observed difference in gravitational wave energy density along each arm will change the velocity of light (and gravitational waves) through the local space. Right?
Are you up to reading about my explanation for how the change in gravitational wave energy density caused by the passing gravitational wave will cause something to wave, and explain what is waving, according to my model, so you can falsify it, lol, while I contemplate Van Flandern? OK?
I am ok with (weak) Newtonian quadrupolar GWs from binaries in general but not ok with their silly GR kind of silly super GWs from binaries. And i am potentially ok with thinking of density of gravity or GWs. But waves nonetheless (& density, etc) have to be in relation to a medium.
LIGO is complicated. I look at it as being primarily a measure of distance in each arm. But it can involve a change in c in each arm, or wave length, or a difference in local ticking even (but i will ignore these). LIGO is a house of cards with postulates written on them, one of the weakest is the card that has the postulate that a GW can change the distance tween two hanging mirrors whilst at the same time the length of the laser is not changed. This card sits on a card that says that if the length of the laser is constant then the wave lengths of the emitted light is constant. This card sits on a card that says that the laser is a solid formed by electrostatic & electrodynamic forces, & that these es-ed forces in solids are stronger than the GW force that is trying to change the length of the laser.
Yes, LIGO needs the notion that a GW force in a solid is weaker than an es-ed force. An adhoc idea with no reasonable logic behind it. They could just as easily say that the GW force is weaker, or that they are exactly equal. Did they make the laser out of stiffer glass to make sure. Nope, no mention.
In addition even if the GW force is stronger & wins then that win cannot be total, the GW must affect the length of the solid (glass?) laser a little or a lot, but no mention of any such thing. Here they placed a wooden block instead of a card & hoped that no one would notice.
And no mention that any such effect on length of laser must give a ringing of the laser, ie a harmonic change in length. After all the first GW detectors were built on that principle, they were big blocks of metal that would ring (RINGOS)(& ring they did)(or so they said). But no mention of any such ringing side effect re the length of the laser in LIGO. Another wooden block here instead of a card. In fact LIGO is based on the postulate that such ringing is not possible.
Here i have looked at one little room of their house of cards (& wooden blocks). There are lots of other rooms just as dangerous. But i have mentioned a room not mentioned by anyone else, no other building inspector has opened that door (probly no other inspector even knows about that door).
When they claimed that their RINGO rung they did not get a Nobel, but when they claimed that their LIGO did not ring they got a Nobel. Go figure.
-
The following is a little out of sequence, but I didn't want to forget to comment on it.
That link to Demjanov's latest english version of his paper is the best No1 most important mind blowing X ever done. He is my hero. I wish i could understand his explanation of how permitivity & permeability actually work in the X
Maybe Demjanov struggles with them too. Permeability and permittivity are necessary “givens” (axioms) within the theory of electromagnetism. They are defined mathematically to work together in varying proportions, but individually they are not observable. It appears that they play the role of placing limits on the speed of light in a vacuum, and to explain the difference in the speed of light through various mediums, i.e., to explain the refractive index, .
There is a typical discussion in this link:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-speed-of-light-vary-between-different-mediums (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-speed-of-light-vary-between-different-mediums)
You will see various explanations of the mechanics of the refractive index, and they generally corral the allowed thinking to photon absorption and re-emissions at varying matter densities in various mediums. However, those explanations seem to fall short when you look deeper into the nature of particles. At some point, you have to think outside the box.
When the nature of particles themselves begins to take on a “wave-particle” nature in the pursuit of deeper explanations of quantum action and quantum gravity, it begins to seem reasonable to think of particles as being composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and that gives them an internal composition that is not compatible with the generally accepted standard model. Current theory of permeability and permittivity works fine if particles are point like, and have no internal wave characteristics or composition.
Please comment.
-
The following is a little out of sequence, but I didn't want to forget to comment on it.That link to Demjanov's latest english version of his paper is the best No1 most important mind blowing X ever done. He is my hero. I wish i could understand his explanation of how permitivity & permeability actually work in the X
Maybe Demjanov struggles with them too. Permeability and permittivity are necessary “givens” (axioms) within the theory of electromagnetism. They are defined mathematically to work together in varying proportions, but individually they are not observable. It appears that they play the role of placing limits on the speed of light in a vacuum, and to explain the difference in the speed of light through various mediums, i.e., to explain the refractive index, .There is a typical discussion in this link:https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-speed-of-light-vary-between-different-mediums (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-speed-of-light-vary-between-different-mediums)
You will see various explanations of the mechanics of the refractive index, and they generally corral the allowed thinking to photon absorption and re-emissions at varying matter densities in various mediums. However, those explanations seem to fall short when you look deeper into the nature of particles. At some point, you have to think outside the box.When the nature of particles themselves begins to take on a “wave-particle” nature in the pursuit of deeper explanations of quantum action and quantum gravity, it begins to seem reasonable to think of particles as being composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and that gives them an internal composition that is not compatible with the generally accepted standard model. Current theory of permeability and permittivity works fine if particles are point like, and have no internal wave characteristics or composition.Please comment.
The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photino drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photino of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.
Photaenos are little tornadic swirls of the aether that emanate from the main helical body of every photon. The swirls (photaenos) compete with other swirls for the use of the aether. Photaenos also emanate from other free photons & from confined photons (proper particles)(electrons quarks etc). The aether cannot multitask very well hencely there is congestion, in vacuum near mass, but especially inside mass (eg air water glass). The congestion slows the progress & propagation of the photaenos. This slowing feeds back to the helix of the central body, slowing the photon's propagation.
For higher frequency photons the helix of the main body is tighter & some photaenos angle somewhat more ahead (photaenos emanate kind of squarely from the helix)(the photaenos at the front of the helix do the most damage here), hencely high frequencies are slowed moreso.
Photaenos try to propagate outwards from the helix of the central body of the photon at praps 5c according to some Xs (i dont think they go at c).
Photaenos make what we call em waves & fields & radiation, that propagate out to praps infinity -- em waves & fields & radiation have nothing to do with photons (except that a photaeno is a part of a photon). Actually i doubt that photaenos can form photaeno waves, but they are responsible for photonic waves (see below).
Also photaenos are sticky, which is an aspect of being allergic to congestion, & not only does it give slowing but it means that these little tornadic suckers just love parades. Which explains waves & coherence & lasers.
Re permeability & permitivity these must arise from the properties of photaenos. I will work all of that out & explain it to the world when i get time. My thinking will have to be compatible with all aspects of the Catt Question.
But all wiki & quora etc explanations of slowing of light & of refraction etc etc, & of em radiation etc etc, are complete krapp. What could better illustrate the lack of logic inside the feckless Einsteinian Mafia, the absurdity of their Dogma, the corruption of their entrenched system, & the quivering fear of their army of constipated little unimaginative surdic apostles & disciples & followers, than their stupid everlasting canon that em radiation is made of photons.
Photaenos might have mass. Photons certainly have mass, ie they annihilate aether, the annihilation being a part of the helical propagation of the central helix of the photon. If the tornadic swirl of a photaeno involves annihilation of aether then photaenos contribute to mass (in which case em radiation will have mass). The swirl or spin might too be helical (like the helix of the central body of a photon), a mini-helix praps -- but that is unlikely if the maximum speed of a photon is c & the speed of a photaeno is 5c (ie it is unlikely that helical annihilation has 2 speeds of propagation). Praps a photaeno is helical but its helix etc doesnt involve any sort of annihilation. But if it is helical then that would need annihilation i think, & without annihilation it would be just a spin, not a helix (thinking out loud here)(not important).
-
I am ok with (weak) Newtonian quadrupolar GWs from binaries in general but not ok with their silly GR kind of silly super GWs from binaries. And i am potentially ok with thinking of density of gravity or GWs. But waves nonetheless (& density, etc) have to be in relation to a medium.
We may have some common ground in regard to the need for a medium. If you are potentially Ok thinking about density in terms of gravitational waves, then you have some agreement with my musings where I refer to the medium of space.
The path I have taken has lead me to imagine a universe that has always existed, and where space has always been filled with matter and energy, (I’ve mentioned the infinites of space, time, and wave energy in my model, and that the process of Big Bang Arena Action defeats entropy on a grand scale; remember the multiple big bang arenas, dynamic steady state discussion). Along with the thinking that the universe has always existed, and has always been filled with matter and energy, the mere presence of matter supports the presence of gravity, and the presence of gravity sustains the presence of matter. It all works at the quantum level though, as opposed to the level of GR/spacetime, i.e., curved/warped/bending space is not part of the ISU model. The effect of curved spacetime is replaced by the concept of gravitational wave energy density, and that density accounts for how light bends around massive objects, like it does with an aether presence.
My conclusion is that where there is mass, there are gravitational waves emitted and absorbed by mass, and those waves are carrying gravitational wave energy through the space between objects with mass. Photons have mass, and absorb and emit gravitational waves just like in-swirling blackholes. I think there is a lot of depth in each of our versions that has gone unsaid, but we may just be too far apart to make sense out of each other.
The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photino drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photino of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.
Photaenos are little tornadic swirls of the aether that emanate from the main helical body of every photon. The swirls (photaenos) compete with other swirls for the use of the aether. Photaenos also emanate from other free photons & from confined photons (proper particles)(electrons quarks etc). The aether cannot multitask very well hencely there is congestion, in vacuum near mass, but especially inside mass (eg air water glass). The congestion slows the progress & propagation of the photaenos. This slowing feeds back to the helix of the central body, slowing the photon's propagation.
For higher frequency photons the helix of the main body is tighter & some photaenos angle somewhat more ahead (photaenos emanate kind of squarely from the helix)(the photaenos at the front of the helix do the most damage here), hencely high frequencies are slowed moreso.
Photaenos try to propagate outwards from the helix of the central body of the photon at praps 5c according to some Xs (i dont think they go at c).
Photaenos make what we call em waves & fields & radiation, that propagate out to praps infinity -- em waves & fields & radiation have nothing to do with photons (except that a photaeno is a part of a photon). Actually i doubt that photaenos can form photaeno waves, but they are responsible for photonic waves (see below).
Also photaenos are sticky, which is an aspect of being allergic to congestion, & not only does it give slowing but it means that these little tornadic suckers just love parades. Which explains waves & coherence & lasers.
Re permeability & permitivity these must arise from the properties of photaenos. I will work all of that out & explain it to the world when i get time. My thinking will have to be compatible with all aspects of the Catt Question.
But all wiki & quora etc explanations of slowing of light & of refraction etc etc, & of em radiation etc etc, are complete krapp. What could better illustrate the lack of logic inside the feckless Einsteinian Mafia, the absurdity of their Dogma, the corruption of their entrenched system, & the quivering fear of their army of constipated little unimaginative surdic apostles & disciples & followers, than their stupid everlasting canon that em radiation is made of photons.
Photaenos might have mass. Photons certainly have mass, ie they annihilate aether, the annihilation being a part of the helical propagation of the central helix of the photon. If the tornadic swirl of a photaeno involves annihilation of aether then photaenos contribute to mass (in which case em radiation will have mass). The swirl or spin might too be helical (like the helix of the central body of a photon), a mini-helix praps -- but that is unlikely if the maximum speed of a photon is c & the speed of a photaeno is 5c (ie it is unlikely that helical annihilation has 2 speeds of propagation). Praps a photaeno is helical but its helix etc doesnt involve any sort of annihilation. But if it is helical then that would need annihilation i think, & without annihilation it would be just a spin, not a helix (thinking out loud here)(not important).
Much to chew on, and much to debate. If I can get on board with any of that after a closer look, it would leave room for debate; let’s see where it goes.
-
I am ok with (weak) Newtonian quadrupolar GWs from binaries in general but not ok with their silly GR kind of silly super GWs from binaries. And i am potentially ok with thinking of density of gravity or GWs. But waves nonetheless (& density, etc) have to be in relation to a medium.
We may have some common ground in regard to the need for a medium. If you are potentially Ok thinking about density in terms of gravitational waves, then you have some agreement with my musings where I refer to the medium of space.
The path I have taken has lead me to imagine a universe that has always existed, and where space has always been filled with matter and energy, (I’ve mentioned the infinites of space, time, and wave energy in my model, and that the process of Big Bang Arena Action defeats entropy on a grand scale; remember the multiple big bang arenas, dynamic steady state discussion). Along with the thinking that the universe has always existed, and has always been filled with matter and energy, the mere presence of matter supports the presence of gravity, and the presence of gravity sustains the presence of matter. It all works at the quantum level though, as opposed to the level of GR/spacetime, i.e., curved/warped/bending space is not part of the ISU model. The effect of curved spacetime is replaced by the concept of gravitational wave energy density, and that density accounts for how light bends around massive objects, like it does with an aether presence.
My conclusion is that where there is mass, there are gravitational waves emitted and absorbed by mass, and those waves are carrying gravitational wave energy through the space between objects with mass. Photons have mass, and absorb and emit gravitational waves just like in-swirling blackholes. I think there is a lot of depth in each of our versions that has gone unsaid, but we may just be too far apart to make sense out of each other.
Yes every quantum thing has mass, & all mass has gravity. But in my aether theory there is no wave in the gravity unless something is changing. Near a binary there is something changing, its the distance to each of the two stars, hencely the Newtonian gravity changes, a quadrupolar change (wave if u like), but very weak in the far field (not a bullshit LIGO kind of GW). And that Newtonian wave can carry energy (like u say).
But whereas your GWs are the fundamental building block of everything we see & feel my aetheric Newtonian GWs are an end product & dont create any kind of new or old particle etc.
-
Yes every quantum thing has mass, & all mass has gravity. But in my aether theory there is no wave in the gravity unless something is changing. Near a binary there is something changing, its the distance to each of the two stars, hencely the Newtonian gravity changes, a quadrupolar change (wave if u like), but very weak in the far field (not a bullshit LIGO kind of GW). And that Newtonian wave can carry energy (like u say).
Do you acknowledge that any given object with mass is in relative motion to all other objects with mass? Doesn’t that qualify as something changing relative to any two objects in relative motion, regardless of the distance or style of motion?
But whereas your GWs are the fundamental building block of everything we see & feel my aetheric Newtonian GWs are an end product & dont create any kind of new or old particle etc.
True, it is an aspect of my model that all matter and energy has always existed, and the processes of arena action and quantum action account for the exchange from matter to gravitational wave energy, and from gravitational wave energy to matter, a continual process in a multiple big bang, dynamic, steady state universe.
-
LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.
If that was true, then it should have been breaking news everywhere as that would be an admission of conspiracy. Where is this reputable source that you have showing that LIGO admitted to hoaxing its gravitational wave detections? Be careful how you answer that question, as admitting to "hand-tuning" the data for illustrative purposes is not the same as saying "there were no chirps at all".
Also, if the new KAGRA detector in Japan ends up detecting gravitational waves at the same time as LIGO and VIRGO, are you going to claim that they are a part of the conspiracy as well? https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-gravitational-wave-detector-kagra-almost-ready-join-search
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
And there are legitimate questions about that trust. New Scientist has learned, for instance, that the collaboration decided to publish data plots that were not derived from actual analysis. The paper on the first detection in Physical Review Letters used a data plot that was more “illustrative” than precise, says Cornish. Some of the results presented in that paper were not found using analysis algorithms, but were done “by eye”.
Brown, part of the LIGO collaboration at the time, explains this as an attempt to provide a visual aid. “It was hand-tuned for pedagogical purposes.” He says he regrets that the figure wasn’t labelled to point this out.
This presentation of “hand-tuned” data in a peer-reviewed, scientific report like this is certainly unusual. New Scientist asked the editor who handled the paper, Robert Garisto, whether he was aware that the published data plots weren’t derived directly from LIGO’s data, but were “pedagogical” and done “by eye”, and whether the journal generally accepts illustrative figures. Garisto declined to comment.
There were also questionable shortcuts in the data LIGO released for public use. The collaboration approximated the subtraction of the Livingston signal from the Hanford one, leaving correlations in the data – the very correlations Jackson noticed. There is now a note on the data release web page stating that the publicly available waveform “was not tuned to precisely remove the signal”.
Whatever the shortcomings of the reporting and data release, Cornish insists that the actual analysis was done with processing tools that took years to develop and significant computing power to implement – and it worked perfectly.
However, anyone outside the collaboration has to take his word for that. “It’s problematic: there’s not enough data to do the analysis independently,” says Jackson. “It looks like they’re being open, without being open at all.”
Brown agrees there is a problem. “LIGO has taken great strides, and are moving towards open data and reproducible science,” he says. “But I don’t think they’re quite there yet.”
The Danish group’s independent checks, published in three peer-reviewed papers, found there was little evidence for the presence of gravitational waves in the September 2015 signal. On a scale from certain at 1 to definitely not there at 0, Jackson says the analysis puts the probability of the first detection being from an event involving black holes with the properties claimed by LIGO at 0.000004. That is roughly the same as the odds that your eventual cause of death will be a comet or asteroid strike – or, as Jackson puts it,”consistent with zero”. The probability of the signal being due to a merger of any sort of black holes is not huge either. Jackson and his colleagues calculate it as 0.008.
Simultaneous signal
There is other evidence to suggest that at least one of the later detections came from a gravitational wave. On 17 August 2017, the orbiting Fermi telescope saw a burst of electromagnetic radiation at the same time as the LIGO and Virgo detectors picked up a signal. Analysis of all the evidence suggests that both signals came from the brutal collision of two neutron stars.
The double whammy makes LIGO’s detection seem unequivocal. Even here, though, the Danish group is dissenting. They point out that the collaboration initially registered the event as a false alarm because it coincided with what’s known as a “glitch”. The detectors are plagued by these short, inexplicable bursts of noise, sometimes several every hour. They seem to be something to do with the hardware with which the interferometers are built, the suspension wires and seismic isolation devices. Cornish says that LIGO analysts eventually succeeded in removing the glitch and revealing the signal, but Jackson and his collaborators are again unconvinced by the methods used, and the fact there is no way to check them.
What are we to make of all this? Nothing, apparently. “The Danish analysis is just wrong,” insists Cornish. “There were very basic mistakes.” Those “mistakes” boil down to decisions about how best to analyse the raw data (see “How to catch a wave”).
Not everyone agrees the Danish choices were wrong. “I think their paper is a good one and it’s a shame that some of the LIGO team have been so churlish in response,” says Peter Coles, a cosmologist at Maynooth University in Ireland. Mukhanov concurs. “Right now, this is not the Danish group’s responsibility. The ball is in LIGO’s court,” he says. “There are questions that should be answered.”
Brown thinks the Danish group’s analysis is wrong, but worth engaging with. And Cornish admits the scrutiny may not be a bad thing. He and his colleagues plan to put out a paper describing the detailed properties of the LIGO noise. “It’s the kind of paper we didn’t really want to write because it’s boring and we’ve got more exciting things to do.” But, he adds, it is important, and increased scrutiny and criticism may in the end be no bad thing. “You do have to understand your noise.”
Coles himself doesn’t doubt that we have detected gravitational waves, but agrees with Jackson that this cannot be confirmed until independent scientists can check the raw data and the analysis tools. “In the spirit of open science, I think LIGO should release everything needed to reproduce their results.”
Jackson is unconvinced that explanatory papers will ever materialise – the collaboration has promised them before, he says. “This LIGO episode continues to be the most shocking professional experience of my 55 years as a physicist,” he says. Not everyone would agree – but for a discovery of this magnitude, trust is everything.
Embarrassing noises
In 2014, the operators of the BICEP2 telescope made an announcement so momentous there was talk of a Nobel prize. A year later however, far from making their way to Stockholm for the award ceremony, they were forced to admit they had been fooled by an embarrassing noise.
Situated at the South Pole, BICEP2 had been scanning the cosmic microwave background, the pattern of radiation left on the sky from light emitted soon after the big bang. The big announcement was that it had found that gravitational waves had affected the pattern in such a way that proved a core theory of cosmology. The theory in question was inflation, which says the universe went through a period of superfast growth right after the big bang. For almost four decades it had been unproven. Now, suddenly, inflation’s supporters were vindicated.
Except awkward warnings emerged within weeks, suggesting that cosmic dust clouds had scattered the radiation in a way that fooled the BICEP2 researchers. In the end, the team’s estimate of the amount of dust present and the analysis of the kind of noise the dust would produce both proved to be flawed. Noise can hoodwink even the smartest. That is why, despite LIGO being a highly respected collaboration, there is good reason to take questions about its noise analysis seriously (see main story).
If KAGRA etc detect chirps at the same time, then that would be good evidence. If the times indicate some sort of wave travelling in a certain direction at c then that would be extra good. And if there is a correlation with the direction & timing of some kind of optical or Xray etc event then that would be gooder. And if there is a slight delay tween optical & GW (GW faster) then that would be goodest.
But i think that the directions speeds & delays will show a terrestrial event over the north pole, which is what i think some good scientists have been saying all along.
Re BICEP2, here is some wordage from Miles Mathis..............
Another theory killer comes from the mainstream itself, in the form of a giant contradiction. If we go to the Wikipedia page on “Steady State theory”—which of course was the major competitor of the Big Bang model of the Universe until about 1970—we find this:
For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background [CMB] radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking described this discovery as "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory". The steady-state theory explained microwave background radiation as the result of light from ancient stars that has been scattered by galactic dust. However, the cosmic microwave background level is very even in all directions, making it difficult to explain how it could be generated by numerous point sources; and the microwave background radiation shows no evidence of characteristics such as polarization that are normally associated with scattering...............
Ho-ho! The Wiki sweepers need to go to work on that page, don't they, to keep it up-to-date with the latest propaganda. Last year they were using lack of polarization to refute the Steady State model; this year they are using polarization curls to prove the Big Bang. If you are in the mainstream, everything and its opposite is proof of your theories, and nothing is ever disproof. Isn't that convenient. “Polarization is normally associated with scattering”—that is until the mainstream wishes to use it to indicate Inflation. In which case, the word “normally” doesn't mean normally anymore.
-
Yes every quantum thing has mass, & all mass has gravity. But in my aether theory there is no wave in the gravity unless something is changing. Near a binary there is something changing, its the distance to each of the two stars, hencely the Newtonian gravity changes, a quadrupolar change (wave if u like), but very weak in the far field (not a bullshit LIGO kind of GW). And that Newtonian wave can carry energy (like u say).
Do you acknowledge that any given object with mass is in relative motion to all other objects with mass? Doesn’t that qualify as something changing relative to any two objects in relative motion, regardless of the distance or style of motion?
Yes but Newtonian gravity does not involve speed or relative speed, it only involves distance. And if the distance is gradually changing then there might arise a GW. If the gradual change (distance) is uniform then there is no GW, but praps a hint of the start of a GW. If the change (distance) is not uniform then there is a possible start plus the stink of what might prove to be a GW.
In my Newtonian GWs near a binary the change (distance to observer) is getting shorter then longer then shorter etc & u have a quadrupolar Newtonian GW at that location.
But your GWs which are not near a binary, & which involve a changing relative velocity tween observer & star, can give a changing rate of change of the changing Newtonian gravity, which is i suppose a kind of GW, but qualitatively if not quantitatively it is a poorer-weaker kind of GW i think, compared to the kind of GW arising from a definite shortening-longening-shortening of distance (ie due to a change of distance moreso than being due to a changing rate of change of distance) found near a binary.
U wont find my Newtonian GWs near a lonely simple star. And i dont see how u can find a scenario giving rise to your kind of velocity related GWs near a lonely simple star.
However i daresay that your GWs are more of a micro-world happening rather than the above macro-world happenings. Thusly i daresay that your GWs must be both the building block of everything we feel & see at a micro-level whilst at the same time being the recipient of all of thems micro-happenings -- so we have a circular argument, a circular creation story (God made Heaven & Earth -- who made God -- why, Heaven & Earth did).
-
…
However i daresay that your GWs are more of a micro-world happening rather than the above macro-world happenings. Thusly i daresay that your GWs must be both the building block of everything we feel & see at a micro-level whilst at the same time being the recipient of all of thems micro-happenings -- so we have a circular argument, a circular creation story (God made Heaven & Earth -- who made God -- why, Heaven & Earth did).
It’s not the same thing; in a dynamic steady state universe, it is about recycling old cold high entropy matter into fresh low entropy hot dense plasma, big bang by big bang at the macro level, via micro level quantum action at the wave-particle level. So yur mama and yur daddy are converging big bang arena waves :).
-
The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photino drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photino of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.
I found this: photaeno drag ............ of vibration or spin or swirl of the aether. Have you explained what aether is? Is it particulate? How do you describe it?
If it exists in the ISU, it is contained in the tiny oscillations at the tiniest level of action, where the lowest order of gravitation waves oscillate in the background that fills all space, just waiting for a meaningful gravitational (or light) waves to enter the local oscillating background; the oscillations then assist in the advance of those more meaningful waves through the oscillating background.
Below is an image of a quiet but oscillating patch of foundational wave energy background that acts to advance and assist the propagation of meaningful light and gravity waves through space.
When characterizing the Aether within the ISU model, it is right there in the space occupied by those tiny oscillations, remembering that in the ISU, there is a hint of mass at the convergence of each gravitational wave, and there in the quiet oscillations of the oscillating foundational background is where the tiniest hints of mass are constantly forming momentarily, and then expanding spherically as third waves to complete an oscillation, and as the new third wave expands, it is continually forming more tiny hints of mass around the expanding spherical surface.
All of those little circles in the image are supposed to represent the “third wave” action, meaning that each circle can be backtracked to a point of convergence depicted where two or more circles in the image intersect, and the image of all of those tiny circles has numerous wave convergences at points on the surface where the third waves expand spherically. Picture a tiny, momentary “spot” (hint of mass) at each of the convergences around each depicted sphere.
I would ask you, if I added tiny spots at each convergence in the following image, and then removed the circle lines which connect each point of convergence among the oscillating gravitational waves, could the sum of all of those tiny momentary spots that I call hints of mass equate to aether? Edit: I might add that the aether "spots" would all appear to be flashing into and out of existence all of the time, everywhere, filling all space, as the "unseen oscillating gravitational wave action" takes place.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)
Below is a link to an image that shows a meaningful wave being advanced through a patch of the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations would equate to your aether, while the darker regions could equate to a meaningful gravitational wave emitted from a particle with mass in the ISU model.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpeg)
Any comments so far, before I address the concept of tornadic swirls of the aether?
-
The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own. They are due to photaeno drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photaeno of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.
I found this: photaeno drag ............ of vibration or spin or swirl of the aether. Have you explained what aether is? Is it particulate? How do you describe it?
If it exists in the ISU, it is contained in the tiny oscillations at the tiniest level of action, where the lowest order of gravitation waves oscillate in the background that fills all space, just waiting for a meaningful gravitational (or light) waves to enter the local oscillating background; the oscillations then assist in the advance of those more meaningful waves through the oscillating background.
Below is an image of a quiet but oscillating patch of foundational wave energy background that acts to advance and assist the propagation of meaningful light and gravity waves through space.
When characterizing the Aether within the ISU model, it is right there in the space occupied by those tiny oscillations, remembering that in the ISU, there is a hint of mass at the convergence of each gravitational wave, and there in the quiet oscillations of the oscillating foundational background is where the tiniest hints of mass are constantly forming momentarily, and then expanding spherically as third waves to complete an oscillation, and as the new third wave expands, it is continually forming more tiny hints of mass around the expanding spherical surface.
All of those little circles in the image are supposed to represent the “third wave” action, meaning that each circle can be backtracked to a point of convergence depicted where two or more circles in the image intersect, and the image of all of those tiny circles has numerous wave convergences at points on the surface where the third waves expand spherically. Picture a tiny, momentary “spot” (hint of mass) at each of the convergences around each depicted sphere.
I would ask you, if I added tiny spots at each convergence in the following image, and then removed the circle lines which connect each point of convergence among the oscillating gravitational waves, could the sum of all of those tiny momentary spots that I call hints of mass equate to aether? Edit: I might add that the aether "spots" would all appear to be flashing into and out of existence all of the time, everywhere, filling all space, as the "unseen oscillating gravitational wave action" takes place.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)
Below is a link to an image that shows a meaningful wave being advanced through a patch of the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations would equate to your aether, while the darker regions could equate to a meaningful gravitational wave emitted from a particle with mass in the ISU model.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpeg)
Any comments so far, before I address the concept of tornadic swirls of the aether?
My aether is similar to your aether, my aether is a process, it is some sort of excitation of the fundamental praether, thusly being a process it can be annihilated, whereas the annihilation of praether itself, ie the annihilation of a thing, would be harder to swallow. And for sure one could make a sensible model where aether flashes in & out of existence.
I suppose that the fundamental quantum or subquantum fluid or whatever has had lots of names throo history -- the fabric of spacetime -- strings -- vacuum energy -- dynamic space -- absolute frame -- quantum foam -- there are many terms that are an aether.
I notice that u believe that light is a wave. I believe that light is made of photons, & that the photon is the elementary particle that makes electrons & quarks etc (which are usually called elementary particles).
It looks to me that praps u believe that mass is a process & a thing-thing, whereas i believe that every"thing" (other than praether) is a process.
How does your mass work, & how does your inertia work, & are your mass & inertia related?
-
My aether is similar to your aether, my aether is a process, it is some sort of excitation of the fundamental praether, thusly being a process it can be annihilated,
All right, let’s talk as if the ISU aether is a process that produces oscillating “spots” that appear momentarily everywhere in all space (between particles and objects, and in the case of the ISU model, even within all particles and objects). The aether “spots” are the result of a process (when defined in terms of the ISU model) that is consistent with the multiple convergences of tiny gravitational wave remnants which exist in all space. That means that the oscillations are producing aether spots filling the foundational background of space, and are perpetually there from a potentially infinite history of the existence larger scale matter and energy processes (remembering that the ISU multiple big bang universe has always existed), like the quantum level action which orchestrates the presence and maintenance of wave-particles, and the macro level processes of big bang arena action that is continually taking place all across the landscape of the greater universe.
… whereas the annihilation of praether itself, ie the annihilation of a thing, would be harder to swallow. And for sure one could make a sensible model where aether flashes in & out of existence.
Good point. When talking about a thing, you are referring to praether itself, as opposed to the product of a process? So we can say that the aether “spots” are process related, and do I take it right then that we would say “things” in you aether model have mass (consistent with what I would call matter)?
I suppose that the fundamental quantum or subquantum fluid or whatever has had lots of names throo history -- the fabric of spacetime -- strings -- vacuum energy -- dynamic space -- absolute frame -- quantum foam -- there are many terms that are an aether.
That list covers many of the names for it. Do you include the cosmic microwave background radiation on that list or how do you see that?
I notice that u believe that light is a wave. I believe that light is made of photons, & that the photon is the elementary particle that makes electrons & quarks etc (which are usually called elementary particles).
In the ISU model, light is closely related to the photon. A photon is a wave-particle in my model, which distinguishes it from aether, I guess you could say.
[Wave particles share specific characteristics, including that they are composed of (contain) gravitational wave energy (in quantum increments) consistent with the presence of internal wave convergences, much like being stuffed with aether, lol, and being subject to an aether flow through.] The most important characteristic of wave-particles, including the photon, is that they emit and absorb energy (in the ISU is it gravitational wave energy), and there are two wave energy components of each wave-particle, the inflowing gravitational wave energy absorbed from the surrounding space, and the out flowing gravitation wave energy emitted spherically into the surrounding space. Note that the out flow from distant particles and objects becomes the inflow to local objects, and that particles and objects move in the direction of the highest distant source of wave energy.
A key characteristic of the photon wave-particle is that the out flowing gravitational wave energy is light, in waves, that carry the light energy through space, based on the mass of their wave-particle cores, and the out flow produced by the core reflects the photon particle’s frequency and wavelength.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)
To interpret that image, the curved lines represent wave energy traversing space, so in terms of an aether model, think of each intersection between all of the lines as representing a momentary spot, consistent with how we are mutually describing the aether. Then, think of each high density spot in the core of the wave particle as being composed of numerous tiny wave convergences that add up to a quantum of wave energy in the ISU model. See below:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)
The above link is of an artist’s conception of a group of tiny gravitational wave remnants converging to form a quantum amount of wave energy (a high energy density spot, like those in the core of the wave-particle.)
To continue with the characteristics of the photon wave-particle, they are emitted by electrons at the speed of light (into the aether-containing space between particles and objects). They are unique in that they start out their life as a photon by traveling at the speed of light through the oscillating wave energy background (aether). I characterize that background as consisting of gravitational wave energy coming and going, from all directions, at the local speed of light, (and continually intersecting to produce the aether spots that fills all space). On that basis, photons (traveling at the speed of light) get/absorb all of their inflowing replacement gravitational wave energy from the direction of motion, and that results in them taking essentially straight paths through space.
It looks to me that praps u believe that mass is a process & a thing-thing, whereas i believe that every"thing" (other than praether) is a process.
Maybe I’ll understand that sentence as we get into mass and inertia…
How does your mass work, & how does your inertia work, & are your mass & inertia related?
… Perhaps we’ll get into that in the next round.
I’m sure I have covered too much ground for one post, but I won’t hesitate to repeat myself when any of it comes up again, as I’m sure you will also not hesitate to do :) .
-
… whereas the annihilation of praether itself, ie the annihilation of a thing, would be harder to swallow. And for sure one could make a sensible model where aether flashes in & out of existence.
Good point. When talking about a thing, you are referring to praether itself, as opposed to the product of a process? So we can say that the aether “spots” are process related, and do I take it right then that we would say “things” in you aether model have mass (consistent with what I would call matter)?
Praether & Aether dont have mass -- but everything else has mass (photons etc etc)(neutrinos).I suppose that the fundamental quantum or subquantum fluid or whatever has had lots of names throo history -- the fabric of spacetime -- strings -- vacuum energy -- dynamic space -- absolute frame -- quantum foam -- there are many terms that are an aether.
That list covers many of the names for it. Do you include the cosmic microwave background radiation on that list or how do you see that?
I am not sure what Einsteinists mean when they say radiation & CMB radiation. I reckon that there is only one kind of true radiation, this is em radiation, & it is made of photaenos (which emanate from photons) . All other radiations involve particles (eg photons, electrons, alpha particles etc).
I prefer not to talk of gravitational radiation, even tho gravity is radial, because gravity involves the flow of aetherons into mass, except that they dont flow into mass, they do however accelerate towards mass, the inflow into mass being trumped usually by the large background aetherwind, hencely gravity is an acceleration field not a flow field.
Anyhow i think that Einsteinologists think that the CMB is 100% photons. I dont think that they think that it includes em radiation, or praps they do include em radiation because they think that em radiation is photons. I dont think that they think that CMB includes electrons or alpha particles or gravity waves etc.
Anyhow the CMB is not my aether, but CMB includes stuff that is a process of aether.
-
Praether & Aether dont have mass -- but everything else has mass (photons etc etc)(neutrinos).
I'm not up to speed on all of the terminology, but I do find we can get to some common ground. As we have acknowledged, there are many unknowns, and your posts have given me new views to consider in that regard. It is hard to reconcile our ideas and declare common ground, but I plan to keep my eye on your threads, and to continue to consider and learn from them.
-
Praether & Aether dont have mass -- but everything else has mass (photons etc etc)(neutrinos).
I'm not up to speed on all of the terminology, but I do find we can get to some common ground. As we have acknowledged, there are many unknowns, and your posts have given me new views to consider in that regard. It is hard to reconcile our ideas and declare common ground, but I plan to keep my eye on your threads, and to continue to consider and learn from them.
Yes, u & me & all, we are all here to learn (alltho for Einsteinologists the learning is limited to being able to recite mantra, whilst keeping the prayer wheels spinning, with the occasional flaying of buttocks). And i find that i dont learn much unless i write it. Hardly a day goes by that i dont find that my old thinking had error. Yesterday i found that years ago i had stuffed up my analysis of Esclangon's 1927 telescope experiment, i had some of the mirror reflexions going the wrong way.
Seeing as u mention Praether, i probly forget to mention that the Praether is made of Praethons or Praetherons if u like. Not that this sort of talk means much, giving something a name doesnt prove it exists. Einsteinologists are of course famous for being able to name things that dont exist (eg Higgs gluons gravitons etc), & to erase names of things that do exist but are not in accord with Einsteinology (eg aether).
And i should make clear that Aether is made of Aethons or Aetherons if u like. But whereas Praether & Praethons are things, Aether & Aethons are more processes than things. Hencely Aether & Aethons are an illusion of sorts (not that we can readily see or feel them)(but we can indirectly). However both Praether & Aether occupy the sub-quantum world, rather than the completely illusory quantum world that we all feel & see. And when something crosses from the sub-quantum to the quantum (something from nothing)(creation of mass) or vice versa (nothing from something)(annihilation of mass) then Noether's conservation stuff is or can be a dead duck.
-
Yes, u & me & all, we are all here to learn …
Seeing as u mention Praether, i probly forget to mention that the Praether is made of Praethons or Praetherons if u like. …
And i should make clear that Aether is made of Aethons or Aetherons if u like. But whereas Praether & Praethons are things, Aether & Aethons are more processes than things. Hencely Aether & Aethons are an illusion of sorts (not that we can readily see or feel them)(but we can indirectly). However both Praether & Aether occupy the sub-quantum world, rather than the completely illusory quantum world that we all feel & see. And when something crosses from the sub-quantum to the quantum (something from nothing)(creation of mass) or vice versa (nothing from something)(annihilation of mass) then Noether's conservation stuff is or can be a dead duck.
When it comes to terminology, here is a word that might apply here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/audacious (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/audacious)
audacious adjective
au·da·cious | \ ȯ-ˈdā-shəs
\
Definition of audacious
1
a
: intrepidly daring : ADVENTUROUS
an audacious mountain climber
b
: recklessly bold : RASH
an audacious maneuver
2
: contemptuous of law, religion, or decorum : INSOLENT
an audacious maverick
3
: marked by originality and verve
audacious experiments
One thing that those of us who write about and/or support an alternative cosmology of the universe is that we might be called audacious.
There is a generally accepted model of Cosmology, Big Bang Theory (BBT), that is the consensus, and it essentially consists of General Relativity Theory and Inflation Theory. It is the standard model of cosmology for all of the right reasons, and I say we are being audacious when we argue for a different model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7C9TjdziPE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7C9TjdziPE)
Inflation and the universe
We are being audacious from the perspective of the professional scientific community, and advocates who are science enthusiasts, because everything that is included in the BBT has the weight of the scientific method behind it; it is a legitimate theory, supported by decisive and convincing mathematics, and has withstood the test of time, having been examined and tested for many years, in many ways.
So why be audacious and speculate about cosmology when we have such a popular model at our finger tips?My excuse is that because when you look for the mechanics that are at work to answer the “how” questions, there are a few things about BBT that are problematic. One thing is that the Theory of Quantum Mechanics is a separate model and there are important incompatibilities between them. Further, upon contemplation of BBT, there are a few ideas that seem to logically fit better with some of our individual perceptions of reality.What is your excuse?
-
So why be audacious and speculate about cosmology when we have such a popular model at our finger tips?My excuse is that because when you look for the mechanics that are at work to answer the “how” questions, there are a few things about BBT that are problematic. One thing is that the Theory of Quantum Mechanics is a separate model and there are important incompatibilities between them. Further, upon contemplation of BBT, there are a few ideas that seem to logically fit better with some of our individual perceptions of reality.What is your excuse?
A few years ago i decided to look more closely into Einstein's SR & GR & i was shocked by how stupid it all was, & at how badly it was written, starting firstly with his twin flashes of lightning at the train station thort-X, & later his elevator equivalence (chest) thort-X. Soon i found papers & websites etc by heretics (who mostly believed in aether & aetherwind) like Michelson Morley Miller Gale Pearce Pearson Ives Courvoisier Esclangon Allais Munera Demjanov Marett Marmett Crothers Mathis Cahill Ranzan Dingle Catt & dozens of others. I didnt ever go to university, so my science & math aint good, but i enjoy learning.
-
A few years ago i decided to look more closely into Einstein's SR & GR & i was shocked by how stupid it all was, & at how badly it was written, starting firstly with his twin flashes of lightning at the train station thort-X, & later his elevator equivalence (chest) thort-X. Soon i found papers & websites etc by heretics (who mostly believed in aether & aetherwind) like Michelson Morley Miller Gale Pearce Pearson Ives Courvoisier Esclangon Allais Munera Demjanov Marett Marmett Crothers Mathis Cahill Ranzan Dingle Catt & dozens of others. I didnt ever go to university, so my science & math aint good, but i enjoy learning.
That says a lot, and is coming from you, never having gotten the formal math education. Well, as far as I’m concerned, the level of math understanding you need to understand the popular science media’s layman level presentations of SR/GR and even QM ranges from quite basic, to as advanced as you want to get. For a general understanding of the theories, sufficient for layman discussions, and adequate enough to make personal judgements on alternative ideas, the math rarely comes into play unless you get serious. Until then, good logic is the key, IMHO.
The math in the ISU is seriously simple because there is one equation that works at all scales; each of the levels of the model where quantization takes place (Big Bang arenas, wave-particles, the oscillations in the foundation background) all are characterized by the same scenario (I refer to that as the “sameness” doctrine of the ISU). The common scenario at all levels is the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding “parent” waves (spherically expanding wave fronts), and each convergence results in a combination of energy from both parent waves in the overlap space. The overlap continues until a third wave that contains a quantum of energy is reached. The third wave then becomes a quantum of energy in its own right, and it expands out into the space formerly occupied by the parent waves.
The following two graphics show the details and the equation (simple math with familiar equations related to spheres and volume), and a depiction of the third wave action:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)
Note that the “third wave” in the second image is in the same position as the “overlap space” in the first image. Those “third waves” occur at each level. At the Big Bang Arena level they are the big crunches that collapse bang into new expanding big bang arenas (the expanding big bang arena is a third wave). At the wave-particle level, they are the high energy density spots that reach at quantum of energy in the process of quantum action (the high energy density spots are momentary hints of mass that expand into new third waves to perpetuate the process of quantum action). At the level of the oscillating foundational background, the third waves are spherical waves that assist the advance (propagation) of light and gravitational waves through the medium of space (one oscillation at a time).
-
A reasonable layman model of cosmology is an exercise in individual thinking, internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. My model, The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), in 300 words or less (do you see anything in here that is like you're thinking?):
The universe is an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas, each with similar preconditions, characterized by two or more preceding “parent” arenas, expanding, intersecting and overlapping, with each parent contributing a portion of their galactic matter and energy to a new big crunch that forms at the center of gravity in the overlap space, and due to the accretion of matter and gravitational wave energy, under the compression of quantum gravity, reaches a finite energy density limit, consisting of an arena level quantum of energy, referred to as the critical capacity of a big crunch, that results in a collapse/bang of each new big crunch into another new expanding big bang arena, merging into the existing space in the vicinity of the landscape of the greater universe where the parent big bang arenas (and over a larger space and further back in time, their grandparent arenas) previously merged, and whereupon, in accord with the invariant laws of nature, each similar new arena cools and expands as it fills with stable particles, forms stars and galaxies from wave-particles that take shape out of the hot dense plasma “soup” produced by the big bang’s energy ball, that is expanding locally within the universal oscillating gravitational wave energy background, and which follows the same pattern as its parent arenas, all part of an ongoing perpetual process of big bang arena action that continually occurs across the infinite landscape of the greater universe, and that defeats entropy by recycling high entropy old cold galactic matter and energy, via the big crunch/bangs, into hot dense balls of low entropy plasma energy that expand, decay into wave-particles, form galaxies, and become parent arenas in their own right, blended into the eternal sameness of the infinite past that continually accrues across the infinite landscape of the greater universe; an infinite and eternal universe where life is generated and evolved in the natural hospitable environments that abound.
-
Maybe since we have revived this old thread (partly because the name of the thread is too good to let go) we should be able to agree that objects move in the direction of the net highest source of gravitational attraction in the surrounding space. How a given model accounts for that is in the eyes of the modeler. "Another model of gravity" should present some mechanics to explain how gravity works, so if there are no mechanics that make sense, how can it be called a model of gravity. Show me the
money mechanics!
And tell me if you think the solution to the mechanics is not a solution to quantum gravity.
-
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg)A theme of my model is that an apple falling to the ground emits gravitational waves; the presence of all mass involves both inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy.
A few members in the past have asked about gravitational waves, not understanding what exactly it is that is waving, and though I have addressed that topic several times in my threads, I am still capable of complicating the answer beyond all comprehension, lol.
Just kidding, this answer makes perfect sense from the perspective of the ISU solution to quantum gravity, and will represent a big improvement over any level of detail covered before, even better than how I described wave action in the ISU and Quantum Gravity (QG) threads “What are they saying about quantum gravity” and before that in the thread “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”.
A wave
In the ISU model, a wave is a spherically advancing front of energy that originates at a point in space, and expands spherically away from that point of origin until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting with adjacent expanding wave fronts in the local energy density environment.
Note: Everything in the ISU is composed of wave energy, and involves ongoing wave action. To emphasize the “sameness” of the action processes in the ISU, the common denominator of all wave action is that the waves are carrying gravitational wave energy through the medium of space.
A wavefront
Definition of a wave front: a wave front is a line of differential between the wave energy density environment in front of the advancing wave front, and the wave energy density environment behind the wave front.
As the volume of the spherical wave expands, the energy density behind the front is at a different level of density from the energy density in front of the front, and that differential is required for the wave front to exist and advance.
Note: The wavefront advances under the force of wave energy density equalization.
Energy density, and energy density environments
What do we mean by energy density?
Any patch of the medium of space contains wave energy in the form of wavefronts, carrying wave energy through that space. The basic energy density of that space can be characterized as the volume of the space divided by the number of spherical wavefronts and fractional wave fronts traversing that space (a fractional wave front is a spherical wave front that has been interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding wave front). There are several factors that come into play when comparing the energy density in two different patches of space that will come up in discussion.
Energy density environment(s)
When the energy density throughout a patch of space is consistent, meaning that the wave action in the space is essentially the same throughout the space, that space qualifies as an energy density environment. Energy density environments that exist adjacent to each other, without any artificial separation, will be interacting with each other as wavefronts move actively form one environment to the other.
The two environments will continue to interact until the wave action within their contiguous space is equalized, meaning that the wave action across the space of the two environments will reach internal consistency and they will have become one energy density environment.
To be continued …
-
Wave action
The term “wave action” has been mentioned several times in the definitions so far. There are various levels of wave action throughout the ISU that stand out because they represent significantly different levels of energy density and are described by unique processes peculiar to each level, in spite of the “sameness” of the basic action.
Each of the levels of the model where quantization takes place all are characterized by the same scenario (I refer to that as the “sameness” doctrine of the ISU). The common scenario at all levels is the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding “parent” waves (spherically expanding wave fronts), and each convergence results in a combination of energy from both parent waves in the overlap space. The overlap continues until a third wave that contains a quantum of energy is reached. The third wave then becomes a quantum of energy in its own right, and it expands out into the space formerly occupied by the parent waves.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)
There are any number of levels of energy density from the deepest space to the core of a big crunch, but there are three unique levels of wave action based on the amount of energy contained in a quantum of energy that is required by the action process at that level. (Big Bang arenas, wave-particles, the oscillations in the foundation background)
The amount of energy in each of their representative quanta ranges across the entire wave energy scale, from the big bangs at the top of the scale, and down to the tiny oscillations at the foundational background level, with wave particle action filling the gap.
1) Big Bang Arena action at the macro level contains an arena quantum of energy, and when two arena waves converge they produce a big crunch that collapse/bangs into a new arena wave.
2) Wave-particle action at the particle level centers around high energy density spots, also referred to a quanta in the process of quantum action at the wave-particle level. Each high energy density spot is the origin of a new third wave that distributes the quantum of energy in the spot, spherically, in the form of a new third wave, and the continual production of new third waves assures the continual formation of new high energy density spots, and that continual wave action maintains the presence of the wave particle.
3) The oscillating action at the foundational background level is characterized by the fact that the duration between a wave-wave intersection at the level, and an intersection between the new third wave produced by that intersection and its first subsequent intersection thereafter, equals the wave-wave intersection time delay. This concept establishes the meaning of “an instant” as opposed to instantaneous, lol. The oscillating wave action is self-perpetuating, governed by an ISU limit imposed that establishes a maximum energy density in a given energy density environment.
It must be noted that this characterization of the oscillating wave action refers to an “otherwise waveless foundational background of space”. That is a stipulation that cannot be honored in the ISU, meaning that there cannot be a patch of oscillating foundational background that is not already at work assisting the advance of meaningful gravitational waves that fill all space, and therefore there is no “otherwise waveless foundational background of space”. But the concept is instructional when it comes to understanding the ISU model.
To be continued …
-
I don’t feel that I have confused the issue of “What’s waving” enough so far, but I’m not done yet either.
From the last post, the idea of “instructional convenience” is a good way to refer to the concept of the oscillating foundational background, the lowest level of wave action of the ISU model, but the level that is instrumental in the advance of wave action through space. The wave action discussion from the last post is continued in order to address what goes on when the oscillating background is not waveless, and as I said, it never is waveless. The point by point oscillations are always there, and always characterized by fluctuations in the amount of wave energy converging at each point in space.
For the answer to the question “What’s waving” we refer back to the “otherwise waveless” stipulation made about the oscillating wave action that I said could not be honored in the ISU. Well, the reason that that stipulation cannot be honored gets right to the heart of the answer to the question, “What is waving”.
There is so much directional gravitational wave energy traversing space at all points, that there are always many multiple waves passing any given point in space at all times from all directions from an infinite history of wave action across an infinite universe. The cause of the fluctuations is the directional imbalances in the amount of wave energy arriving at a given point, and because of the mixed incoherent frequencies arriving from each direction, etc. If you stipulate an oscillating background that is “otherwise waveless” then none of those causes of the fluctuations are present.
Conclusion, the varied wave actions at each point in space are all part of the point by point and instant by instant fluctuations that have been named the “oscillating foundational background of the medium of space” that serves to advance wave action through space. Therefore, when I refer to each point in space as having a hint of mass, it is based on the concept that directional gravitational waves cancel each other out, but there is always an imbalance at each point, and the energy value of that imbalance accounts for the “hint” of mass that is present at each point.
So the answer to what is waving is the point by point level of wave energy density; it is in a constant state of flux for the reasons mentioned above, and the change in energy point by point due to that state of flux, causes the oscillations that advance the gravitational wave action that is coming from all directions and is therefore being advanced in all directions by the spherical oscillations.
-
The ISU model update continued … I don’t feel that I have confused the issue of “What’s waving” enough so far, but I’m not done yet either............
But that still reads like oscillations of the medium of space create gravity energy waves which are the medium of space.
-
But that still reads like oscillations of the medium of space create gravity energy waves which are the medium of space.
Lol, and are you saying there is something wrong with that?
Actually, the oscillations cancel out except for that amount that is referred to as the imbalance, point by point. Technically, the oscillating background assists the advance of gravitational wave energy, but each meaningful wave can be backtracked to an event; some as energetic as the in swirling death spiral of two blackholes, and some as inconsequential as the apple falling to the ground. Regardless of the magnitude of the event that initiates the gravitational wave though, gravity is not caused by the oscillations, the oscillation help in the propagation of the waves traversing space.
-
But that still reads like oscillations of the medium of space create gravity energy waves which are the medium of space.
Lol, and are you saying there is something wrong with that?
Actually, the oscillations cancel out except for that amount that is referred to as the imbalance, point by point. Technically, the oscillating background assists the advance of gravitational wave energy, but each meaningful wave can be backtracked to an event; some as energetic as the in swirling death spiral of two blackholes, and some as inconsequential as the apple falling to the ground. Regardless of the magnitude of the event that initiates the gravitational wave though, gravity is not caused by the oscillations, the oscillation help in the propagation of the waves traversing space.
But u cant have oscillations creating waves which create oscillations. There has to be a fundamental background medium. If u give it a name u might get a Nobel, but if u dont give it a name then for sure no Nobel. It has to be catchy, or sexy. String is already taken. U have more chance of a Nobel if it ends in -on or in -ther. Hardon might work. How about Onion.
-
Onion might work. Since I characterize each point in the oscillating (fluctuating is also a word that applies to the action) background as consisting of layer upon layer of directional waves, all converging at each point in space, why not call it onions for the prize. I should point out that I have already been awarded the prestigious BogieAward by Thebox, do you want me to look up the link ...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547141#msg547141 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547141#msg547141)
-
A few technical points:
Constraint on the speed of gravity
The arrival of a meaningful gravitational wave is directional, perhaps from nearby quantum action, or from some distant action or high energy event, but regardless of the source of the gravitational waves, the velocity of the waves through the local energy density environment is constrained by the oscillating background. The model calls for an instant of time delay with each oscillation, and over a distance through the foundational background of space, all of those instants of time-delay set the local speed limit for light and gravity through the medium of space.
Given that the proximity of mass contributes to the local gravitational wave energy density, the time-delay is greater as the energy density of the local environment increases, and the speed of light and gravity are affected accordingly; slowing as the energy density increases.
Note: The oscillations inhibit the velocity of the advance, but the directional advance is determined by the fact that the high density wave energy flow imposes itself in the direction from higher to lower energy density, meaning that the wavefront moves in the direction of the lowest gravitational wave energy density environment, which is always in front of the wavefront. That is the force of energy density equalization at work.
The time-delay
In regard to the prediction of the time-delay associated with each wave-wave intersection, I am reminded that as I was building this model years ago (I think this was a topic at SciForums where I was Quantum_Wave), one of the ideas I was contemplating as a precondition to the Big Bang was a big crunch. There would have to have been a whole sequence of events over billions of years, and the intersection and overlap of two expanding “parent” big bang arena waves was a consideration. A corresponding contemplation was about how a big crunch progressed into a collapse/bang (the mechanics of the big bang); the whole process became known as Big Bang Arena Action.
The resulting ISU model has retained that scenario, and the “sameness doctrine” evolved from it because the same scenario applies nicely to the process of quantum action at the wave-particle level, albeit near the opposite end of the time duration scale. The concept of the time delay began with the billions of years it would take for two parent arenas to converge, for a big crunch out the swirling rendezvous of their merging galactic matter and energy, and then for that crunch to reach “critical capacity” and collapse under the compression of its own weight.
-
@Atom Smasher
Hi, prolly my response is a waay bit late, but still...
Does dis new model of gravity take into account d elliptical orbit of d earth?
Also, isn't d moon very verry slowwly drifting apart from d earth?
& isn't d earth slowin down in terms of revolutions on its axis?
🏄
-
@Atom Smasher Hi, prolly my response is a waay bit late, but still...Does dis new model of gravity take into account d elliptical orbit of d earth? Also, isn't d moon very verry slowwly drifting apart from d earth? & isn't d earth slowin down in terms of revolutions on its axis?
I think Atom Smasher the OP hasnt been around since 2009. But the gravity theory that he mentioned looks much like the gravity of (my)(our) aether theory. I am thinking that all gravity theories mentioned here have the gravitational attraction force being proportional to 1/RR (R being distance tween centers), & i aint a scientist or mathematician but i think that a 1/RR relationship leads to elliptical orbits, hencely it must be rare to come across a gravity theory that doesnt give elliptical orbits.
Re the spins of moons & planets i think that such spins must slow. It would be difficult to think of a scenario where spins increased. Praps a very flexible blob with zero spin orbiting another blob might eventually spin-up to have a spin equal to its orbital frequency due to tidal drag effects (but i aint no scientist).
And re the Moon drifting from Earth i forget the reason. U would think that the small friction to be found in space would slow the Moon's orbit & that it would drift inwards & eventually merge with Earth.
A gravity theory with a slow speed of gravity would they say result in a moon drifting outwards, because a moon & planet orbit their barycenter, & if the gravitational pull on the moon is always pointing to the old location of the planet then the moon gets pulled ahead all the time & its orbit must speed up whilst the planet's speeds down.
But aether theory mainly goes along with Van Flandern that the speed of gravity is over 20 billion c based on the very fact that we do not such outwards drifts (with all due respect to the Moon).
U say model of gravity. The aether gravity theory is not a model, it is meant to be reality. But any description of reality must be incomplete & in that sense there must always be holes, so reality always ends a little or a lot short. But it is still reality, or it is meant to be. Most realities end up to be wrong, hencely i guess that they were models all along, albeit bad models.
Einstein's spacetime is not reality, it aint even a model, it is somewhere lower than a model, it is a mathtrick sitting in mathland, & it doesnt even deserve the status of being even a pretense of a model.
Lower than a mathtrick is a law. Here there is no reality no model no mathtrick, just a law telling u what to do.
Below the laws u have quantum theory.
Below quantum theory u have string theory.
-
But u cant have oscillations creating waves which create oscillations. There has to be a fundamental background medium. If u give it a name u might get a Nobel, …
There should not be any Nobel talk on a layman science enthusiast thread unless you just want to poke fun, and as you can tell, I’m Ok with people doing that, lol.
I came back to this post … because we have exchanged a few comments, but we haven’t really stepped up and tried to understand each other; just some passing efforts that didn’t get us any closer in regard to our ideas, though I have pointed out some common ground. When I said that we have the same universe to work with, and we have the same observables, you didn’t seem comfortable going that far, for reasons that you have eluded about, and commented on. I tried to equate the oscillating background to the aether, and that excited no thoughts of common ground as far as I could tell.
The reason I am readdressing your post is to take some time to address your comment, “There has to be a fundamental background medium”.
From that statement I would say that you cannot see how I have included a description of the background in my recent posts. I have described what was “waving” in terms of what I call the Oscillating foundational background of space, and have made several references to the medium of space. I am picking up on the fact that my efforts have made no progress toward common understanding, am I right?
I have taken to heart that my explanation did not alleviate your concerns, and don’t want to “wave” you off because I aim to improve my model as I go, so I’ll postpone my 2019 ISU update until I can appreciate exactly what you are trying to tell me. If necessary I will just go back to my earlier threads and update them there with some of the new material as opposed to trying to do it here on Atom Smasher’s thread (a bad idea anyway, lol).
If you can put your finger on a few specifics, and take a little time and explain to me ways I could improve the "background" discussion that I have presented so far in my update, I can still go back and revise what I have updated since reply #81 without losing much momentum.
-
But u cant have oscillations creating waves which create oscillations. There has to be a fundamental background medium. If u give it a name u might get a Nobel, …
There should not be any Nobel talk on a layman science enthusiast thread unless you just want to poke fun, and as you can tell, I’m Ok with people doing that, lol.
I came back to this post … because we have exchanged a few comments, but we haven’t really stepped up and tried to understand each other; just some passing efforts that didn’t get us any closer in regard to our ideas, though I have pointed out some common ground. When I said that we have the same universe to work with, and we have the same observables, you didn’t seem comfortable going that far, for reasons that you have eluded about, and commented on. I tried to equate the oscillating background to the aether, and that excited no thoughts of common ground as far as I could tell.
The reason I am readdressing your post is to take some time to address your comment, “There has to be a fundamental background medium”.
From that statement I would say that you cannot see how I have included a description of the background in my recent posts. I have described what was “waving” in terms of what I call the Oscillating foundational background of space, and have made several references to the medium of space. I am picking up on the fact that my efforts have made no progress toward common understanding, am I right?
I have taken to heart that my explanation did not alleviate your concerns, and don’t want to “wave” you off because I aim to improve my model as I go, so I’ll postpone my 2019 ISU update until I can appreciate exactly what you are trying to tell me. If necessary I will just go back to my earlier threads and update them there with some of the new material as opposed to trying to do it here on Atom Smasher’s thread (a bad idea anyway, lol).
If you can put your finger on a few specifics, and take a little time and explain to me ways I could improve the "background" discussion that I have presented so far in my update, I can still go back and revise what I have updated since reply #81 without losing much momentum.
Off the top of my head without re-reading my impressions are....
(1) I think that invoking the medium of space or of vacuum is ambiguous, space & vacuum can be (i) completely empty of quantum things & sub-quantum things, or (ii) they can be empty of QTs but have SQTs, or (iii) can have QTs but no SQTs, or (iv) can have both QTs & SQTs. Re thems QTs these might be specified to (a) include or not include photons & (b) to include or not include em radiation. And even here photons can be specified to be particles or waves or both. And probly em radiation can be specified to be a wave or even to be a photon.
In my aether theory empty space always has praethons (the fundamental essence)(a SQT) & aether (a SQT)(an excitation of the praether). However there is the possibility in Ranzan's DSSU that parts of our cosmic cells might have space that has praethons but no aether, this might be at Ranzan's cell center where Ranzan's aether is created (a minor side issue)(just saying)(Ranzan doesnt mention any kind of praether)(praether is my invention)(i had to make aether a process so that it could be annihilated)(Ranzan hasnt given that any consideration)(no big deal).
Anyhow instead of invoking an ambiguous space or vacuum one should give it a name, either a new unambiguous name linked to attributes that u specify (eg Gravaether or Gravions), or if near enuff is good enuff then simply call it aether.
(2) There are lots of theories around that invoke pulsating dipoles etc etc for the creation of particles. And or waves of excitations meeting here or there to make solitons or something that are particles. And they all sound very similar.
(3) I think one cant do much better than specify & define every little thing in the theory including the process, as far as possible. SQTs & QTs, photons & em radiation, elementary particles, gravity & inertia.
Otherwise i reckon i could make a pro-forma for use in forums where i would have say two pages of standard wording with standard terminology with just a few small blank spaces to write something different about one's pet theory, & with the odd needed choice here & there where u cross out whatever is not applicable, & the odd choice of favorite terms (vibration-oscillation-excitation-spin-vortex), & most theories that i see would look the same. I bet that i could describe the same theory two different ways using different terms.
But the main No1 thing is to do a good job of (1). Having said that i realize that aether theories suffer the same need. And Einsteinology is at the bottom of the barrel. I like to say Aetherists but of course there is no such thing, or, there is, but they all believe different things (throo the ages).
-
Off the top of my head without re-reading my impressions are....
(1) I think that invoking the medium of space or of vacuum is ambiguous, space & vacuum can be (i) completely empty of quantum things & sub-quantum things, or (ii) they can be empty of QTs but have SQTs, or (iii) can have QTs but no SQTs, or (iv) can have both QTs & SQTs. Re thems QTs these might be specified to (a) include or not include photons & (b) to include or not include em radiation. And even here photons can be specified to be particles or waves or both. And probly em radiation can be specified to be a wave or even to be a photon.
In my aether theory empty space always has praethons (the fundamental essence)(a SQT) & aether (a SQT)(an excitation of the praether). However there is the possibility in Ranzan's DSSU that parts of our cosmic cells might have space that has praethons but no aether, this might be at Ranzan's cell center where Ranzan's aether is created (a minor side issue)(just saying)(Ranzan doesnt mention any kind of praether)(praether is my invention)(i had to make aether a process so that it could be annihilated)(Ranzan hasnt given that any consideration)(no big deal).
Anyhow instead of invoking an ambiguous space or vacuum one should give it a name, either a new unambiguous name linked to attributes that u specify (eg Gravaether or Gravions), or if near enuff is good enuff then simply call it aether.
(2) There are lots of theories around that invoke pulsating dipoles etc etc for the creation of particles. And or waves of excitations meeting here or there to make solitons or something that are particles. And they all sound very similar.
(3) I think one cant do much better than specify & define every little thing in the theory including the process, as far as possible. SQTs & QTs, photons & em radiation, elementary particles, gravity & inertia.
Otherwise i reckon i could make a pro-forma for use in forums where i would have say two pages of standard wording with standard terminology with just a few small blank spaces to write something different about one's pet theory, & with the odd needed choice here & there where u cross out whatever is not applicable, & the odd choice of favorite terms (vibration-oscillation-excitation-spin-vortex), & most theories that i see would look the same. I bet that i could describe the same theory two different ways using different terms.
But the main No1 thing is to do a good job of (1). Having said that i realize that aether theories suffer the same need. And Einsteinology is at the bottom of the barrel. I like to say Aetherists but of course there is no such thing, or, there is, but they all believe different things (throo the ages).
That’s all well and good, but in all of that, you didn’t acknowledge anything from my posts that I could grab on to, to say why you come back again with the same reason they don’t make sense to you. Are my pages really a complete disconnect for you? Did you not notice my references to the foundational background or the medium of space? You didn’t reference any content in my posts, or acknowledge any of the cosmological issues that I have addressed with graphics and explanations, but referred to Ranzan; is he well known, a recognized authority? That response you gave was full of maybes, could be’s, partial suggestions and thoughts, and words that only you know the meaning of. Is that your final answer, lol?
-
That’s all well and good, but in all of that, you didn’t acknowledge anything from my posts that I could grab on to, to say why you come back again with the same reason they don’t make sense to you. Are my pages really a complete disconnect for you? Did you not notice my references to the foundational background or the medium of space? You didn’t reference any content in my posts, or acknowledge any of the cosmological issues that I have addressed with graphics and explanations, but referred to Ranzan; is he well known, a recognized authority? That response you gave was full of maybes, could be’s, partial suggestions and thoughts, and words that only you know the meaning of. Is that your final answer, lol?
A good question for starters is how do two masses attract in ISU. In other words how do we have gravity.
For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, the Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.
And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.
An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.
As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.
The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).
All quantum things that we see or feel have mass, eg free photons & free neutrinos, ie they annihilate aether.
A free photon is the true elementary particle, & when forming a loop is said to be a confined photon, which is an electron or quark or proton etc. When a free photon becomes a confined photon its mass increases praps a million fold, depending on the tightness of the confinement (in which case mass is not conserved).
ElectroMagnetic radiation consists of photaenos which are (tornadic probly) excitations of the aether that emanate from the helical central body of a photon & are a part of the photon. Photaenos are quantum, & therefore have mass, but this possession of mass is probly not critical to this present aether theory. If they dont have mass then we say that they are subquantum (no harm done).
Energy has no gravitational mass & no inertial mass. There is no such thing as virtual mass or rest mass.
An objects speed throo the aether (the aetherwind blowing throo an object) will affect the shape & size of the object due to Lorentz length contraction, & the true density will change, but the mass does not change.
Due to Lorentz length contraction & Lorentz ticking dilation affecting our meter rods & clocks there is potential for perceived mass & gravitational force to be different to true mass & true force, depending on the velocity of the aetherwind, but as LLC & LTD affect all objects & rods & clocks etc equally then it is considered that we have a happy situation where perceived mass & force & acceleration is equal to true (otherwise physics would be Hell).
That explanation covers the basics re gravity mass & inertia in my aether theory (the giant holes are not critical).
What exactly is aether? (Aether is an excitation of praether)( praether, made of praethons, is the actual fundamental thing)(everything else is a process of the praether). What is the length of a photon? (We dont know).
What happens to annihilated aether? (Nothing)(aether is only a process). How far do photaenos propagate, & how fast? (They propagate untill they run out of steam, probly a quantum thing)(they propagate at 5c kmps). Does the slowing of a photon in water affect its mass? (No). Does a spinning body suck aether inwards due to centrifugal inertia & centrifugal acceleration? (Yes). If yes how does this affect the mass of the body? (The gravitational mass is not changed)(but we do have some pseudo-mass due to the extra inflow of aether)(here the streamlines converge in 2D towards the equator, in which case the attractive force is proportional to 1/R)(u can say that the attractional mass is greater near the equator)(but aether outflow at the two poles might reduce attraction near the poles, it depends).
In other words are spinning bodies more massive? (Yes & no)(the attractional mass is greater near equator, but might be less near the poles)(but the inertial mass is not affected). Is the gravitational mass of an electron equal to the inertial mass? (No)(the two effects are different, gravi-mass being due to acceleration of aether inflow due to the annihilation of aether, inertial-mass being due to the resistance of the aether to acceleration)(gravi-mass needs no other mass nearbye)(inertial-mass is zero unless there is other mass nearbye)(but in practice there is always mass nearbye, & in our macro world it is safe to say that we have equivalence tween gravity & inertia).
Is gravi-mass equal to inertial-mass? (Yes & no)(there is no such thing as gravi-mass because we cannot measure it)(what we measure is nothing but inertial-mass)(therefore scientists who say that gravitational mass has been measured to be equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places are really saying that inertial mass is equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places)(i predict one hundred decimal places). When do i get my Nobel? (Never).
-
A good question for starters is how do two masses attract in ISU. In other words how do we have gravity.For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, the Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.
And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.
An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.
As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.
The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).
All quantum things that we see or feel have mass, eg free photons & free neutrinos, ie they annihilate aether.
A free photon is the true elementary particle, & when forming a loop is said to be a confined photon, which is an electron or quark or proton etc. When a free photon becomes a confined photon its mass increases praps a million fold, depending on the tightness of the confinement (in which case mass is not conserved).
ElectroMagnetic radiation consists of photaenos which are (tornadic probly) excitations of the aether that emanate from the helical central body of a photon & are a part of the photon. Photaenos are quantum, & therefore have mass, but this possession of mass is probly not critical to this present aether theory. If they dont have mass then we say that they are subquantum (no harm done).
Energy has no gravitational mass & no inertial mass. There is no such thing as virtual mass or rest mass.
An objects speed throo the aether (the aetherwind blowing throo an object) will affect the shape & size of the object due to Lorentz length contraction, & the true density will change, but the mass does not change.
Due to Lorentz length contraction & Lorentz ticking dilation affecting our meter rods & clocks there is potential for perceived mass & gravitational force to be different to true mass & true force, depending on the velocity of the aetherwind, but as LLC & LTD affect all objects & rods & clocks etc equally then it is considered that we have a happy situation where perceived mass & force & acceleration is equal to true (otherwise physics would be Hell).
That explanation covers the basics re gravity mass & inertia in my aether theory (the giant holes are not critical).
What exactly is aether? (Aether is an excitation of praether)( praether, made of praethons, is the actual fundamental thing)(everything else is a process of the praether). What is the length of a photon? (We dont know).
What happens to annihilated aether? (Nothing)(aether is only a process). How far do photaenos propagate, & how fast? (They propagate untill they run out of steam, probly a quantum thing)(they propagate at 5c kmps). Does the slowing of a photon in water affect its mass? (No). Does a spinning body suck aether inwards due to centrifugal inertia & centrifugal acceleration? (Yes). If yes how does this affect the mass of the body? (The gravitational mass is not changed)(but we do have some pseudo-mass due to the extra inflow of aether)(here the streamlines converge in 2D towards the equator, in which case the attractive force is proportional to 1/R)(u can say that the attractional mass is greater near the equator)(but aether outflow at the two poles might reduce attraction near the poles, it depends).
In other words are spinning bodies more massive? (Yes & no)(the attractional mass is greater near equator, but might be less near the poles)(but the inertial mass is not affected). Is the gravitational mass of an electron equal to the inertial mass? (No)(the two effects are different, gravi-mass being due to acceleration of aether inflow due to the annihilation of aether, inertial-mass being due to the resistance of the aether to acceleration)(gravi-mass needs no other mass nearbye)(inertial-mass is zero unless there is other mass nearbye)(but in practice there is always mass nearbye, & in our macro world it is safe to say that we have equivalence tween gravity & inertia).
Is gravi-mass equal to inertial-mass? (Yes & no)(there is no such thing as gravi-mass because we cannot measure it)(what we measure is nothing but inertial-mass)(therefore scientists who say that gravitational mass has been measured to be equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places are really saying that inertial mass is equal to inertial mass to fifteen decimal places)(i predict one hundred decimal places). When do i get my Nobel? (Never).
You went to a lot of work to explain your model, and I appreciate that explanation. I’m beginning to realize that there isn’t any more chance that you would understand my response to your question, “A good question for starters is how do two masses attract in ISU In other words how do we have gravity?”, than I have of understanding the explanation you gave (understanding and believing are not the same, but understanding precedes believing).
We are two science enthusiasts talking about the complex details of our own “as yet” unknown-about explanations for the cause of gravity, and it is like an invitation to a wild party attended by two schools where no one goes home sober, lol.
Anyway, here is my offering:
How two masses attract in the ISU
1) Particles and objects have mass, and move through the medium of space (see link to a description below) in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy density source. The net gravitational wave energy density at each location in space is determined by the relative proximity (distance and motion) of all massive objects in space.
2) That can be said, based on the premise that particles and objects with mass absorb and emit gravitational wave energy. The wave energy emitted by one object traverses the medium of space in all directions, and when the wave energy arrives at surrounding objects, it gets absorbed by the distant object.
3) The gravitational wave energy is traversing the medium of space:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557799#msg557799 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557799#msg557799)
4) All particles have mass in the ISU and are called wave-particles. The wave particles in an expanding big bang arena form from the decay of the hot dense plasma ball of energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of a preceding big crunch. Because the wave-particles from in an expanding energy density environment, they are imparted with separation momentum as they form, meaning wave-particles are all moving away from each other as they form. However, gravity is stronger than separation momentum in the close quarters of a hot dense new big bang arena, and so wave-particles clump to form stars and galactic structure. The galactic structure conservers the separation momentum, and so galaxies and galaxy groups are all moving wave from each other as well. The arenas are continually expanding and will expand until their expansion is interrupted by converging with adjacent expanding arenas.
5) Once the stable wave-particles have formed in the expanding new arena, the presence of the initial massive wave particles is maintained by the continual flow of gravitational waves from all directions; that flow provides the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components that maintains the presence of the wave-particles.
6) Wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. Each particle has its own “space” which is described as a standing wave pattern, where all of the quanta in the pattern are continually forming and disbursing as the directional wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space passes through from all directions. That flow from all directions sets up the standing wave environment that is characteristic of the wave-particle space.
7) The quanta that make up the mass of the wave-particles consist of gravitational wave convergences, the high energy fluctuations referred to as high density spots; the spots are groups of those fluctuations that were described in the recent explanation of “what is waving”.
8 ) The location of the mass of a particle is established by of all of the quanta that occupy the standing wave pattern that represents the presence of the wave-particle. The mass is proportional to the number of quanta. It seem unnecessary to say, but every wave-particle has location at all times, as opposed to virtual particles and fluctuations that pop in and out of existence.
9) Wave-particles move in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space because they emit continual out flow, and that out flowing gravitational wave energy needs to be continually replaced from the directional inflow of gravitational wave energy from the surrounding profile of space. The highest directional inflow provides the most replacement wave energy to the energy hungry wave-particles, which causes motion in that direction.
10) That is how two masses attract in the ISU.
-
A few questions to start with …
For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, …
Is this a case of the inflow of aether into the earth pushing things down toward the earth? Isn’t the man also annihilating aether from his feet up, and where is that aether coming from?
Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.
Just a question here, … RR stands for radius squared, correct?
If we are talking volume instead of area, would the right equation be for volume?
Equation for the volume of a sphere: https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-Sphere (https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-Sphere)
V = 4/3 Pi r^3
And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.
So mass is a property of the need for inertial force for acceleration, to offset the drag that the aether resists when you accelerate? Does an object have mass if it is not being accelerated?
An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.
It sounds a little like the explanation I would expect for an object “at rest”. How is uniform velocioty different from being at rest, and what is the difference in aehter annihilation and aether drag?
As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.
Why such extreme velocities? How are those extreme velocities activated? You mention the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation, and I don’t understand how that would occur?
I do see your reference to a shock-front or pjulse of wave, and that sounds a little familiar to my idea of wave action; what would you say is waving in that case?
The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).
I don’t see why you are distinguishing between very large object on a galactic scale. Why wouldn’t there be this effect at smaller scales?
I’ll just mention those questions, and maybe your answers will clear a few things up for me so I can work my way further through your post.
-
How two masses attract in the ISU
1) Particles and objects have mass, and move through the medium of space (see link to a description below) in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy density source. The net gravitational wave energy density at each location in space is determined by the relative proximity (distance and motion) of all massive objects in space.
2) That can be said, based on the premise that particles and objects with mass absorb and emit gravitational wave energy. The wave energy emitted by one object traverses the medium of space in all directions, and when the wave energy arrives at surrounding objects, it gets absorbed by the distant object.
3) The gravitational wave energy is traversing the medium of space:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557799#msg557799 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557799#msg557799)
4) All particles have mass in the ISU and are called wave-particles. The wave particles in an expanding big bang arena form from the decay of the hot dense plasma ball of energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of a preceding big crunch. Because the wave-particles from in an expanding energy density environment, they are imparted with separation momentum as they form, meaning wave-particles are all moving away from each other as they form. However, gravity is stronger than separation momentum in the close quarters of a hot dense new big bang arena, and so wave-particles clump to form stars and galactic structure. The galactic structure conservers the separation momentum, and so galaxies and galaxy groups are all moving wave from each other as well. The arenas are continually expanding and will expand until their expansion is interrupted by converging with adjacent expanding arenas.
5) Once the stable wave-particles have formed in the expanding new arena, the presence of the initial massive wave particles is maintained by the continual flow of gravitational waves from all directions; that flow provides the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components that maintains the presence of the wave-particles.
6) Wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. Each particle has its own “space” which is described as a standing wave pattern, where all of the quanta in the pattern are continually forming and disbursing as the directional wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space passes through from all directions. That flow from all directions sets up the standing wave environment that is characteristic of the wave-particle space.
7) The quanta that make up the mass of the wave-particles consist of gravitational wave convergences, the high energy fluctuations referred to as high density spots; the spots are groups of those fluctuations that were described in the recent explanation of “what is waving”.
8 ) The location of the mass of a particle is established by of all of the quanta that occupy the standing wave pattern that represents the presence of the wave-particle. The mass is proportional to the number of quanta. It seem unnecessary to say, but every wave-particle has location at all times, as opposed to virtual particles and fluctuations that pop in and out of existence.
9) Wave-particles move in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space because they emit continual out flow, and that out flowing gravitational wave energy needs to be continually replaced from the directional inflow of gravitational wave energy from the surrounding profile of space. The highest directional inflow provides the most replacement wave energy to the energy hungry wave-particles, which causes motion in that direction.
10) That is how two masses attract in the ISU.
Ok, i was particularly interested in (9). The outflow of GW energy is more or less the exact opposite of the aether theory where u have an inflow of aether. Your invoking of an attraction to the strongest source of GW energy is kind of counter intuitive & less natural to swallow but it shouldnt be difficult to add some sort of suitable sweet mechanism to that basic bland postulate.
What speeds are involved with GWs?
What is a good name for the medium?
-
A few questions to start with …
For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, …
Is this a case of the inflow of aether into the earth pushing things down toward the earth? Isn’t the man also annihilating aether from his feet up, and where is that aether coming from? Yes its the acceleration of aether into Earth that drags the man, the velocity of the inflow has no effect. And yes the man too has an inflow, hencely the gross effect is some kind of mysterious addition (which i don’t understand)(its more complicated than one might think). Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.
Just a question here, … RR stands for radius squared, correct? If we are talking volume instead of area, would the right equation be for volume? Equation for the volume of a sphere: https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-Sphere (https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-Sphere)
V = 4/3 Pi r^3
I don’t think that the vol equation helps. On the other hand i don’t actually say how i get to that 1/RR relationship re force. I intentionally gloss over that, because it is more complicated than it looks. Ranzan attempts a derivation for 1/RR & he has to resort to giving the aether a contractile nature, ie his aether self-destructs in mid-air so to speak, before it even gets to any mass, to get the needed additional acceleration to arrive at the known 1/RR relationship. And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way. Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.
So mass is a property of the need for inertial force for acceleration, to offset the drag that the aether resists when you accelerate? Does an object have mass if it is not being accelerated?
Yes well put. And an interesting question. Re gravi-mass, this exists all the time, because mass is continuously annihilating aether.
Re inert-mass, this too exists all the time, because all objects are being accelerated all the time (ie they are in freefall all the time), unless the object happens to be (very briefly) at a location in space where the aetherwind has no acceleration (lots of free but no fall). An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.
It sounds a little like the explanation I would expect for an object “at rest”. How is uniform velocity different from being at rest, and what is the difference in aether annihilation and aether drag?
Yes velocity (ie size of aetherwind) makes no difference. But who knows, there might be a small difference, eg if a rest.
It seems to me that there is no annihilation associated with inertial drag. And praps no slippage. But it would be easy to cater for a theory that did say there was a little annihilation going on in lots of places for lots of reasons, & a little slippage. In fact i like the idea of slippage, i would like to see a slippage rate of 50% because this would explain 1.75 arcsec of bending at the Sun's limb. As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.
Why such extreme velocities? How are those extreme velocities activated?
Van Flandern & i think LaPlace worked that out based on the fact that any slower & we would see strange things happening to orbits. The velocities involve a small amount of aether briefly moving at that hi velocity whilst the actual flow of the bulk of the aether might be sitting still or moving at no more than say c/600. It’s a bit like sound waves, the wave moves at Mach1, & bits of air briefly move at Mach1, whilst the bulk of the air might be just sitting still.
You mention the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation, and I don’t understand how that would occur?
Aether having no mass can merely transfer force etc from object to object. This must involve a 3D tension in the aether, needing lots of surrounding mass in every direction to be fully efficient. As an object is say attracted to say Earth & as the object moves closer the tension gradually increases & this transfers to the source, a continuous back & forth process, a reverberation if u like. Re the Earth & the Sun the reverberation would go back & forth to & from the Sun at least 20 billion times per second.
I do see your reference to a shock-front or pulse or wave, and that sounds a little familiar to my idea of wave action; what would you say is waving in that case?
The aether is the equivalent of the air in relation to sound waves.
The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).
I don’t see why you are distinguishing between very large object on a galactic scale. Why wouldn’t there be this effect at smaller scales?
.This effect happens equally at all scales. But it must show up very well at large scales. For example inside the Milky Way the average distance tween stars might be say 10 lightyears measured radially, but the average distance measured axially square to the disc might be 100 lightyears. Here i am imagining a sphere neatly covering the Milky Way, & the sphere defining the limit of the geometry for average distance purposes. Anyhow the dearth of mass axially must result in a loss of efficiency in the tension & reverberation axially, meaning that a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way cant accord with Newton's equation for gravitational attraction. But Einsteinians wont let go of Newton & hencely have to invent Dark Matter.
I’ll just mention those questions, and maybe your answers will clear a few things up for me so I can work my way further through your post.Actually my answers have cleverly avoided a few complications that i struggle with but wont get into for now.
-
Ok, i was particularly interested in (9). The outflow of GW energy is more or less the exact opposite of the aether theory where u have an inflow of aether. Your invoking of an attraction to the strongest source of GW energy is kind of counter intuitive & less natural to swallow but it shouldnt be difficult to add some sort of suitable sweet mechanism to that basic bland postulate.
What speeds are involved with GWs?
What is a good name for the medium?
I see why you point that out, and understand why you see it as opposite, because in regard to a universe filled with aether-space, the ISU content in (9) might (with my misconceptions) go like this:
Aether-space is annihilated in the space around the wave-particle in all directions (spherically) since it is flowing to the mass from all directions. However the annihilation is higher, proportionally, in the direction of motion because more aether is exposed or dragged to the mass as the mass moves directionally through the aether. Further, the creation (or replacement mechanism) of aether caused by the mass is spherical and becomes aether-in-space in all directions, and will eventually be annihilated by encountering distant mass.
Note that the outflow of GW in the ISU is always spherical (in all directions equally) because it is initiated by the pulsing wave action within the wave-particle core, and reaches out toward distant objects in all directions in space, that will eventually absorb it.
When I say motion is in the direction of the net highest source of GW, I am saying that the motion is due to the gravitational attraction of distant mass, which becomes the direction of motion. The “mechanics” scenario is that the wave-particle refreshes itself with gravitational wave energy (adds quanta) from that highest source in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, to replace the quanta lost due to the spherical wave energy emission. Remember wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments in the ISU.
The speed involved with the GWs is light speed. May I point out “light” and the out flowing GW energy are the same animal, except “light” is the out flowing gravitational wave energy of one type of wave-particle … photons; I’m sure photons came to mind automatically, lol.
The known science is that photon wave-particles travel at the speed of light which is measurable, but the speed of gravity is a big discussion for another time, but there is some logic that it works at light speed, and there is some logic that it is instantly in effect between any two objects because those objects, or the energy that they are composed of, has an infinite history itself, and that, in a sense, gives it an infinite presence …(?) .
A name for the “medium’ in the ISU, as if the “medium of space” isn’t catchy enough, might be something derived from the “gravitational wave energy density profile of space”; Gwed? I don’t like the sound of that. GDP? Already taken by finance. Wave-energy profile? WEP, too wimpy (no offense to the actual wimps out there).
-
I have changed my mind. Yesterday i remembered that a while back i came to the realization that the standard aether theory that aether flows in to mass is in a way no different to aether flowing out. The acceleration of the aether is the same in both cases, ie the acceleration is inwards in both cases, & the equation involves 1/RR in both cases. Think about it.
Therefore i agree with what i said that your outflow theory is counter-intuitive, but i take back that u need to find a sweet mechanism to make it easier to swallow.
The speed of gravity is a big deal. U invoke IAAAD (which is the Einsteinian mafia's excuse) -- i dont believe in IAAAD.
Re a good name for the space medium for your GWs, i am thinking Gravaether made of Gravaethons.
-
I like d Aether stuff, but sadly d Universe dsnt work on my wishful thinking.
How wud d Aether xplain d change in velocity of d earth goin round d sun?
&
How wuld Aether provide friction so dat d rotation of d earth slows down?
Also,
Wat bout d moon goin farther away from d earth, how wuld Aether cum in2 d equation?
🐒
-
I like d Aether stuff, but sadly d Universe dsnt work on my wishful thinking. How wud d Aether xplain d change in velocity of d earth goin round d sun?&
My centrifuging of aether theory should rob energy from Earth's orbit -- i hope that accords with the Earth's vel stuff.
How wuld Aether provide friction so dat d rotation of d earth slows down?
Aether doesnt have any friction if the velocity is uniform-constant, but my centrifuging of aether theory should rob energy from Earth's spin -- i hope that accords with measurements.
Also, Wat bout d moon goin farther away from d earth, how wuld Aether cum in2 d equation?
Once again the Moon orbiting Earth should according to my centrifuging of aether theory rob energy from the Moon. But that should shrink the orbit. So i dont know how the Moon's orbit grows. Mightbe its caused by tidal happenings.