0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 01/02/2019 02:04:01But 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.
@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?
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, …
Quote from: mad aetherist on 01/02/2019 02:53:04But 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).
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).
For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, …
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).
How two masses attract in the ISU1) 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#msg5577994) 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?