Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 26/02/2014 02:43:12

A look at relativity with spacetime compression instead of curvature. This indicates that length contraction and time dilation cause the bending of trajectories which I find quite reasonable. Any thoughts?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1008.0023v2.pdf
This may be another way of looking at LET.

I can't pin down exactly where Rosenberg says so explicitly, but doesn't optical density of space imply variable speed of light? In GR the speed of light is constant, and that is why spacetime must be warped near a large mass.
Also, in GR, light does not change direction. It's momentum varies as it passes a massive object, and rate of change of momentum is force; so light does experience a force in GR. It might be easier to understand Rosenberg's theory if he would describe it in terms of momentum.
I have always believed there are valid alternatives to GR. Perhaps this is one.

A look at relativity with spacetime compression instead of curvature. This indicates that length contraction and time dilation cause the bending of trajectories which I find quite reasonable. Any thoughts?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1008.0023v2.pdf
This may be another way of looking at LET.
This is the way I've been looking at it for some time  compression seems more reasonable than bending. This doesn't mean that light is slowed though, because within the compressed space it's going just as fast relative to the space fabric as it normally does. The warping of space would just be a compression rather than curvature, and there's no arbitrary choice as to which of two available directions to bend in.

Well it accounts for both time dilation and length contraction so the same equations apply. Only they are not related to curvature but compression. There is a way of using this theory to determine the mode of gravitational attraction. I have a theory that could link right in to this but I won't go into that here.

BTW the model I have been developing for escape velocity from the centre of gravity can now deal with gravity kernels. Those areas of increased mass density in a mass. I should soon have a definitive curve for the value of Ve.

So how do you compress a perfect vacuum?
=
There is a difference between imagining a vacuum as defined by gravity, giving us 'geodesics', and compressing it. If I define a vacuum as needing gravity to exist, which in its assumption then must include matter as I think, then you can have geodesics. But to compress a perfect vacuum, in the absence of matter, is another and very strange idea to me. So I better see an explanation for how that would be possible before swallowing yet another interpretation of relativity.
==
For example, imagine a hollow perfectly spherical shell, does it compress the vacuum inside it?
How, and what happens at the center?

There is another reason to me too. As I define it locally a geodesic is a local definition to me. A global definition of a SpaceTime doesn't exist, the local definition do though. A compression isn't adaptable to local definitions, but geodesics are. In fact, if you define a SpaceTime strictly locally, as per Einstein, then there is no reason I can see forbidding a indefinite amount of different geodesics 'coexisting', defined differently by different observers in a 'same patch of space'. It's possible to accept because it becomes local definitions, and they are related to local mass, speed, 'energy density' etc.
But a compression of that same space actually presume a 'global' definition of that same space, as I read it, and that's just not possible to me.
=
The point here is that, depending on speed for example, you must redefine the vacuum you measure/observe. As you do your geodesics too will differ from another observer, not at your mass and speed. Mass and 'motion' warps the vacuum (SpaceTime), not only accelerations. And the way you define your SpaceTime is through local experiments and observations. Where results agree with (separated in time and location) local measurements we define a commonality, and so 'physical laws' governing us, as constants. All of those though becomes local definitions, fitted in from strictly specified circumstances, as defined from 'uniform motion'. They also becomes our 'repeatable experiments' from where we define this universe. So what we have in common in this universe is certain local definitions, but there exist no Eye of a God from where we can 'see it all'. Einstein searched for that 'Eye' in his later efforts to define a fifth dimension, as I think then :) The 'dimension' that would join observer dependencies. That's what any 'compression theory' also will need to do to make it work, as I suspect.