[nilak (OP)]

Analogy with conventional space.
 The metric of space coresponds to the point entities of this concept. Near objects the metric of space is contracted. This translates to increased point entities density.

[nilak (OP)]

Entropy properties following this concept.
Space point entities tend to collapse to a single point. This can be viewed as negative energy. The information pushed into the system, also known as energy, does the opposite and can be viewed as positive energy.
The tendency to collapse is a factor that, reduces the entropy of the system while the information, as positive energy increases the entropy. The positive energy is always matches the negtive energy. The total entropy depends on the definition of entropy. As a degre of disorder, the total entropy varies with time.
Gravity.
Instead of time space curvature, the gravity is simply a tendency of space to collapse to its initial state. As it collapses its mass/density  increases. To balance this you need energy.  An high density space near an even higher density  will require more energy to be pushed away so the effect is that those density will travel toward each other.

Despite, energy expanding space being more intuitive, it might be exactly the opposite. Energy, makes these point entities gathering , otherwise they have the tendency to dissipate.

[GoC]

The metric of space coresponds to the point entities of this concept. Near objects the metric of space is contracted. This translates to increased point entities density

You cannot have dilation of space and contraction of space mean the same thing. In Relativity it is dilation of space. Less dense energy particles. But the caveat is energy density being less. This creates red shifted light in dilation. Longer waves slower clock tick rate due to increased distance between points.

Despite, energy expanding space being more intuitive, it might be exactly the opposite. Energy, makes these point entities gathering , otherwise they have the tendency to dissipate.

Yes in suns that are so large that the attraction becomes greater than the speed of light energy is no longer able to separate atoms and a black hole is formed. This dilates space energy away from the black hole. An electron travels proportionally from a marble to a football field. A black hole is a football field full of marbles by comparison.

The gamma term in Relativity is dilation of energy not contraction of energy. Dilation differences in energy state cause greater attraction but not greater mass.

[nilak (OP)]

     Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass, which is more space density. Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not. Space is more dynamic than I thought. But somehow acceleration is harder to explain because I need to imagine waves accelerating other waves. On top of this all waves like EM or waves corresponding to strong/weak force travel at the same rate (x/t=ct=c). Then a velocity below c in a x direction must be because of field values propagating in y an z direction in a circular pattern. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true. When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.

If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.

[GoC]

Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass,

In my opinion only mass gets attracted to mass.

which is more space density.

Why do you view it as more space density?

Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not

Equilibrium is the point between two bodies where a third body between has equal attraction.

Space is more dynamic than I thought. But somehow acceleration is harder to explain because I need to imagine waves accelerating other waves.

The possibility exists that gravity is not a wave but a linear static dilation to the center of gravity. Different elements change the center of gravity of course. Energy to move electrons towards the center of mass would become less dense due to moving more electrons. Simple geometry. A wave would be Doppler effects on space not gravity effects. A type of macro massless kinetic wave of fundamental energy.

On top of this all waves like EM or waves corresponding to strong/weak force travel at the same rate (x/t=ct=c).

Yes of course space is the potential battery c and the electrons are the engines always running.

Then a velocity below c in a x direction must be because of field values propagating in y an z direction in a circular pattern.

That describes electron motion as rotation and vector movement. The photon and electron are both moving at c but the electron rotates while moving forward. Quantum mechanics is energy c. The circular pattern is the rotating jump of the electron displayed as a wave packet propagating through space at c. The wave length and rotation is the pattern of the jump of the electron creating the photon on fundamental energy c.

. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.

When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.

When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.

It is the decrease in energy density in mass that causes the refraction of light direction that causes the trajectory change.

If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.

You are confusing Doppler and gravity as the same cause. They are not.

  In Relativity we first had postulates. Then the math that fell from those postulates mimicked observation to show the power of Relativity as reality. The third part is the mechanics. This is what scares those in science today. What if you worked on something all your life and found it to be false? It would be as difficult as convincing the Pope there was no God. No disrespect intended. And the followers are even more committed to follow the subjective interpretations wanting to be with the group of professed knowledge.

I totally believe in Relativity postulates and math. I make suggestions of a mechanical process that may or may not be true but like the postulates my mechanical view follows relativity. If you were to go into the rabbit hole (Relativity) You would need more than the math to know why things grow and shrink or why you can only see the eyes of the cat. The mechanics o relativity is the next step in the process of understanding.

Why do you think the voyagers slowed down? Or did they?

[nilak (OP)]

First of all, I appreciate your effort in trying to respond to my statements and your support. Thank you.

Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass,

In my opinion only mass gets attracted to mass.

It is what my concept says. Space attracts space. But this way a region of higher density can only propagate not literally move like you move a point on a line. Space dilation can also create an aparent additional motion. These things should be confirmed by GR, but until we hava some equivalent equations it not very clear if the idea really works.

which is more space density.

Why do you view it as more space density?

The first thing that made me think of this possibility was the de Broglie theory which says all particles have an associated wave. Secondly, since space in not flat it must have a real structure, a sort of lattice, which expands and contracts. The particle wave duality fits better in this model. I don't agree the idea of free moving objects through space but rather propagating field values because I don't see how causality can restrict this motion. Causality can only restrict propagating information or values.
Space attracting space is not felt like a force because it is the dynamics of a whole reference system.
A recent confirmation is the quantum foam and the fact the mass of a proton is much greater than the mass of the individual quarks within the proton.

Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not

Equilibrium is the point between two bodies where a third body between has equal attraction.

Yes, but when thing move it means the equilibrium is not established. In a newtonian scenario a planet orbiting the sun has an equilibrium established on a radial axis between centrifugal and gravity force, but it is still moving. It is a quasi equilibrium. 
When things move towards each other they are not in equilibrium. There are things in a quasi equilibrium around a black hole, which are those that orbit and other things falling into it. Those that  fall into it are not in equilibrium. There are always thing falling into black holes, just as there are always things falling on Earth.

. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.

When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.

Why higher density space? I think they went into lower density space, thus tick rates increased. I don't know what you mean by closer signal.

When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.

It is the decrease in energy density in mass that causes the refraction of light direction that causes the trajectory change.

It was a different idea. I meant to say, light is  zigzag-ing through the glass. When it gets out most photons escape at an angle dependent of the refraction index. But, honestly I don't know much about the phenomenon.

If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.

You are confusing Doppler and gravity as the same cause. They are not.

  In Relativity we first had postulates. Then the math that fell from those postulates mimicked observation to show the power of Relativity as reality. The third part is the mechanics. This is what scares those in science today. What if you worked on something all your life and found it to be false? It would be as difficult as convincing the Pope there was no God. No disrespect intended. And the followers are even more committed to follow the subjective interpretations wanting to be with the group of professed knowledge.

I totally believe in Relativity postulates and math. I make suggestions of a mechanical process that may or may not be true but like the postulates my mechanical view follows relativity. If you were to go into the rabbit hole (Relativity) You would need more than the math to know why things grow and shrink or why you can only see the eyes of the cat. The mechanics o relativity is the next step in the process of understanding.

Why do you think the voyagers slowed down? Or did they?

Doppler effect only makes sense if there are free objects travelling through space. If you draw an axis and place a point that can move in one direction that pont is moving freely. If you have a source that sends points in one direction at a frequency, when moving it can generate Doppler effect. The problem is that according to my model, you can't do that, because there are no free moving points, only space points that form a continuous universe. Space contraction can increase frequency of a wave, but tick rate of a clock decreases because the clock is counting some loops rather than a EM or other field frequency.

When you can't give up something that you believed for a long time, that is not science anymore, it is religion. However scientists are also biased sometimes this complicates things.
I also believe relativity but perhaps there are some aspects that we can improve. I don't see my model being in conflict with GR.

The voyagers could have slowed down because of the gravity exerted by our galaxy. But also being in a more dilated space would make them sent the same signal. Waves would redshift but clocks tick faster. At first glance I would say both things happened. The were slowed down but they also went into a less dense space.
 But I don't know the whole story. I'll have to check on that.

[GoC]

Quote
Quote

. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.



When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.


Why higher density space? I think they went into lower density space, thus tick rates increased. I don't know what you mean by closer signal.

First you need to understand how NASA computes speed of the Voyagers. It is the duration between signals sent to Earth. The longer time between signals means the ship moved further away by SR because the signal traveled further. What current science believes is the signals are returned faster because the voyagers slowed. There is no reason for the voyagers to slow down by SR. The slow down was an increase in tick rate due to GR. The energy density increased outside of the solar system. The solar system has a dilation (expanded energy). So the clocks within the solar system cause the light to travel further along with the electrons traveling further in dilated space. When the clocks reached the threshold of the solar system dilation they went into was less dilated space and clocks ticked faster by GR. The voyager contracted slightly and the clocks on board contracted slightly in the less dilated space. So the tick rate increased and duration between ticks decreased. The voyager remained at a constant speed in the new frames measurement of distance and time. This is different from the frame within the solar system.

Planets have dilation. Solar systems have dilation. Galaxies have dilation. We view the galaxies dilation as lensing at the threshold of combined dilation within the galaxy.

So mass dilates energy not the other way around. Space is energy c.

The voyagers could have slowed down because of the gravity exerted by our galaxy.

Gravity is a difference in dilations of space. This does cause attraction between masses. But the affect between the weight of the voyagers and the solar system is insignificant by volume.

But also being in a more dilated space would make them sent the same signal.

I believe relativity would beg to differ. The center of the moon would tick slower and be more dilated than the surface. The signal duration decrease is more likely to be GR clock speed increase (less dilated space energy c) than SR change in velocity. The signals should be less red shifted by GR also and not SR red shifted.

Science will have to realize electrons do not move themselves. There are only two choices. Mechanical transfer of motion or magic. c is a qualifier for motion of the electron and not the other way around. In the tree of knowledge science today is going down a branch that leads nowhere but the end of the branch. For true knowledge we need to remain on the trunk of the knowledge tree. But logically it does not matter whether we are on a branch or the trunk. it is the emotions that we follow for greater knowledge. Emotional logic forces us to be illogical in the face of logic.

I am not above average in intelligence but apparently I am below average in emotion. I do not have a God detector as many claim to have. and I do not believe in something for nothing as a logical interpretation of scientific views. Something moves the electrons. Something moves the photons. The electrons always measure the photons distance the same in a vacuum independent of the frame. So each are controlled by the same background. While this is true for logic it is not necessarily true for emotional logic.

[nilak (OP)]

Gravity is a difference in dilations of space. This does cause attraction between masses. But the affect between the weight of the voyagers and the solar system is insignificant by volume.

That is what I thought initially. The Minkowski spacetime diagram presents the universe as a single 4d block. This creates the appearance of a static universe. My idea is that the time dimension is totally different. Energy conservation is along the time axis only. The time as a distance dimension is only a mathematical tool. The universe is not static. When you say 'bent spacetime' you think of fowllowing a curve in spacetime, and this is correct. But this deprive you intuitively by the idea of motion. Therefore gravity is not difference in space dilation. Gravity is relative motion of space structure. Gravity is caused by a  continuous process of space contraction and it is not a force itself. It doesn't follow the rules of newtonian forces. But this is what Einstein says but not quite explicitly when explaining GR. You simply follow the time line in a spacetime diagram and see that space contracts. When light is moving through this space its trajectory becomes curved.
You are saying "Gravity is a difference in dilations of space". "Difference in dilations" is not very clear. Dilation is not density, but a process of decreasing density.  Did you actually mean the same thing I've described? I've described it simply as a process of  space contraction.

Space dilation process is the opposite of gravity also known as antigravity. Negative mass is simply a structure that creates space dilation in all directions. Black Holes probably do that but only at poles. Since mass is given by space density multiplied by volume, negative mass is not mass but an energy that makes space dilate.

 Where I said space density is mass, I wasn't quite correct. The number of points in a volume of space cannot be measured and is basically infinite. The volume of space can only be defined relatively. Mass of an object is the sum of all points of space it occupies. The points and their mass are infinitesimal, but the sum is a finite number. That is what mass essentially is.

[nilak (OP)]

It turns out that this problem of mass as the source of gravity is not really a problem because Einstein field equations of GR don't  use the newtonian mass neither.
Acording to GR, the gravitational field is caused by stress-energy tensor. In newtonian gravity, mass density is the source.

Basically this part of GR seems to describe the reality very precisely.
Einstein doesn't deny the aether either. I understand he says that completely rejecting the existence of an aether deprives space from all the properties, making it a flat space and that is not true.

[GoC]

That is what I thought initially. The Minkowski spacetime diagram presents the universe as a single 4d block. This creates the appearance of a static universe. My idea is that the time dimension is totally different. Energy conservation is along the time axis only. The time as a distance dimension is only a mathematical tool. The universe is not static. When you say 'bent spacetime' you think of fowllowing a curve in spacetime, and this is correct. But this deprive you intuitively by the idea of motion. Therefore gravity is not difference in space dilation. Gravity is relative motion of space structure. Gravity is caused by a  continuous process of space contraction and it is not a force itself. It doesn't follow the rules of newtonian forces. But this is what Einstein says but not quite explicitly when explaining GR. You simply follow the time line in a spacetime diagram and see that space contracts. When light is moving through this space its trajectory becomes curved.
You are saying "Gravity is a difference in dilations of space". "Difference in dilations" is not very clear. Dilation is not density, but a process of decreasing density.  Did you actually mean the same thing I've described? I've described it simply as a process of  space contraction.

Yes but our direction is reversed. The center of mass being the most dilated and space contracting to the surface of say a planet. You haven't accepted that something is moving electrons. Once you accept that space energy c is actually moving electrons in macro mass you will realize that energy is being dilated to follow Relativity.

Space dilation process is the opposite of gravity also known as antigravity. Negative mass is simply a structure that creates space dilation in all directions. Black Holes probably do that but only at poles. Since mass is given by space density multiplied by volume, negative mass is not mass but an energy that makes space dilate

You would need to mechanically relate your ideas to relativity. How does each of your physical descriptions contribute in the process of Relativity mechanics?

The points and their mass are infinitesimal, but the sum is a finite number. That is what mass essentially is.

That appears to be a logical statement.

It turns out that this problem of mass as the source of gravity is not really a problem because Einstein field equations of GR don't  use the newtonian mass neither.
Acording to GR, the gravitational field is caused by stress-energy tensor. In newtonian gravity, mass density is the source.

What is your understanding of a stress energy tenser? To me the stress of moving electrons causes dilation of energy c. Different elements stress energy c differently. But there is an accumulation.

Einstein doesn't deny the aether either. I understand he says that completely rejecting the existence of an aether deprives space from all the properties,

Rejecting a reason for relativity is a main stream issue that will not be resolved easily.

[nilak (OP)]

        Go C, I agree now the idea of this kind of aether doesn't quite work.
Your question wether space contraction in relativity is real or visual made me go back to the basics and I've thought of a completely new possibility.
 
    Apparently this idea of a dynamic space made of point entities doesn't seem to work, and here is why. It can't explain gravity as is described in relativity and as empirical evidence suggest. It leads to the conclusion that space is dragged towards an object that has mass without any speed limit. I can't make it work  I've seen explanation of gravity produced by black holes that seem to suggest that space can be dragged in at a speed higher than the speed of light. An example is here :

time 6:00. By Leonard Susskind on "The World As Hologram".  This seems to contradict relativity because an object falling into the black hole reaches near speed of light and it will go asymptotically towards c as viewed from a hovering observer.

       There is another concept I'm currently studying posted on another thread of mine(How time works): http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68884.0
Following this idea it space indeed doesn't need to be a medium in which waves propagate although it can also be viewed as a medium.
In this conception the space is simply flat, no properties needed. Waves like electromagnetic self propagate like classical theories say.  An aether would require a certain shape lattice geometry which complicates matters.
       This concept is extremely simple compared to my previous one, but still, can explain the mechanics of relativity.
       The illusion of variable space geometry made thing interact as if there was an aether with properties, but it is not the case.
       We were deluded by our clocks in thinking space changes geometry still confirming space is not a medium. Space variable geometry without being something physical is a contradictory idea. You can only have one or another. Apparently, space is flat after all. Our clocks hold the key. They are not measuring time. Clocks have disturbed our original idea of time. We need to make time absolute again to escape out of this relativity illusion.
 These are the conclusions following this idea.

[GoC]

We need to make time absolute again to escape out of this relativity illusion.
 These are the conclusions following this idea.

This is another false lead.

Apparently this idea of a dynamic space made of point entities doesn't seem to work

This was a true lead but not the way you imagined.

Our Universe is 3d and motion. [pi] is a proof we live in a point entity universe. There is no such thing as a perfect circle. Only points closer together are possible. You were on the correct path in my opinion. We both had our similar understanding but with different conclusions. The cause of relativity is the goal that we cannot veer.

Relativity is a point entity structure.     [pi] does not allow a perfect circle.
That structure is ordered.      c appears to be constant
That structure is the same throughout the Universe.     c is measured to be the same in every frame
Quantum mechanics is that structure c.           c is constant
The c structure cannot have velocity in any direction.       Measured c is the same in every direction.

That leaves us with what is the cause of motion? We know electrons have a cycle and considered a clock. But a clock that is frame dependent. The photon and electron cycle are confounded in every frame. Now we need to reverse engineer Relativity. Math is our greatest tool but a mathematician without engineering skills along the lines of a mechanic will jump to the easiest conclusions. They are:

1. Space is a void where a particle photon can travel the speed of light. This is a violation of Relativity so the term virtual was added to put a band aid on the problem.
2. Electrons move themselves in a type of perpetual motion due to charge. Mass has entropy and the term charge reduces energy for motion. Anyone who believes electrons have perpetual motion believes in magic. No engineer worth his salt would believe in mechanical magic. Something is moving the photon and electron in a confounded way. 

Reverse engineering Relativity:
The point structure is some grid structure to produce an ordered ratio following mathematics. [laws of the physical nature we observe]. The MMX proves this to be incorrect by itself. The Aether is a false lead. Photon motion fails with a stationary point structure. But what about a Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)? The spectrum would be propagation of a packet wave created from a slower electron jump causing friction on the spin point structure c. That propagation wave packet would transfer energy and appear as a particle and a wave (virtual photon). The photon is not part of mass so the relativity math remains intact. The speed of light from any point would be the same in any direction. The spectrum would be independent of the source. So we have a system that follows the postulates of relativity by postulating a spin point grid structure to space (quantum mechanics). Yes something is causing the spin structure but we have to take it one step at a time.

I believe I have a spin grid structure worked out that would follow relativity postulates.

[nilak (OP)]

     GoC, An absolute space works better with the idea of an aether. My new idea does not necessarily exclude aether but as Relativity says it makes it unnecessary. The mechanics seem straight forward, nothing magical. My previous idea was more exotic but unfortunately I can't make it work.
Particle spin is only expressed as orbital motion, hence angular momentum is generated. Unidirectional propagation like light only has orientation (polarisation) not angular momentum.
 The c as a speed limit in absolute space works because c is the propagating speed  of all fields. All fields move at a constant speed, only orbital trajectories make the appear like slowed down.
In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.

     You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).

[GoC]

Particle spin is only expressed as orbital motion, hence angular momentum is generated. Unidirectional propagation like light only has orientation (polarisation) not angular momentum.

Nilak- I am becoming more impressed by you.

Yes angular momentum. If the spin state of c is complimentary than the path of the electron is an angular momentum in a straight line. Say the speed of the electron is c but the angular motion would revolve around a straight line path to reduce the vector speed. So the jump to a longer orbit would cause friction with c spin to create a propagating wavelength equal to the electron jump. The photon packet being a disturbance in zero point energy c. A right hand wave on one side and a left hand wave at 180 degrees. The spooky entanglement issue not being faster than light just created with opposite spins. Not so spooky just predetermined.

The c as a speed limit in absolute space works because c is the propagating speed  of all fields. All fields move at a constant speed, only orbital trajectories make the appear like slowed down.

Very Good!

In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.

Here we have to understand how we measure time. Relative 0.5c does not make a clock slow down by half the tick rate of relative rest. The tick rate slows down by ~13.3924%. This can be shown using geometry. The geometry and Lorentz contraction of tick rate are the same. The contracted tick rate is due to the longer path the two way direction of light has to take with velocity of mass.

You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).

Ok here is an example of spin Ether. Consider a large marble sphere as the electron. We have wheels moving at c which move the marble in an angular path The angular path takes up twice the size of the marble to go in a straight line. We first have two wheels than another two wheels at 45 degrees from the first two and 90 degrees in rotation with complimentary spin. One channel is right hand and the one next to it is left hand electron rotation. Matter and anti matter. This goes on indefinitely like 2d plates 45 degrees offset and 90 degree spin state. Dilation is how far apart the wheels are while they remain spinning at c. It is mathematically impossible for the axil length between wheels at the 45 degree angle to be the same as the perpendicular axils. So there is some flexibility. That flexibility is expressed as propagation waves. This represents ordered spacetime. All observations can be explained using these mechanics. Is something moving the spinning particles (wheels)? Yes. What I do not know but something is holding back the c spin particles from each other. 

How can the mechanics work and the mind reject the mechanism? This is a burden to my sense of reality. PhysBang suggests I am crazy. I can only reply Maybe

[nilak (OP)]

In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.

Here we have to understand how we measure time. Relative 0.5c does not make a clock slow down by half the tick rate of relative rest. The tick rate slows down by ~13.3924%. This can be shown using geometry. The geometry and Lorentz contraction of tick rate are the same. The contracted tick rate is due to the longer path the two way direction of light has to take with velocity of mass.

Yes, but I didn't say time will slow down by half. Obviously it is by Lorentz factor gamma, since the mechanics is the same used for finding the Lorentz factor.

You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).

Ok here is an example of spin Ether. Consider a large marble sphere as the electron. We have wheels moving at c which move the marble in an angular path The angular path takes up twice the size of the marble to go in a straight line. We first have two wheels than another two wheels at 45 degrees from the first two and 90 degrees in rotation with complimentary spin. One channel is right hand and the one next to it is left hand electron rotation. Matter and anti matter. This goes on indefinitely like 2d plates 45 degrees offset and 90 degree spin state. Dilation is how far apart the wheels are while they remain spinning at c. It is mathematically impossible for the axil length between wheels at the 45 degree angle to be the same as the perpendicular axils. So there is some flexibility. That flexibility is expressed as propagation waves. This represents ordered spacetime. All observations can be explained using these mechanics. Is something moving the spinning particles (wheels)? Yes. What I do not know but something is holding back the c spin particles from each other. 

How can the mechanics work and the mind reject the mechanism? This is a burden to my sense of reality. PhysBang suggests I am crazy. I can only reply Maybe
[/quote]

The example you use for mechanics seems to far from a fundamental level to me. For example the wheels on a flat surface experience friction  but we an asume it is a perfect grip (no energy loss). At the fundamental level friction doesn't make sense. The closest thing I can think of, that looks in a way like friction is the interaction of particles with Highs bosons. But it is called interaction not friction.
The electron model you describe seem too sophisticated to me. To reduce it to simple elements would require an entire text book. I think the electron is something much simpler. It is only a high frequency wave in a circular pattern. If at rest in the absolute frame it describes a circle. When. Observed at rest is any reference frame also describes a circle. When it moves it describes spirals when the angular momentum is parallel to the direction of propagation. Since more energy means more mass, the electron having a high frequency has a greater mass.
You need to explain your model using fundamental elements to be taken into account.

[GoC]

Nilak

At the fundamental level friction doesn't make sense.

Of course not in the way we experience friction of macro mass. It becomes difficult to explain using pre-existing knowledge of a totally different system. Its like having a native language and trying to learn a foreign language.

All bosons are propagations of a Boson wave. Bosons are the wheels that propagate waves recognized as particle constructs.

The example you use for mechanics seems to far from a fundamental level to me. For example the wheels on a flat surface experience friction  but we an asume it is a perfect grip (no energy loss).

Wheels on a flat surface are flexible due to uneven axil distances between 2d grid plates of 45 degree angle and 90 degree spin. The wheels are spinning at c, spacetime, Aether spin, Dark Mass Energy, Bosons it does not matter what you call them. There is no charge there is only spin direction of one wave vs. another wave of particles. This is the spectral side of propagation c waves but not macro mass, the true meaning of virtual mass.

Now to the friction issue. Dark Mass spins at c to create Dark Energy c. When an Electron passes the spinning dark mass it remains at c but moves (dilates, Gamma) away without energy loss. Dilation of space is accumulative. So the larger the mass the more dilation. The center of mass has the greatest dilation of space energy. Lets assume we have a ball of like material say a planet. There would be a linear dilation to the center of mass So what is the speed of attraction to the center of mass? We use the inverse square law which follows geometry using c. Mass is attracted to the most dilated position using the inverse square law. More space to move electrons. The furthest object (the surface) is attracted to the next furthest object until in the center there is no attraction of macro mass. The attraction on a Earth composition at 32 ft/s/s on the surface having a radius of 8,000 feet would have an attraction of about 8 ft/s/s at a radius of 4,000 feet. This is straight geometry same as volume, view or pressure. Our Universe is ordered by our mathematics.

Trees and humans are constructed from cells but look at the difference. Cells are created from atoms so we come from the same source. If we take the atom down we might find atoms are positrons and negatrons (different spins) in a stable pattern created by fusion in suns from dark mass energy. Fission causes the electrons to revert back to ark mass energy releasing propagation waves on the spectrum Neutrons are a self balanced while protons are unbalanced spin states of mass. The electron moves out at c dilation and moves into more restrictive spin energy where the electron curves back to the proton and pushes another electron out to start the process over. Gravity at the atomic level.

To get from the standard model to a spin boson model would be near impossible.

PS it would take 10 Bosons to complete one angular forward cycle of the electron. Any more would stop complimentary spin and any less would cause a chaotic electron path. I can not think of any other spin path but I am only of average intelligence.

This is my reverse engineering Quantum mechanics to produce relativity observations. I would like to view scenarios from others with greater intelligence.

[nilak (OP)]

    Yes, the idea is that my model needs to be proven wrong using accepted theories not using new theories like yours. It can be done using your model but I don't understand it. Your model also need to be confronted to modern theories to see if it is correct and not using my concept.


    This new model of mine suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry. Complex particles inner geometry change time and space. An atom moving faster changes geometry and its internal tick rate changes. Because the same thing happen to electrons, it means they also have an internal cycle you could use as a clock. When travelling faster the geometry of the electron changes and makes it complete the cycles in a longer time. Most probably it is a spiral motion. Moving at c makes the spiral a single line. At rest there is a circle. The electron particle also has a wavelength associated with it (de Broglie). This wavelength experiences Doppler effect. Hence the moving electron will be measured with higher frequency / lower wavelength. However the Doppler effect is a different aspect. The clock tick rate is not the same thing as the associated wavelength. This has only to do with what a wave detector reads. Doppler effect is an illusion. It is like when you move toward pulses the appear to increase frequency. In reality they don't. This is the advantage of using the absolute reference frame. There are many other advantages.

    It is the complex particles geometry (any particle that has mass) that give the illusion of changing the geometry of spacetime.

[nilak (OP)]

All bosons are propagations of a Boson wave. Bosons are the wheels that propagate waves recognized as particle constructs.

You need to make drawing of this because what you mean by wheels, could be anything.

If we take the atom down we might find atoms are positrons and negatrons (different spins) in a stable pattern created by fusion in suns from dark mass energy.

Why do you say atoms could be positrons? Positrons are the particles that anihilate electrons. Electrons are the 'negatrons'.

PS it would take 10 Bosons to complete one angular forward cycle of the electron. Any more would stop complimentary spin and any less would cause a chaotic electron path. I can not think of any other spin path but I am only of average intelligence.

Why 10 bosons ?

This is my reverse engineering Quantum mechanics to produce relativity observations. I would like to view scenarios from others with greater intelligence.

The ability of a man to solve problems doesn't depend on a single number (IQ). There is a huge amount of factors we can't even think about. IQ is only a orientative value. Einstein had a good IQ though and made discoveries nobody could, but there are people with insanely high IQ that didn't. How much you dedicate your time studying a particular problem matters more than anything.

[GoC]

You need to make drawing of this because what you mean by wheels, could be anything

Wheels were meant to convey spinning material on an axis. like a spinning galaxy. The wheels were an attempt to signify c propulsion.

Why do you say atoms could be positrons? Positrons are the particles that anihilate electrons. Electrons are the 'negatrons'.

When two cars are on a highway most pass each other without crashing but some have head on collisions. The quantum grid structure I conceived allows complimentary paths for positrons and negatrons each in there own lane. Eventually I reduce all matter down to spacetime with a grid pattern. Similar to cells down to protons and neutrons. From the bottom up and not from the Big Bang down. Suns create positrons and negatron pairs from energy and gravity fusion create protons and neutrons. When we collide atoms with a destructive force fission returns the positrons and negatrons back into spacetime energy with a ripple on the grid structure we call radiation.

Why 10 bosons ?

Bosons may be an incorrect term since they are the wave propagation on the grid structure. 10 wheels at c is a better description to maintain continuity of understanding. Actually it is only eight the other two starts the process over again. Each binary pair of complimentary spin c wheels moves the electron a quarter of the angular path forward. any more or less would cause electron entropy. Pinball machine type disorder. Energy keeps mass from colliding.

The ability of a man to solve problems doesn't depend on a single number (IQ). There is a huge amount of factors we can't even think about. IQ is only a orientative value. Einstein had a good IQ though and made discoveries nobody could, but there are people with insanely high IQ that didn't. How much you dedicate your time studying a particular problem matters more than anything

That maybe true I use relativity as an escape from boredom and I am bored quite often. The cause of relativity is a challenging undertaking without the expectation of success for your efforts.

Yes, the idea is that my model needs to be proven wrong using accepted theories not using new theories like yours. It can be done using your model but I don't understand it. Your model also need to be confronted to modern theories to see if it is correct and not using my concept.

No, all theories are subjective opinions. What theory follows Relativity the best? This is all we can hope for. Proof is beyond our technical ability at this point.

    This new model of mine suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry. Complex particles inner geometry change time and space. An atom moving faster changes geometry and its internal tick rate changes. Because the same thing happen to electrons, it means they also have an internal cycle you could use as a clock. When travelling faster the geometry of the electron changes and makes it complete the cycles in a longer time. Most probably it is a spiral motion. Moving at c makes the spiral a single line. At rest there is a circle. The electron particle also has a wavelength associated with it (de Broglie). This wavelength experiences Doppler effect. Hence the moving electron will be measured with higher frequency / lower wavelength. However the Doppler effect is a different aspect. The clock tick rate is not the same thing as the associated wavelength. This has only to do with what a wave detector reads. Doppler effect is an illusion. It is like when you move toward pulses the appear to increase frequency. In reality they don't. This is the advantage of using the absolute reference frame. There are many other advantages.

    It is the complex particles geometry (any particle that has mass) that give the illusion of changing the geometry of spacetime.

All models have to come from the bottom up. I kept coming back to what moves the electron? This is the first consideration needed for a Quantum Relativity theory. The standard model fails because there is no explanation for electron motion. Space is a void so electrons move by themselves relative to the photon which moves faster than the electron. In mechanics that is a brick wall. Keep beating your brain on that and there is no progress.

[nilak (OP)]

We seem to agree on two points now.
1. electrons internal mechanics is sort of boson driven or has an internal causality c.  You explain it using mechanical objects. I see it as a loop, 2d spiral or helix trajectory of the causality wave. The shape depends on what angle you see it or how it moves in absolute space. The width of the helix or spiral remains constant in the absolute frame. Frequency of the causality wave can change only by Doppler shift. The causality wave of the electron  is specific to electron only but travels at c in the absolute space only. In other words the electron is like a chain of bosons driven. This is a classical explanation just like SR and GR. QM shows us there is something more than that. A beam of light in a helix motion interpreted by the standard model is a chain of photons traveling in a helix. But classically photons are only EM waves and the electron becomes a single object not an object composed of a stream of other objects. I will start my model in the classical form and then if proved correct I could go to QM aspects.

2.You wondered whether SR is visual or not. My idea suggest that it is indeed visual (and GR as well but you don't agree here).