[GoC]

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

Geometry shows the visual distortion in SR. Gr on the other hand has to be physical to connect the clock to the measurement.

[nilak (OP)]

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

Geometry shows the visual distortion in SR. Gr on the other hand has to be physical to connect the clock to the measurement.

The clock measurements are affected in SR as well, proved by the Twins Paradox thought experiment.

My model is different than SR or GR and if correct shows time is not affected, only clocks run faster or slower because they do not show objective time.

[nilak (OP)]

Here is a free electron vs. EM wave comparison. In this graph the electron and photon have no influence upon each other. The trajectories can be though as plotted at different times.

If we assume it is a 2d trajectory it means the electron is moving on a circular path in absolute coordinates. Viewed from a reference frame attached to an object moving in absolute space it describes the 2d path. The moving object measures light as constant due to decreased clock rate. It will measure a higher value of the electron speed than the actual speed of the electron in the absolute reference frame.


If thought as a helix, can be the actual trajectory in absolute space.
Notice the diameter of the spiral/helix must remain constant to get the same dilation factor as in relativity. This is obvious if the onserver is moving but not so clear if the electron is moving in absolute space. This is hard to test experimentally.

[GoC]

   
      I do not view it as 2d electron angular motion. To me the electron touches 4 graphs which each graph reversing the x and y at 90 degrees with an offset of 45 degrees. Where the graph crosses to make a box, they all have spin states that are complimentary to the very next cross section. the next graph is the same with 90 degree rotation from the first. This creates a angular path forward. Energy is spin and order. The 2d graph gives order. The 3d graphs give us Relativity.

[nilak (OP)]

 Old point entities concept:

I've found a way for the original concept of point entities to work although, the c speed limit is not as obvious as in the new model.
The reason it didn't work was that I didn't put any speed limit for the space contraction.
The point entities that make space must  experience gravitational forces between them. The space gets curved by gravitation between the points it is made of. The gravitation produces an  acceleration curve acording to newtonian formula. But that is in the co-moving reference frame. An object hovering would  "see" these points accelerating asymptotically towards c.
In other words, space curving cannot exceed c. The speed limit for space curvature is because of the observations of c as constant. This limit is not clear why it happens.

New absolute space model:
In the new model c limit seems more obvious. The mechanics of the electron acquiring mass is obvious. The electron doesn't have rest mass either but it is always moving at c in pseudo loops, thus it can have relativistic mass. It also fits better energy / mass equivence which is clearly correct because if matter always has relativistic mass, it means it has the same properties as the photons from this point of view.

As a principle, all mater has relativistic mass, never rest mass because matter is alwasy moving.

Does GR explain how mass particles aquire mass ? It is though to be via Higgs Field but the mechanism is not very convincing at all.

[GoC]

In other words, space curving cannot exceed c. The speed limit for space curvature is because of the observations of c as constant. This limit is not clear why it happens.

You need to understand the curve is 3d dilation not a 2d curve. Electrons move like they are moving around a string. Since they are just points they have 360 degrees of freedom. Although changing vectors takes macro mass interference. c is constant but the distances between points become larger. An increase in size without an increase in mass. This dilation is the gamma term in GR.

Does GR explain how mass particles aquire mass ? It is though to be via Higgs Field but the mechanism is not very convincing at all.

First you have to decide which model fits better. The standard model suggests an increase in mass. The math suggests greater attraction and the standard model only has mass as the attractive agent. If as I suggest dilation of energy particles is the attractive force it becomes a density of dark mass energy (spacetime) issue where a decrease in spacetime (dilation) density increases the attraction force in macro mass. Its a question of which model do you follow to determine attraction. An increase in mass or a decrease in spacetime density.

If you consider the Higgs field really physical rather than a pseudo extension of mass which remains unexplained then we can discuss mechanics. Higgs would become zero point energy c with density issues for fields (spacetime).

Pushing the standard model avoids a mechanical process, other than hitting a brick wall of course.

Dilation is your graphs expanding. The expansion is linear to a mass increase.

[nilak (OP)]

There is another challenge for this model that is vital for it to work.
Although relativistic mass is rarely considered in scientific research, there is a very important phenomenon apparently experimentally confirmed. When two photons are sent in parallel there seems to be no gravity effect between them. However when sent antiparallel, the gravity effect becomes present(see Tollman experiment).
This can be explained by relativity in a way. If using near zero mass hypothetical particles the GR would predict the same thing. This means it must be true for photons and it is indeed since there is evidence for it.
In a comoving reference frame particles experience no relativistic mass increase and no additional gravity. When antiparallel the effect is doubled for a particle.
My model seems to be able to handle this. Since it says fermions like the electrons are orbital momentum unbalanced EM , these special kind of waves interact by gravity only when there is relative motion in the absolute space. When at rest they orbit around the centre and this means they are in motion relative to other objects arround and induce gravity effects.

The thing that makes electrons orbiting around an imaginary centre can be either an imbalance in a EM wave or the gravitational effect for opposite direction waves (orbiting motion can enable this). The gravitational effects is more likely but it need to be confirmed mathematically.

It becomes clear that gravity is not just a simple force toward an object that has mass nor a spacetime curvature around mass but a more complex field  with a particular behavior. This field can be triggered by any particle but the way it is created  depends on the relative speed between the particles.

[nilak (OP)]

The paper that confirms the behavior of parallel vs non parallel beams pf ligkt is Tolman, R.C., Ehrenfest, P., and Podolsky, B. Phys. Rev. (1931) 37, 602.
If we take the case of 2 electrons of 2pi*r circle circumferece and construct a hypothetical particle that instead of going in a circle forms a square pattern for simplicity, we can see that the fundamental waves will create a gravity effect of half total magnitude that is obtained if the  two fundamental waves of 2pi*r length travel straight anti parallel and not following the square pattern. The study made by Tolman also says that the magnitude of the gravitational effect for two photons is twice the effect obtained using a quasi newtonian equation.

It is possible that in the case of electrons the gravitational effect within the circle can be enough to keep the EM wave orbiting around its center. If that is true the fundamental wave that the electrons are made of is the same EM wave. The gravitational effect could also be a simple interaction between EM waves that compose electrons or other particles with non zero reat mass and not a separate field. That would explain why the graviton hasn't been confirmed experimentally.

If we move to strongforce interacting particles we can ae that although apparently they are complsed of different waves of fields, the gravitational effect is still present. That means the fundamental wave for quarks is also the EM wave otherwise it means the gravitational field is real.

If the EM waves are the fundamental waves for anything then radiation can turn into matter and vice versa. If for example accelerate an electron close to c, the internal gravitational effect can disappear and the wave straightens up and becomes am EM wave. If  the wave interacts with a heavy nucleus it can be caught into orbit and turned into an electron. I'm not sure about these but I hope someone can tell me  if the idea can work or not.

[GoC]

      Its not much of a stretch to suspect the EM field as a gravity field. Einstein's curved space of course is such a field. So the next question is what is the EM field? The question becomes do we need a different particle for all of the different fields? Magnetism, gravity, photon, weak and strong force is either a different quantum model or mass unwraps into a field. We haven't even discussed what makes electrons move in the first place. A Quantum Spectrum of c could preform all of the movements necessary for all we observe very simply. Or atoms can unwrap somehow to the ends of the universe.

Of course two waves on a collision course will affect each other while co moving photons will not. In a sense you can consider a photon as propagated dilated space. Dilation causes attraction of mass to mass.

The point of any description of relativity observations has to begin with what causes electrons to move. Then we can have a clue to the physical description of photons.

[nilak (OP)]

The point of any description of relativity observations has to begin with what causes electrons to move. Then we can have a clue to the physical description of photons.

I've already described how they move. Fundamental wave that it is made of travels at c the same way as EM waves. Interactions with other waves makes them to change shape (compress or extend the helix) and thus the forward speed changes. What makes photons to move makes electrons to move.

   Regarding fields other than electro-magnetic, since they can interact with electro-magnetic filed through gravitational effects it means that probably they are also electro-magnetic. This explains the relativistic mass effects that apply to all particles.

Like Nikola Tesla said  – "Everything is the Light".

[GoC]

I've already described how they move. Fundamental wave that it is made of travels at c the same way as EM waves. Interactions with other waves makes them to change shape (compress or extend the helix) and thus the forward speed changes. What makes photons to move makes electrons to move.

   We fundamentally agree the photon travels as a helix similar to our own DNA. The electron motion is probably the cause of DNA and life itself. "What makes photons to move makes electrons to move" While you are correct you are missing the deeper question. What makes electrons move? I have designed a grid pattern of c spin that make electrons appear to be moving around a string going in any direction. Always moving at c both the electron and the photon. The electron total angular motion is c while the photon is vector motion c. So for me it is the structure of space that creates the helix light photon packet by its jump to a higher orbit. This jump causes friction in the grid pattern mimicking the electron travel distance and angular motion we view as hf.

Regarding fields other than electro-magnetic, since they can interact with electro-magnetic filed through gravitational effects it means that probably they are also electro-magnetic. This explains the relativistic mass effects that apply to all particles.

Using the term electro magnetic is probably confusing. We have to define a physical interpretation for different attraction affects. And we need to follow relativity.

Speed in SR reduces tick rates in clocks. We can understand the geometry issue with tick rate slowing down. Fundamental c being total energy available (an electron moving a vector c would not cycle) is reduced by vector speed. In GR we can follow gravity as a reduction of potential energy as gravity. Speed in SR also reduces potential increase in speed. While the mathematics of main stream suggests a difference in mass we can view gravity as a difference in energy potential while the mass remains the same. Main stream fudges a mass increase to follow relativity. It is actually an energy decrease that cause the attraction increase in GR. The equivalence in SR is energy available from c for the mathematics to be the equivalent gamma term.

Like Nikola Tesla said  – "Everything is the Light".

While I believe everything is energy c light is just a propagation wave on fundamental energy c.

Fusion in suns compress energy into hydrogen atoms creating their own fuel from space with radiation waves on the grid.
Fission in suns release the frozen energy particles back into fundamental energy with radiation waves on the grid.

The sun produces higher elements as it ages using space as its fuel. The suns life cycle.

 

[nilak (OP)]

The little paper explaining this concept is now available here:http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239

[GoC]

Nilak


      That was a very interesting paper. About 80% correct in my opinion. Its still slightly off because some of the foundation is missing which will lead to some incorrect conclusions that violate relativity. But you have mixed mechanics with most of relativity quite well. Putting mechanics to relativity is like following the rabbit into his hole in Alice in wonderland. While the math has been worked out precisely the accuracy of the mechanical gears have remained a mystery. A few tweaking's of the concept is all I suspect that is needed to accurately follow relativity. The one major piece missing is the correct understanding of the Alfa Frame which had no description of motion but use motion in examples. Why do electrons move in a helix. I totally believe they do and I have shown reason for why they do at c. You seem to have left out the very reason for motion itself. Once you figure that out I suspect it will change some of the positions you currently hold. The main one being light is the same as mass. This is just wrong. Light being the cause of gravity is also incorrect but the spectrum does cause gravity. Your distance issue with clocks is spot on in SR but misses the mark in GR. Dilation of space is real, observable as lensing in galaxies and increases the size of mass when the energy density expands. This is the equivalence between SR and GR. You correctly describe an Alpha Frame c of least amount of dilation as a fixed c distance for energy particles. While we can only use our clocks for relative dilations in GR and relative speeds in SR. We can never measure a fixed frame although there is one of least dilation. You can never measure a tool that you are using to measure with. We can not measure c with c. That was insightful and shows understanding.

There are no lines in 3d space only points of different special dimensions as proven by Pi. 

Overall very good

[nilak (OP)]

Thank you.
Yes, AF can only be defined as an ideal thing but I don't know if we can find an object that is at rest in AF. Perhaps there is a way, if you can find one way speed of light.

There are no straight lines in real life, I agree. Straight line trajectory are imaginary. If everything is made of fileds and waves,  perfect lines are only illusions.

[GoC]

Perhaps there is a way, if you can find one way speed of light.

In a sense this is correct. It's kind of like analytical chemistry where you can use an internal and external standard for purity of a product. You have all of the energy being used for distance while you can measure the distance. Unfortunately GR also interferes with distance measurements. So while we can have accurate measurements we can never have precise measurements because your AF is always confounded with mass dilated space. Even between galaxies but that is where we would be the most precise. If mass could have a vector speed of light the ability to measure time (energy available) would stop.

[nilak (OP)]

This link was posted on this forum:
http://www.nature.com/news/ligo-black-hole-echoes-hint-at-general-relativity-breakdown-1.21135?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20161215&spMailingID=52998738&spUserID=MjgzNDMxNjU2ODIS1&spJobID=1063046368&spReportId=MTA2MzA0NjM2OAS2
The chapter 13 in my paper explains how black holes work in a similar way. Instead of a firewall as the article says my model says the BH has a shell of spinning electromagnetic waves and accelerated particles up to c. I should 've mention there is no singularity since it doesn't make sense in my model.
Anyway simply applying the ideas in my concept can give you an idea if how BH work.

[GoC]

   It is suggested BH has no time. Time is energy motion of atomic scale. Compact atoms in BH's would have no motion inside. On the outside c is trying to get in and cannot. Light is not necessarily trying to escape but curve around because there is no spacetime energy within the BH. 

[nilak (OP)]

 I've tried to use the model to predict what happens with accelerated particles. If the source or the observer accelerates or moves it is simply Doppler Shift. However when accelerating free particles like electrons (not the sources), there is no way to tell what happens to the frequency. Orbit periods decrease (this effect reduces the ticks rates of atomic clocks) but frequencies can only be deduced from experimental data I think.

[nilak (OP)]

A scenario of accelerating particles at c in the context of my model:
  We can start with a pair of an electron and a positron that fall in a gravitational field. The deBroglie wavelength will gradually reduce as they gain energy and speed. We can monitor a similar pair made of two photons of the same initial wavelength as the e- / e+ pair. As the e- / e+ pair descents the speed increases thus the orbital period decreases and the deBroglie frequency increases. For the photon pair only the frequency increases obviously at the same rate. No mater how long they fall the orbital period will reduce but never reaches zero but the deBroglie frequency will go extreme. If the pairs are on a slightly convergent way at some point the e- / e+ pair will collide and decay into two pair of photons. These photons will be the same frequency as the pair of photons that started the journey with the electrons and will have the same energy. This is the electromagnetic wave - matter equivalence.

A recent paper describes the details of an electron which is similar to my description: http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0267v1.pdf

[LB7]

Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.

Could you explain please ?