Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: David Cooper on 13/05/2017 19:36:11

Title: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 13/05/2017 19:36:11
I was thinking about gravity last night and it occurred to me that some of the things about it that seem magical needn't be so magical after all. The biggest problem is where the "potential energy" is stored when you lift an object. The answer's simple though - it's stored in the fabric of space.

For an object to exist in deep space, there is energy making up the material of that object, and there's also kinetic energy if the object's moving through space, but there's also some extra energy, and quite a lot of it too, which is stressing or distorting the fabric of space at that location. When two objects move closer to each other, the amount of energy stored in this way in the space fabric reduces, and it now appears as an increase in kinetic energy as the objects accelerate towards each other. That is what powers the acceleration. If they collide and stay together, the kinetic energy remains, but as movement of atoms, and we then call that movement heat. That energy can then be radiated off as infra-red light, and this energy that moves away from our objects is energy which was previously held as stress in the fabric of space.

When you lift an object, you are causing the fabric of space to accommodate it differently, and that involves putting energy into that fabric. This is like with bubbles in washing-up water which can accelerate towards each other as the surface tension rearranges the shape of the surface in order to minimise the amount of energy stored in it - that stored energy is turned into kinetic energy in the same way, and then it becomes heat. Once we understand where the potential energy is stored, it's all becomes obvious - all we have is a stressed fabric trying to get to a lower energy state.

We see the same thing in chemical bonds where high energy bonds are less stable than low energy ones - again it is the fabric of space in which that extra energy is held, and it's held as stress or distortion. Many fools laugh at the people who came up with the idea of phlogeston, and yet the idea wasn't far wrong at all - it was simply potential energy held in the fabric of space.

The same applies to magnets. A north or south pole stresses the space fabric, meaning that wherever there's a magnet there is extra energy accompanying it which is held in the space fabric. If you move a north pole close to a north pole (or a south pole close to a south pole), that adds to the stress and requires you to put more energy in. If you move a north pole next to a south pole, that reduces the stress on the space fabric and allows stored energy there to be released. With the magnets stuck together, they are in a lower energy state and you need to put more energy in to move them apart because moving them apart needs to distort/stress the space fabric more.

What seemed to me like magic yesterday no longer seems very magical at all because I can now see where the energy goes to and where it comes from - it doesn't just appear out of nothing. This also means that gravity and magnetism works without depending on force carriers moving backwards and forwards between different pieces of matter (although there may still be an equivalent to force carriers of some kind operating in the fabric to shift the pattern of stress/deformation as matter moves along through it). We have a rational mechanism for all forces, and it depends on a space fabric with properties able to accommodate them with different forces stressing it in different ways.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/05/2017 19:41:42
Food for thought. I am going to do some thinking about your ideas.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 13/05/2017 19:43:43
I should also comment on the word "field". Whenever I heard people talk of magnetic fields or gravitational fields, it never made real sense to me in that I couldn't convert from that word to anything with a rational mechanism underlying it, but all a field is is a pattern of different amounts of stress in the space fabric.

I also want to comment on the decay of matter and on radiation. The space fabric is stressed less by holding radiation as content than matter, so it drives matter to become radiation as that puts the fabric in a lower energy state. There may still be some energy associated with a photon that's not the photon itself but energy stored as stress in the fabric of space where that photon exists, so it may be impossible to remove all the stress energy from the space fabric as it will always have to be released as radiation which would always have to be accompanied by some stress energy.

(And for anyone new to the forum, I should explain that the LET in the title refers to Lorentz Ether Theory.)
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/05/2017 21:02:13

When you lift an object, you are causing the fabric of space to accommodate it differently, and that involves putting energy into that fabric.

I think the energy that an object gives to the gravity field of the planet its on reduces and gains energy when you lift it up and conversely falls. The outside edge of the objects' gravity field grows slightly in strength as it ascends upward into weaker regions of the planets gravity field.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 13/05/2017 22:51:37
I was thinking about gravity last night and it occurred to me that some of the things about it that seem magical needn't be so magical after all. The biggest problem is where the "potential energy" is stored when you lift an object. The answer's simple though - it's stored in the fabric of space.

For an object to exist in deep space, there is energy making up the material of that object, and there's also kinetic energy if the object's moving through space, but there's also some extra energy, and quite a lot of it too, which is stressing or distorting the fabric of space at that location. When two objects move closer to each other, the amount of energy stored in this way in the space fabric reduces, and it now appears as an increase in kinetic energy as the objects accelerate towards each other. That is what powers the acceleration. If they collide and stay together, the kinetic energy remains, but as movement of atoms, and we then call that movement heat. That energy can then be radiated off as infra-red light, and this energy that moves away from our objects is energy which was previously held as stress in the fabric of space.

When you lift an object, you are causing the fabric of space to accommodate it differently, and that involves putting energy into that fabric. This is like with bubbles in washing-up water which can accelerate towards each other as the surface tension rearranges the shape of the surface in order to minimise the amount of energy stored in it - that stored energy is turned into kinetic energy in the same way, and then it becomes heat. Once we understand where the potential energy is stored, it's all becomes obvious - all we have is a stressed fabric trying to get to a lower energy state.

We see the same thing in chemical bonds where high energy bonds are less stable than low energy ones - again it is the fabric of space in which that extra energy is held, and it's held as stress or distortion. Many fools laugh at the people who came up with the idea of phlogeston, and yet the idea wasn't far wrong at all - it was simply potential energy held in the fabric of space.

The same applies to magnets. A north or south pole stresses the space fabric, meaning that wherever there's a magnet there is extra energy accompanying it which is held in the space fabric. If you move a north pole close to a north pole (or a south pole close to a south pole), that adds to the stress and requires you to put more energy in. If you move a north pole next to a south pole, that reduces the stress on the space fabric and allows stored energy there to be released. With the magnets stuck together, they are in a lower energy state and you need to put more energy in to move them apart because moving them apart needs to distort/stress the space fabric more.

What seemed to me like magic yesterday no longer seems very magical at all because I can now see where the energy goes to and where it comes from - it doesn't just appear out of nothing. This also means that gravity and magnetism works without depending on force carriers moving backwards and forwards between different pieces of matter (although there may still be an equivalent to force carriers of some kind operating in the fabric to shift the pattern of stress/deformation as matter moves along through it). We have a rational mechanism for all forces, and it depends on a space fabric with properties able to accommodate them with different forces stressing it in different ways.

This is what I have been saying since I started posting. Energy is of space and not mass. Spin c is the energy of space. Magnetism is spin alignment of the electrons complimentary for south going into north. The mirror images of spin direction is opposite. Rotation the same and rotation as opposite.

Gravity is simpler it is a density of energy issue where the spin particles increase their distance from each other because of a loss of energy in moving electrons. Mass is attracted to a lower energy density which causes less friction in moving electrons. E=c from space and E=mc^2 in the presence of mass. Electrons rotate around energy particles. E=c is the only reason we can move through space in the first place. Electron and photon are connected by c.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 15/05/2017 00:30:57
This is what I have been saying since I started posting. Energy is of space and not mass. Spin c is the energy of space. Magnetism is spin alignment of the electrons complimentary for south going into north. The mirror images of spin direction is opposite. Rotation the same and rotation as opposite.

Gravity is simpler it is a density of energy issue where the spin particles increase their distance from each other because of a loss of energy in moving electrons. Mass is attracted to a lower energy density which causes less friction in moving electrons. E=c from space and E=mc^2 in the presence of mass. Electrons rotate around energy particles. E=c is the only reason we can move through space in the first place. Electron and photon are connected by c.

It may or may not be compatible with what I said, but it doesn't appear to say the same thing. It's possible though that you and a number of other people have had the same idea and put it across in such an obscure manner that no one else has picked up on it, with the result that no clear explanation of gravity and magnetism ever found its way through to me. But I can now pick up a pair of magnets and push them together or pull them apart while understanding clearly what must be going on, and nothing I've ever read or heard before has discussed the key points about how the potential energy is stored up as stress or distortion in the fabric of space as you lift a magnet or push two alike poles of magnets together. When two magnets pull together, I can now understand where the energy comes from that accelerates them together, and then when I pull them apart I can understand why I'm having to put so much energy into this and where it's ending up being stored. If I repeat the process, I can see how each time there is an overall reduction in the amount of energy stored up as stress or distortion of the fabric of space, because each time I pull the magnets apart, I'm having to call in energy from elsewhere which again involves taking energy which is stored in the same manner to replace the energy turned to heat which is ultimately lost as radiation. Chemicals obtained through food are being changed into different molecules with lower energy bonds, the freed energy (which was again stored as stress/distortion of the space fabric) then going on to become movement of muscles. I can now see how pushing two north poles together is little different from squeezing a spring, even though there's a gap between them - the invisible part of the mechanism is the space fabric, but I can now imagine the energy being forced into distorting or stressing it such that there is no more room for magic in the functionality of the magnets. I've long seen the gap as a thing, but I had never understood before how energy was building up in that space and that some of it always accompanies matter. With a spring, it's little different - atoms are being moved into relative positions which put more stress/distortion energy into the space fabric again, and it is then released from there again when the spring is eased.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 15/05/2017 11:49:28
I was thinking about gravity last night and it occurred to me that some of the things about it that seem magical needn't be so magical after all. The biggest problem is where the "potential energy" is stored when you lift an object. The answer's simple though - it's stored in the fabric of space.


I have snipped it there at the first sentence because it is wrong, energy is not stored by a lifted object and you have no idea that Ke of a lifted object is not gained PE but in fact gained speed and acceleration, F=ma. no kE involved.



Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 15/05/2017 12:12:52
Quote
For an object to exist in deep space, there is energy making up the material of that object,
Deep space is questionable ,

There is energy and ''dense'' space making up the material of the object.


Quote
and there's also kinetic energy if the object's moving through space,

No, the object is moving because it is attracted to the field ahead of it.


Quote
but there's also some extra energy, and quite a lot of it too, which is stressing or distorting the fabric of space at that location

Gibberish and means nothing
Quote
When two objects move closer to each other, the amount of energy stored in this way in the space fabric reduces, and it now appears as an increase in kinetic energy as the objects accelerate towards each other.


That is what powers the acceleration. If they collide and stay together, the kinetic energy remains, but as movement of atoms, and we then call that movement heat. That energy can then be radiated off as infra-red light, and this energy that moves away from our objects is energy which was previously held as stress in the fabric of space.

Just no

Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 15/05/2017 15:13:36


It may or may not be compatible with what I said, but it doesn't appear to say the same thing. It's possible though that you and a number of other people have had the same idea and put it across in such an obscure manner that no one else has picked up on it, with the result that no clear explanation of gravity and magnetism ever found its way through to me. But I can now pick up a pair of magnets and push them together or pull them apart while understanding clearly what must be going on, and nothing I've ever read or heard before has discussed the key points about how the potential energy is stored up as stress or distortion in the fabric of space as you lift a magnet or push two alike poles of magnets together. When two magnets pull together, I can now understand where the energy comes from that accelerates them together, and then when I pull them apart I can understand why I'm having to put so much energy into this and where it's ending up being stored. If I repeat the process, I can see how each time there is an overall reduction in the amount of energy stored up as stress or distortion of the fabric of space, because each time I pull the magnets apart, I'm having to call in energy from elsewhere which again involves taking energy which is stored in the same manner to replace the energy turned to heat which is ultimately lost as radiation.
Energy of space is perpetual and the attraction will be the same. Put a spring on a magnet that is not touching another magnet close enough and the attraction stays the same.

Quote
Chemicals obtained through food are being changed into different molecules with lower energy bonds, the freed energy (which was again stored as stress/distortion of the space fabric)
You lose the reason for stress and distortion!
Quote

 then going on to become movement of muscles. I can now see how pushing two north poles together is little different from squeezing a spring, even though there's a gap between them - the invisible part of the mechanism is the space fabric,
Yes but to you it is just the word mechanism without a understandable cause.

Quote

 but I can now imagine the energy being forced into distorting or stressing it such that there is no more room for magic in the functionality of the magnets. I've long seen the gap as a thing, but I had never understood before how energy was building up in that space and that some of it always accompanies matter.
Separate from matter but moving the electrons. The orientation of the rotating electrons cause the attraction and repulsion.
Quote

 With a spring, it's little different - atoms are being moved into relative positions which put more stress/distortion energy into the space fabric again, and it is then released from there again when the spring is eased.
The fabric is the energy!!!!!
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 00:03:53
I was thinking about gravity last night and it occurred to me that some of the things about it that seem magical needn't be so magical after all. The biggest problem is where the "potential energy" is stored when you lift an object. The answer's simple though - it's stored in the fabric of space.

I have snipped it there at the first sentence because it is wrong, energy is not stored by a lifted object and you have no idea that Ke of a lifted object is not gained PE but in fact gained speed and acceleration, F=ma. no kE involved.

If I lift an object off the floor and put it on a table, the potential energy gained is quite distinct from speed and acceleration - it wasn't moving when it was on the floor and it isn't moving once it's on the table, so how is the potential energy stored (the potential energy which leads to the object accelerating downwards if I push it off the table)? When the object hits the floor, it generates heat which is energy that was not there with the object at the start before it was lifted and put on the table. That heat energy is the energy that I put into the object by lifting it and putting it on the table, and it held that potential energy for a long time while it wasn't moving.

Quote
For an object to exist in deep space, there is energy making up the material of that object,
Deep space is questionable ,

All it means is that the object is far away from massive objects with strong gravitational fields.

Quote
Quote
and there's also kinetic energy if the object's moving through space,

No, the object is moving because it is attracted to the field ahead of it.

What attraction to what field? An attraction would accelerate it, but it doesn't change speed.

Quote
Quote
but there's also some extra energy, and quite a lot of it too, which is stressing or distorting the fabric of space at that location

Gibberish and means nothing

Your inability to understand is the issue there. The extra energy is the potential energy, and it has to be stored somewhere. Without it, two objects cannot accelerate towards each other when gravitationally attracted together.

Quote
Quote
When two objects move closer to each other, the amount of energy stored in this way in the space fabric reduces, and it now appears as an increase in kinetic energy as the objects accelerate towards each other.

That is what powers the acceleration. If they collide and stay together, the kinetic energy remains, but as movement of atoms, and we then call that movement heat. That energy can then be radiated off as infra-red light, and this energy that moves away from our objects is energy which was previously held as stress in the fabric of space.

Just no

There never was any chance of you understanding any of this (or indeed anything else anywhere).
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 00:40:34
It may or may not be compatible with what I said, but it doesn't appear to say the same thing. It's possible though that you and a number of other people have had the same idea and put it across in such an obscure manner that no one else has picked up on it, with the result that no clear explanation of gravity and magnetism ever found its way through to me. But I can now pick up a pair of magnets and push them together or pull them apart while understanding clearly what must be going on, and nothing I've ever read or heard before has discussed the key points about how the potential energy is stored up as stress or distortion in the fabric of space as you lift a magnet or push two alike poles of magnets together. When two magnets pull together, I can now understand where the energy comes from that accelerates them together, and then when I pull them apart I can understand why I'm having to put so much energy into this and where it's ending up being stored. If I repeat the process, I can see how each time there is an overall reduction in the amount of energy stored up as stress or distortion of the fabric of space, because each time I pull the magnets apart, I'm having to call in energy from elsewhere which again involves taking energy which is stored in the same manner to replace the energy turned to heat which is ultimately lost as radiation.
Energy of space is perpetual and the attraction will be the same.

The energy is being depleted from that storage system with the energy ending up as electromagnetic radiation instead.

Quote
Put a spring on a magnet that is not touching another magnet close enough and the attraction stays the same.

You'll need to elaborate on that.

Quote
Quote
Chemicals obtained through food are being changed into different molecules with lower energy bonds, the freed energy (which was again stored as stress/distortion of the space fabric)

You lose the reason for stress and distortion!

How? It is potential energy which is held as stress or distortion in the space fabric, and when chemical reactions produce heat, that is where the heat energy comes from. The same applies to batteries and capacitors - they store energy as stress or distortion of the space fabric. Most sources of energy work that way. One that doesn't is a flywheel - the energy stored with that is kinetic energy. Another, nuclear, takes power from dismantling matter, although some component of the energy released will also come from the stress or distortion of the space fabric.

Quote
Quote
then going on to become movement of muscles. I can now see how pushing two north poles together is little different from squeezing a spring, even though there's a gap between them - the invisible part of the mechanism is the space fabric,

Yes but to you it is just the word mechanism without a understandable cause.

The understandable bit is where the energy is stored and then released from - it doesn't just go into nothing. Previously, it looked as if potential energy was just magic with the energy appearing from nowhere, but now that bit of magic has gone from the model. There's still plenty left that I don't understand, but it makes a big difference getting rid of the most magical part of the puzzle. A spring didn't seem anything like as magical as a pair of magnets repelling each other, but now I see the latter as no more magical than the former - they both store the potential energy in the same way.

Quote
Quote
but I can now imagine the energy being forced into distorting or stressing it such that there is no more room for magic in the functionality of the magnets. I've long seen the gap as a thing, but I had never understood before how energy was building up in that space and that some of it always accompanies matter.
Separate from matter but moving the electrons. The orientation of the rotating electrons cause the attraction and repulsion.

That can't serve as a store of potential energy to turn into kinetic energy as magnets are attracted together.

Quote
Quote
With a spring, it's little different - atoms are being moved into relative positions which put more stress/distortion energy into the space fabric again, and it is then released from there again when the spring is eased.

The fabric is the energy!!!!!

The fabric may be more complex than that and might not be energy. When we're dealing with potential energy, it's something that's held in the fabric as stress/distortion, and can be released from it to become kinetic energy or radiation. Of course, whatever form it's in, it's still there with the fabric, but it's relationship with the fabric changes.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 16/05/2017 01:27:20
When the object hits the floor, it generates heat which is energy that was not there with the object at the start before it was lifted and put on the table. That heat energy is the energy that I put into the object by lifting it and putting it on the table, and it held that potential energy for a long time while it wasn't moving.

When the object hits the floor the pieces of it absorb energy when it breaks apart as well as the momentum energy of it scattering across the floor. Its sort of the same energy if you used a firework to blow it up. consequently you could use the same firework energy to send the object back up onto the table if you kept it from falling apart.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 16/05/2017 14:44:13
I was thinking about gravity last night and it occurred to me that some of the things about it that seem magical needn't be so magical after all. The biggest problem is where the "potential energy" is stored when you lift an object. The answer's simple though - it's stored in the fabric of space.

I have snipped it there at the first sentence because it is wrong, energy is not stored by a lifted object and you have no idea that Ke of a lifted object is not gained PE but in fact gained speed and acceleration, F=ma. no kE involved.

If I lift an object off the floor and put it on a table, the potential energy gained is quite distinct from speed and acceleration - it wasn't moving when it was on the floor and it isn't moving once it's on the table, so how is the potential energy stored (the potential energy which leads to the object accelerating downwards if I push it off the table)? When the object hits the floor, it generates heat which is energy that was not there with the object at the start before it was lifted and put on the table. That heat energy is the energy that I put into the object by lifting it and putting it on the table, and it held that potential energy for a long time while it wasn't moving.

Quote
For an object to exist in deep space, there is energy making up the material of that object,
Deep space is questionable ,

All it means is that the object is far away from massive objects with strong gravitational fields.

Quote
Quote
and there's also kinetic energy if the object's moving through space,

No, the object is moving because it is attracted to the field ahead of it.

What attraction to what field? An attraction would accelerate it, but it doesn't change speed.

Quote
Quote
but there's also some extra energy, and quite a lot of it too, which is stressing or distorting the fabric of space at that location

Gibberish and means nothing

Your inability to understand is the issue there. The extra energy is the potential energy, and it has to be stored somewhere. Without it, two objects cannot accelerate towards each other when gravitationally attracted together.

Quote
Quote
When two objects move closer to each other, the amount of energy stored in this way in the space fabric reduces, and it now appears as an increase in kinetic energy as the objects accelerate towards each other.

That is what powers the acceleration. If they collide and stay together, the kinetic energy remains, but as movement of atoms, and we then call that movement heat. That energy can then be radiated off as infra-red light, and this energy that moves away from our objects is energy which was previously held as stress in the fabric of space.

Just no

There never was any chance of you understanding any of this (or indeed anything else anywhere).

You are quite ''mad''.  When you lift an object up and put it on the table , the energy of the object remains the same, the density of the table stops the object falling to the ground, gravity makes the object accelrate and fall tot he ground, the speed and F=ma is what makes the force of impact when it hits the ground. kE is not a real energy and of the imagination and very poor interpretation, perhaps you should not  be allowed to post with your garbage hey?

You quite clearly do not understand .
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 18:47:36
When the object hits the floor, it generates heat which is energy that was not there with the object at the start before it was lifted and put on the table. That heat energy is the energy that I put into the object by lifting it and putting it on the table, and it held that potential energy for a long time while it wasn't moving.

When the object hits the floor the pieces of it absorb energy when it breaks apart as well as the momentum energy of it scattering across the floor. Its sort of the same energy if you used a firework to blow it up. consequently you could use the same firework energy to send the object back up onto the table if you kept it from falling apart.

I was picturing something that would hit the floor like a bean bag with no bounce. The kinetic energy from the fall will be turned into heat. When it was sitting on the floor before, that heat energy wasn't there. Clearly I put that energy into the system by lifting it off the floor onto the table, so I added the energy in by lifting it, and it clearly wasn't stored as kinetic energy while it sat on the table. It wasn't stored as heat either. It was stored as "potential energy", and potential energy needs to be a rational storage place rather than a magical one, and it's clear to me now that the fabric of space is that energy store. Change the object for a ball and it can bounce, so when it falls it takes that stored energy which accompanies the ball in the space fabric, turns it into kinetic energy, loses some on impact as heat, but maintains most of it as kinetic energy which is then transferred to storage as stress/distortion again in the fabric of space as the ball decelerates.

A firework also uses the same storage location, but it's done through the kind of chemical bonds. O2 and H2 gas, for example, have high-energy bonds, and when they explode they create H2O (which is a kind of ash) with low-energy bonds, so it moves from highly reactive chemicals to one that doesn't react much at all. The energy released as movement/heat was stored as stress/distortion of the space fabric forced into it by the arrangement of matter in the chemicals.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 19:09:27
When you lift an object up and put it on the table , the energy of the object remains the same, the density of the table stops the object falling to the ground, gravity makes the object accelrate and fall tot he ground, the speed and F=ma is what makes the force of impact when it hits the ground. kE is not a real energy and of the imagination and very poor interpretation

You're giving me the old view which I've now moved away from, but only in one small way. When you move the object from the floor to the table, the energy tied up in the material of the object remains the same as it was before, but it now has more potential energy associated with it than it did before, and that potential energy shows itself if you remove the table, because the object falls and generates heat when it hits the floor. That heat is energy which wasn't with the object at the start when it sat on the floor (before it was put on the table). Where did that heat energy come from? It came from the kinetic energy that the object acquired while falling. But where did that kinetic energy come from? It came from a store of potential energy that accompanied the object when it was sitting on the table, and that's where I've changed my understanding of things, because previously that store of potential energy was unexplained with nothing there to hold the energy. Of course, I've long thought of space as being a fabric which may be just as substantial when empty as when it contains matter, but I was thinking of forces in terms of energy transferred by force carriers moving between objects at the speed of light, and there are real problems with that. Sometimes a force carrier would need to add energy to the object (e.g. a falling object) while at other times it would have to remove energy from it (a ball being thrown upwards). It simply doesn't make sense, unlike my new way of looking at things where the shift between adding energy and removing energy makes full sense.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/05/2017 19:40:29
Let's say I have an object on the top shelf of a cupboard. I reach up and pick it up and lower it very, very slowly down to the bottom shelf. All the time gravity is acting against my arm. Since I am lowering the object I am removing potential energy. However I am using a lot of energy over the extended time period. So how much potential energy have I removed?
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 16/05/2017 19:47:53
Let's say I have an object on the top shelf of a cupboard. I reach up and pick it up and lower it very, very slowly down to the bottom shelf. All the time gravity is acting against my arm. Since I am lowering the object I am removing potential energy. However I am using a lot of energy over the extended time period. So how much potential energy have I removed?
You haven't moved any pE , you have slowed down the speed of fall taking away the force of collision between the two masses.   The collision releases  some atomic energy from the force of impact contracting the molecules causing pressure in the entropy of the mass. There is no extra energy involved, the pE already exists in the state of matter , the pE only increases when the E entropy of the matter is increased by radiation increase absorbed by the matter by means of ''light''. An object in state of expansion has more pE than an object in state of contraction. However in the entirety of kE is there no extra energy involved,
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 16/05/2017 19:51:44
When you lift an object up and put it on the table , the energy of the object remains the same, the density of the table stops the object falling to the ground, gravity makes the object accelrate and fall tot he ground, the speed and F=ma is what makes the force of impact when it hits the ground. kE is not a real energy and of the imagination and very poor interpretation

You're giving me the old view which I've now moved away from, but only in one small way. When you move the object from the floor to the table, the energy tied up in the material of the object remains the same as it was before, but it now has more potential energy associated with it than it did before

No , the object has more potential to release its energy. Like you agree the state of E entropy when you place the object on the table is the same. When the M1 and M2 collide, some of the energy is released.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 16/05/2017 19:59:41
If we look at it this way,

pEmax=(F=mc)

I am trying to explain that two bodies in a collision will unlock the maximum pE at the fastest speed .
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 20:39:44
Let's say I have an object on the top shelf of a cupboard. I reach up and pick it up and lower it very, very slowly down to the bottom shelf. All the time gravity is acting against my arm. Since I am lowering the object I am removing potential energy. However I am using a lot of energy over the extended time period. So how much potential energy have I removed?

In the course of moving the object down from the top shelf to the bottom shelf, you've removed the same amount of potential energy from it as you added to it when moving it from the bottom shelf to the top shelf. The energy that you're losing while holding the object against the force of gravity is not coming out of that store, as we can see by comparing you holding the object out at arm's length and getting tired as you use lots of energy to hold it up while a robot could hold it up in the same way but lock its arm so that it can keep the object there without using up any energy.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 23:02:44
I'm a newbie here and don't have any credentials to speak of...

Don't let that put you off getting involved - it's the strength of ideas that counts, so if you think you have some that relate to this in important ways, you're welcome to comment here.

I can already see some problems with my "explanation" of forces when looking at length contraction (as it pushes all that stored potential energy into a smaller space), so I'm thinking about that at the moment. Another important thing to be aware of though is that I've "explained" forces partly by transferring them somewhere else. With surface tension, the fabric or surface is tensioned by pulling forces, so if we have equivalent pulling forces in the space fabric, those remain unexplained, although at least we have a simplification in that both pulling and pushing forces can be accounted with just a pulling (or just a pushing) force working behind the scenes.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/05/2017 23:10:36
Let's say I have an object on the top shelf of a cupboard. I reach up and pick it up and lower it very, very slowly down to the bottom shelf. All the time gravity is acting against my arm. Since I am lowering the object I am removing potential energy. However I am using a lot of energy over the extended time period. So how much potential energy have I removed?

In the course of moving the object down from the top shelf to the bottom shelf, you've removed the same amount of potential energy from it as you added to it when moving it from the bottom shelf to the top shelf. The energy that you're losing while holding the object against the force of gravity is not coming out of that store, as we can see by comparing you holding the object out at arm's length and getting tired as you use lots of energy to hold it up while a robot could hold it up in the same way but lock its arm so that it can keep the object there without using up any energy.

If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 16/05/2017 23:35:39
Let's say I have an object on the top shelf of a cupboard. I reach up and pick it up and lower it very, very slowly down to the bottom shelf. All the time gravity is acting against my arm. Since I am lowering the object I am removing potential energy. However I am using a lot of energy over the extended time period. So how much potential energy have I removed?

In the course of moving the object down from the top shelf to the bottom shelf, you've removed the same amount of potential energy from it as you added to it when moving it from the bottom shelf to the top shelf. The energy that you're losing while holding the object against the force of gravity is not coming out of that store, as we can see by comparing you holding the object out at arm's length and getting tired as you use lots of energy to hold it up while a robot could hold it up in the same way but lock its arm so that it can keep the object there without using up any energy.

If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.

Jeffrey, you expend energy whilst holding the object not transfer it .
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 17/05/2017 17:29:46
If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.

The robot with locked arm is able to hold the object without constantly putting energy in, so you need to think about why you need to expend energy when the robot finds it unnecessary to do so. (The Box has called this one right!) It's an interesting question though as to why we have to burn energy to hold things up. If we don't hold it at arm's length it isn't so hard - if you balance it on your head it is little trouble to hold it high up. It appears to have something to do with crushable things using energy to avoid being crushed. Once crushed, the forces balance without energy being expended. That would be the basis of an interesting discussion that should maybe have its own thread.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 17/05/2017 17:40:05
Sometimes a force carrier would need to add energy to the object (e.g. a falling object) while at other times it would have to remove energy from it (a ball being thrown upwards). It simply doesn't make sense, unlike my new way of looking at things where the shift between adding energy and removing energy makes full sense.

I didn't think that bit through fully, but I switched off my computer before I realised. It would be fine if the Earth was stationary, but if the Earth's moving and aligned a particular way, an object accelerating downwards may need to have energy removed from it rather than added because it's really being decelerated. This is resolved though when we think of the system being a bit more cyclic - the falling object is being decelerated in this special case (even though it looks as if it's accelerating) so it must be pushing energy into the space fabric, and that energy is being transmitted through to the fabric where the Earth is, with energy being released there as kinetic energy instead. The pattern of stress/distortion is jointly shaped by the Earth and the object, and energy can flow through it to the easiest point of release. The closer the object is to the Earth, the easier that transmission becomes.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 19/05/2017 13:56:24
If I keep my arm and the object it's holding stationary then I should be storing a constant amount of potential energy. In order to maintain that potential I inevitably lose energy in the fight against gravity. This is not a trivial point, though it does appear so upon cursory examination.

The robot with locked arm is able to hold the object without constantly putting energy in, so you need to think about why you need to expend energy when the robot finds it unnecessary to do so. (The Box has called this one right!) It's an interesting question though as to why we have to burn energy to hold things up. If we don't hold it at arm's length it isn't so hard - if you balance it on your head it is little trouble to hold it high up. It appears to have something to do with crushable things using energy to avoid being crushed. Once crushed, the forces balance without energy being expended. That would be the basis of an interesting discussion that should maybe have its own thread.

The robot also expends the energy it needs to run the robot. 
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2017 16:55:30
The robot also expends the energy it needs to run the robot.

The robot can lock its arm and switch itself off, leaving the object held up for as long as you like without any power being used at all.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: Thebox on 20/05/2017 13:51:34
The robot also expends the energy it needs to run the robot.

The robot can lock its arm and switch itself off, leaving the object held up for as long as you like without any power being used at all.

Indeed if you switch off the power to the robot the robot will not use any of the national grid or battery life. However the robot will still lose and gain energy by rate of entropy change the same as the suspended object will gain or lose energy by rate of entropy change.  However there is still no kE.  kE is added force by the means of acceleration and speed which in turn releases the pE the object already has, E=mc.  (take note E=mc is not as powerful as E=mc).

pE= E/S*v  or ma^2
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 04/06/2017 02:33:33
Quote
When you lift an object, you are causing the fabric of space to accommodate it differently, and that involves putting energy into that fabric. This is like with bubbles in washing-up water which can accelerate towards each other as the surface tension rearranges the shape of the surface in order to minimise the amount of energy stored in it - that stored energy is turned into kinetic energy in the same way, and then it becomes heat. Once we understand where the potential energy is stored, it's all becomes obvious - all we have is a stressed fabric trying to get to a lower energy state.

I think this is answered partially by the Equivalence Principle. Accelerating in deep space at 1g is equivalent to standing on the surface of Earth.

I showed the following is true before:

t'/t = f'/f = (1 - v/c)/γ      where γ = √(1 - (v/c))

The above is the Relativistic Doppler Shift. Now

t' =  (t - t v/c)/γ     Now synchronize clocks/rulers with light. For light c t = x or t = x/c. This is an arbitrary synchronization convention Einstein used in his theories (you can definitely use it)

t' =  (t - x v/c)/γ  =  Lorentz Time Transform

Why is this important? And why does it pertain to your post?

Because shifts in frequency correspond to shifts in energy. Light redshifts going out of a gravity well. Literally time runs faster for objects further out of a gravity well meaning frequency is higher. Using the equation E = h f straight out of Quantum Mechanics an increase in frequency IS an increase in energy.

Think of a photon box. This box is a bunch of photons with mirrors on all sides. If time slows down on one side of the box or equivalently the frequency lowers then the energy of the photons hitting that side of the box will be LOWER. If the photons leaving the mirror further in the gravity well are red shifted heading up to the top mirror they will hit it with lower energy. If the photons heading down from the top mirror are blue shifted they will hit the bottom mirror with HIGHER energy.

The photon box would be in equilibrium in open space. However, in a gravity well the difference causes the box to accelerate downwards. This is definitely the "cause" of gravity. We know for certain light blue shifts going into a gravity well and red shifts heading out. Particles and atoms are "excitations" of fields or wavelike entities and the frequency change that affects photons works the same on ALL particles. 

To keep the photon box in balance or really to keep any particle or collection of particles in balance they must accelerate to balance the gravitational shift. When they accelerate they produce a Doppler Shift that exactly cancels the gravitational shift.

Particles are actually storing the energy when they are further out of a gravity field because their time is running faster.

This isn't the whole story however. Wavenumber (1/wavelength) also gets altered when entering a gravity field.

x'/x = k'/k = (1 - v/c)/γ      where γ = √(1 - (v/c))

Wavenumber also lowers (c = f/k) meaning that "space" (or at least particles) must contract when entering the gravity field. The Doppler Shift again fixes this but here "re-stretches" the particles when they're free falling.

p = h k  where p is momentum. The momentum of the photons is affected the same as the energy. E/p = c. Because light is our best ruler (we define the meter using it) screwing with wavenumber screws with space or what I personally believe the particles existing in said space.

In QM the solutions (stable eigenstates) are generally  ψ = Φ * e^(-i f/(2π) t) = Φ *( cos(f/(2π) t) + i sin(f/(2π) t) )

Don't worry about the Φ that depends on the situation and doesn't affect the energy.

The above is just waves (sines and cosines) with frequency f. Energy seems to be stored as an oscillation which fits well with the wave nature of all particles. No one knows what's "oscillating." Some people think it's just a feature of our models, some think something like a super fluid is oscillating, and some think it's a "fifth" dimension etc.


Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 04/06/2017 15:49:39
David

   Here you need to think relativity of c. Energy is the fabric. Call it anything you like but it is perpetual motion energy. Propagation of the wave form of a photon proves this to be the case. You need to stop thinking of mass as the energy source and stick with the energy source as space. You say it but you haven't recognized the consequences yet. Space energy moves the electrons. Conservation of energy becomes less of an issue because the transfer is always to mass or back to space as radiation. Dropping a sack on the floor is atoms causing friction with energy exchange of mass to space causing friction with the atoms and the path energy creates for moving the electrons. Think of it like the electric company delivering a voltage. A voltage will only allow a motor to run at a certain speed. Moving through space reduces the voltage but the amps are distributed between the electron cycle considered at rest and motion through space. Energy is constant at rest and cycles the fastest. Motion through space energy is divided between forward motion and cyclic motion as a constant. Less energy for reaction with velocity. Energy spins to fast for direct detection. Movement of the electrons and movement period is proof of c from space.

The particles spinning as energy move further apart in the presence of mass. The more mass the further the spinning particles. This is potential energy in Mass. Mass is attracted to more dilated energy of space allowing less friction with energy itself (gravity). Gravity follows potential energy decrease. Density of space energy decreases by expansion. At the attraction of the speed of light from a sun dilates energy to the point atoms cannot remain apart. All the atoms of that sun reside next to each other rather than remain separate. A black hole.

Magnetism is the alignment of electrons spinning in the same direction. Rotation of energy spins through the magnet. Mirror image of spin is opposite direction of spins and spinning repulsion occurs. The same direction tries to maintain contact like a screw.

Energy is of Space!!!! Not mass.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 04/06/2017 21:10:38
Think of a photon box. This box is a bunch of photons with mirrors on all sides. If time slows down on one side of the box or equivalently the frequency lowers then the energy of the photons hitting that side of the box will be LOWER. If the photons leaving the mirror further in the gravity well are red shifted heading up to the top mirror they will hit it with lower energy. If the photons heading down from the top mirror are blue shifted they will hit the bottom mirror with HIGHER energy.

Hi Dutch,

I've heard a description along those lines before, but I failed to consider all the implications, perhaps because there's a key part of it that doesn't add up. If the photon speeds up as it climbs out of the energy well, that extra speed energy should exactly balance out the loss in energy from the reduction in frequency, leading to the photons hitting the top and bottom of the box with exactly the same energy. Perhaps I'm missing something?

However, you've certainly shown me that the potential energy can be stored much more simply than I'd imagined - when you lift an object, it's functionality speeds up (and has to speed up) and you have to put the extra energy into it to enable that faster functioning. That's something I'd completely missed before.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 04/06/2017 22:47:24
Light does not have momentum. It neither slows down nor speeds up. That violates relativity's postulate. Potential energy is just that. Tick rate and energy potential slows to the center of mass. Energy is dilated so energy particles are further apart. Light produced in lower energy potential has a longer frequency due to particles being further apart in the position of space more dilated. That approach is indistinguishable with momentum and does not violate relativity postulates. Light does not change frequency once produced.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 17:16:23
Light does not have momentum. It neither slows down nor speeds up. That violates relativity's postulate.

It can slow down, and it stops if it's at the event horizon of a black hole while "moving" outwards.

Quote
Light does not change frequency once produced.

That's the key to this - the light isn't red-shifted or blue-shifted on the way out of or into a gravity well, but is merely perceived as being shifted by something that measures its frequency at different heights. That means that the photons are hitting the top and bottom of the box with the same energy and it's merely being perceived as being higher or lower in energy. However, the top and bottom of the box are connected such that hitting the bottom from above is effectively hitting the top from above as well, just as hitting the top from below is effectively hitting the bottom from below as well, meaning that there is an equal push in both directions (up and down) - forces between the atoms of the box spread the energy throughout the box and it will be perceived differently by different parts of it depending on their altitude, but everything evens out and leaves no excess in push downwards.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 05/06/2017 17:52:48
It can slow down, and it stops if it's at the event horizon of a black hole while "moving" outwards.

You cannot create light within a BH and all light bends around a BH. Light is not attracted to or by gravity. Light bends around the dilation caused by gravity. A BH has the greatest dilation of energy since there is no energy within a BH. Its completely kinetic with no energy available to run a clock.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 20:19:46
It can slow down, and it stops if it's at the event horizon of a black hole while "moving" outwards.

You cannot create light within a BH and all light bends around a BH. Light is not attracted to or by gravity. Light bends around the dilation caused by gravity. A BH has the greatest dilation of energy since there is no energy within a BH. Its completely kinetic with no energy available to run a clock.

You could create light just outside the event horizon from a laser pointing directly upwards. That light would be very slow at moving upwards, but it would move straight upwards and not go round and round the black hole instead, although any error in the direction it's pointing could lead to it going round the black hole instead, but any part of the light that is aimed absolutely straight up should go straight upwards (at a crawl).
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 06/06/2017 03:50:08
Quote
Light does not have momentum. It neither slows down nor speeds up. That violates relativity's postulate. Potential energy is just that. Tick rate and energy potential slows to the center of mass. Energy is dilated so energy particles are further apart. Light produced in lower energy potential has a longer frequency due to particles being further apart in the position of space more dilated. That approach is indistinguishable with momentum and does not violate relativity postulates. Light does not change frequency once produced.

Light does have momentum p = h k   This formula appears in Relativity, Classical Quantum Mechanics, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Field Theory unaltered. When light hits an object it imparts momentum h k.

The equations below are straight out of a University text book by James B. Hartle on General Relativity unaltered (except replacing ω for f) for a stationary observer (an observer feeling acceleration and holding a position) at height r and rs is the event horizon radius:

c'(r)/c =  (1 - rs/r)

t'(r)/t =  √(1 - rs/r)    and    f'(r)/f = √(1 - rs/r)

k'(r)/k = 1 / √(1 - rs/r)   

f'(r) k'(r) = c'(r)

Light certainly does change speed over distances when under the feeling of acceleration either hovering in a gravity well or accelerating with something like a rocket. This does not violate Local Lorentz Covariance and this is why the word LOCAL has to be included in the law. Many don't understand this.

Something hovering close to the event horizon (maintaining station) is NOT stretched out but rather pancaked (contracted) because of the immense acceleration to stay still. Two lasers one on the top of the tower and one on the surface of the Earth are also not "stretched out" and the tower is actually under a large amount of compression to keep it's constant distance. Wavenumber spectrum actually shifts upward (what I call a ruler) when hovering at height r outside of a blackhole. This means you can fit say 1.5 meters in a spot someone far from the blackhole would call 1 meter. (I wrote this down backwards in my last comment).

The Schwarzchild Coordinates:

ds = -(1 - rs/r) dt + 1 / (1 - rs/r) dr  + dΩ

Relativity derives   t'(r)/t = √(1 - rs/r)  just like it derives  r'(r)/r = 1/√(1 - rs/r)
 
Now classically when waves enter a region where the propagation speed of the medium is less the wavenumber ALSO increases. Waves also curve towards the zone with a slower propagation speed. This is because the fast moving waves get into a "traffic" jam as they enter a region where the waves are moving slower. Think of going 80 MPH towards cars moving slower in front... this would close distance very quickly. This is exactly like General Relativity (at least outside of the event horizon; no one know what happens inside and suggesting we have any accurate model is probably wrong). If we use light as our meter stick (and we do) then when more cycles fit within one meter we count more meters. x'/x = k'/k just like t'/t = f'/f (when shifting the whole spectrum). This complies with 1 / (1 - rs/r) as this value is greater than 1 when r is greater than rs.  This is why a gravity well is modeled as an upside down funnel (ignoring the frequency shift). If we shot a light at a gravity well and looked at it top down the wave crests would be CLOSER together (remember time dilation is an effect not seen locally). However, observers are counting meters by using the fundamental forces. In fact ALL particles are wavelike structures (with the same underlying propagation speed) and they all undergo the same transformation. From the outside observer's perspective the waves would cram onto the event horizon (makes you wonder if the inside solution for a black hole in GR is just completely wrong). This plastering of particles onto the event horizon is where the "Holographic Principle" comes from. Some physicists think that if stuff can plaster onto an event horizon from one view but pass through it form another according to GR then the 3D universe may also be plastered onto a 2D surface.

The Michelson-Morley interometer taught me one thing: we measure distance with light and counting fringes is the best way to measure distance. Particles also measure distance with the fundamental forces. We don't have anything else we can use to fix our references to.

General Relativity is quite different than a classical medium because time slows down. Classically entering a medium does not change the frequency of the wave. A classical "medium" may slow some photons within a range of frequencies but many may not be affected much. Further than this it slows some frequencies more than others and doesn't do anything to force carriers and particles that do not interact with the charge structure of the medium.  However, what happens when you drop the frequency of the fundamental forces (shift the entire spectrum)? Well a lower frequency means that the wave crests of the fundamental forces propagate slower. Basically, t'/t = f'/f. So what happens if things are contracted by 50% (two meter long sticks fit in a space someone at infinity would consider 1 meter) AND frequency is lowered by 50%? Well to keep the speed of light seemingly the same locally it has to move at 25% of what it does at infinity. To someone locally the light would appear to move 300,000 meters in one unit of time. The person at infinity calls the 300,000 of their meters 150,000 meters and also says the one unit of their time is actually 2.

They see c = k f (very locally in practice nowhere near 300,000 meters because they are under heavy acceleration and light is curving towards the gravity well)  and the person at infinity sees c = k f in their frame but the person at infinity views their frame with c'(r).

Some interesting thoughts. When an object moves at velocity v it has c'/c = √(1-(v/c)), the length contracts by c'/c (wavenumber goes up more cycles per meter), and time runs slower by c'/c (frequency goes down). The Big Bang says the universe "expanded." However, what if all bound objects are ever so slowly (at least now) contracting while time is slowing down. Instead of the early observable universe being the size of a pin why can't particles be the size of the observable universe with time running faster? How would we know the difference? These all preserve c and they all work similarly. I think the Big Bang being some huge shock to the entire universe that's been slowing for billions of years seems just as reasonable as space forming out of noting (I thought this up and researched it and in fact scientists have thought about this but couldn't differentiate it from the Big Bang and space expansion). We take the observer's view as golden and space and time change around them. However, we are made out of wavelike structures that should themselves warp so what if we've got it backwards? .

I don't see gravity as stretching spacetime. I see it as symmetrically shifting the fundamental forces and we just happen to use these forces to define length and time. We have nothing else to use. Now someone else may call a curved line straight but I do not.

Quote
  I've heard a description along those lines before, but I failed to consider all the implications, perhaps because there's a key part of it that doesn't add up. If the photon speeds up as it climbs out of the energy well, that extra speed energy should exactly balance out the loss in energy from the reduction in frequency, leading to the photons hitting the top and bottom of the box with exactly the same energy. Perhaps I'm missing something?

However, you've certainly shown me that the potential energy can be stored much more simply than I'd imagined - when you lift an object, it's functionality speeds up (and has to speed up) and you have to put the extra energy into it to enable that faster functioning. That's something I'd completely missed before.

The photon does speed up as it climbs out of the gravity well. However, the photons are a wave and they do not add wave crests as they rise (conservation of information). The wave crests spread out (like cars leaving a traffic jam on a highway) as they rise meaning they hit the upper mirror with lower momentum AND lower frequency ( p = h k and E = h f). The waves slow down as they drop into the gravity well so they bunch up. Now you'd think this slow down would hit the bottom mirror with less force but time and all the particles down there are also running slower. The crests of the photons bunch up as they drop into the gravity well. The bottom mirror receives more force and the top mirror less force. This unbalance requires an acceleration to counteract the red and blue shift. When the acceleration is equalized the particle acts like it's in an inertial state just like it would be in deep space. 

I discussed a lot of Relativity in my thread "Different View of Relativity." I did a thorough proof of how length contraction naturally arises when all particles are treated as waves (best done in the third post I did in that thread).
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 06/06/2017 21:41:39
(makes you wonder if the inside solution for a black hole in GR is just completely wrong)

I don't know if anyone has a viable proposed account of what happens in black holes. I wonder if any information about how things behave inside them is coming from the gravitational wave data.

Quote
The bottom mirror receives more force and the top mirror less force. This unbalance requires an acceleration to counteract the red and blue shift.

But the forces must be transferred through the material of the box from top to bottom and bottom to top to affect the whole thing and they surely must in the course of that transfer be amplified or reduced as they are passed down or up, leading to an equalisation for both directions and no acceleration of the box.

Quote
I discussed a lot of Relativity in my thread "Different View of Relativity." I did a thorough proof of how length contraction naturally arises when all particles are treated as waves (best done in the third post I did in that thread).

I'm following it with great interest (or attempting to) - you clearly have a lot to offer in the way of knowledge and understanding and are a very welcome addition to the forum.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 07/06/2017 03:50:30
Quote
I don't know if anyone has a viable proposed account of what happens in black holes. I wonder if any information about how things behave inside them is coming from the gravitational wave data.

Well many scientists think they do all the way down to a very close distance to the singularity. However, many other scientists admit they don't know. Inside of a blackhole is outside of science if GR is correct because we can't observe in there. No observation, no science. The physics community overwhelmingly agrees they don't have a full solution that makes sense yet. Many scientists and pop culture often raises some of the far out predictions of GR to fact when they're far from it. Questioning General Relativity is often seen as heresy which I find counter to the principles of science. Gravity is modeled as the curvature of spacetime that does not mean this model is fundamentally right just that it seems to work well because the model matches many experiments. Newtonian Gravity still works well but it's ideas aren't fundamentally right.

Gravity waves just like anything else don't convey information about what's inside a blackhole. If they do then GR is wrong.

Quote
But the forces must be transferred through the material of the box from top to bottom and bottom to top to affect the whole thing and they surely must in the course of that transfer be amplified or reduced as they are passed down or up, leading to an equalisation for both directions and no acceleration of the box.

You're differentiating stuff from stuff. The laser is just an example and gravity works on everything exactly the same as shown in many experiments. The "photon box" is much closer to reality than many people think and many scientists use it to explain what's happening. Particles according to Quantum Field Theory are wavelike.

If you take a single sine wave with wavenumber k it will be   y = sin(k x). k will define the cycles per unit distance. If you add two waves like this with slightly different wave numbers they will go through a complete cycle in a greater distance than either k1 or k2 alone. What happens if you add an infinite number of waves with slightly different k (and amplitudes)? You get what's called a wave packet. The repeating nature of the wave disappears because the repeat is out at infinity. The wave destructively interferes almost everywhere. Particles are best represented in our theories by wavepackets just like these (but you have to add in the finite speed of light). Now packets like these can be created in experiments and even with classical wave experiments. They can be made to move at many different velocities.

There is significant evidence to suggest ALL particles are excitations of fields. For example according to quantum field theory the electron is an excitation of the electron field. The photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field etc. ALL of these fields have a fundamental propagation speed, the speed of light. There is NO exception. Now excitations can move slower than light but only if those excitations are interacting with another field such as the Higgs Field. Similar to how photons slow down when they go through a charge structure they interact with, some particles like electrons and quarks get some initial mass (a rest velocity) by interacting with another field. Particles like quarks can then get further mass by interacting with the gluon field.

All particles seem to be waves with the same underlying propagation speed. It's NOT just the photons that shift in a gravity field but rather ALL particles. The stuff in between is doing the same thing as the photons. Again

x'/x = k'/k    and  t'/t = f'/f    This is easy to prove in Special Relativity and in GR

Shift the propagation speed of everything and you symmetrically shift everything. The interesting part about this is a symmetrical shift is unnoticeable locally by any observer. The very tick of clocks is all governed by the propagation of change via particles and the very size of these particles is also governed by this propagation. It's VERY hard for me to think of a way to change the speed of light locally unless one changes the strength of the fundamental forces relative to one another. However, one can always choose to view their reference frame from the eyes of some other frame.
 
Again classically when waves are moving and there is a region where the propagation speed is slower those waves will curve towards the region. Lookup Snell's Law and Huygens Principle. The wave number will also increase and of course the velocity of the waves will decrease. The difference with gravity is that the waves are the force carriers AND all particles. The waves also carry momentum p = h k and energy E = h f. This means a non speed of light particle in a gravity well standing still relative to some observer at infinity gets hit harder by photons heading downward than photons heading upward. This causes an acceleration feeling that stops when the particle equalizes the shift (free falls). Just a TINY shift in the forces causes a fairly large acceleration for... everything.

I think one of the best ways to look at Relativity and a gravity well is to map out the "field" similar to how one uses iron filaments to show the magnetic field. The thing you use to map out a gravity field is wave crests of any single frequency of a light wave. I don't think gravity is the "warping of spacetime" because I think waves are much more likely to shift and warp than space. In fact I showed in my thread how length contraction arises simply by shifting a wave structure by v in the classical (and quantum relativistic) wave equations. Many medium naturally develop Relativistic symmetry when the wave emitters/receivers shift similar to the waves (an exact shift would exactly match Special Relativity but alas a perfect medium where fundamentally all of what makes the emitters/receivers shifts the same as the waves doesn't exist unless perhaps the universe is one).
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 11:51:40
You could create light just outside the event horizon from a laser pointing directly upwards. That light would be very slow at moving upwards, but it would move straight upwards and not go round and round the black hole instead, although any error in the direction it's pointing could lead to it going round the black hole instead, but any part of the light that is aimed absolutely straight up should go straight upwards (at a crawl).

Your missing the point. There is no electron motion to create light in the first place. In a BH all mass is next to each other with no space or so little as to be no energy movement at all. At the speed of light attraction energy cannot keep atoms apart. They combine to a super element (electron in a fractal universe?). The gravity mass remains but relativity no longer can be applied within the BH. No time energy available for light production. Any normal mass close enough would be absorbed and become part of the BH.


QuoteI don't know if anyone has a viable proposed account of what happens in black holes. I wonder if any information about how things behave inside them is coming from the gravitational wave data.Well many scientists think they do all the way down to a very close distance to the singularity. However, many other scientists admit they don't know. Inside of a blackhole is outside of science if GR is correct because we can't observe in there. No observation, no science. The physics community overwhelmingly agrees they don't have a full solution that makes sense yet. Many scientists and pop culture often raises some of the far out predictions of GR to fact when they're far from it. Questioning General Relativity is often seen as heresy which I find counter to the principles of science. Gravity is modeled as the curvature of spacetime that does not mean this model is fundamentally right just that it seems to work well because the model matches many experiments. Newtonian Gravity still works well but it's ideas aren't fundamentally right.Gravity waves just like anything else don't convey information about what's inside a blackhole. If they do then GR is wrong.

GR is wrong for BH's yes. What do we know about BH's? We can reasonably assume the mass of a BH remains because of the gravitational affect. We can assume BH's have a minimum size due to the amount of mass needed to create one. We do not know the maximum size they can become.

Si fi has embellished some thinking as to time and travel issues which are extremely unlikely to a realest like myself.


That's the key to this - the light isn't red-shifted or blue-shifted on the way out of or into a gravity well, but is merely perceived as being shifted by something that measures its frequency at different heights. That means that the photons are hitting the top and bottom of the box with the same energy and it's merely being perceived as being higher or lower in energy.
The light once created remains at the same frequency and yes it is measured as red or blue shifted by position. This does not mean there is momentum in light. Relativity suggests light to be constant speed no matter what the wavelength. There is dilation down a gravity well. That means the spacetime (whatever you consider it to be) is expanding to the center of mass. Light created closer to the center of mass has more dilation. More dilation increases the electron jump distance relative to c. It is not momentum!!!! According to relativity of course since light is constant by postulate.
In dilated space mass probably dilates also considering the electron travels further. So the cell measuring the wavelength of light has expanded to auto correct the measured wavelength for the new frame of dilation. You create light more red shifted going down dilated space measured as time. Your measurements are dictated by your frame.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: phyti on 07/06/2017 17:35:28
David Cooper #24

Quote
The robot with locked arm is able to hold the object without constantly putting energy in, so you need to think about why you need to expend energy when the robot finds it unnecessary to do so. (The Box has called this one right!) It's an interesting question though as to why we have to burn energy to hold things up. If we don't hold it at arm's length it isn't so hard - if you balance it on your head it is little trouble to hold it high up.

The PE is in the g-field, formed by unknown processes, which surrounds the dominant mass M. The g-field is always ON. When moving a mass m from a low support to a higher support, energy is expended to overcome the acceleration g, for the time taken for the move. The mass of m has not changed. Once at rest on any support, m is still accelerated at g, and heat is transferred to the support . That's why m has weight where ever it rests! If the movement is via muscular energy, you burn calories and your body warms up and experiences fatigue. If via a machine, energy is still needed.
A simple demonstration of gravity always ON.
A fish scale is a pan hanging from a spring connected to a hook, with an attached  scale. Placing a fish in the pan stretches the spring which displaces the pointer on the scale, indicating weight. Even though the fish is not moving, the spring remains stretched. The stressed spring results from the g-field.
A support built from earth elements relies on molecular forces to withstand stress from loads resulting from weight. If the weight exceeds the structural limits, the support fails!
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 17:59:46
The PE is in the g-field, formed by unknown processes, which surrounds the dominant mass M. The g-field is always ON.

In the gravitational center of a planet (where you are weightless) is the g-field still on?
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 08/06/2017 00:15:14
Gravity waves just like anything else don't convey information about what's inside a blackhole. If they do then GR is wrong.

So these signals of black holes merging don't tell us anything about how the singularities (or near-singularities) meet up? Does all the spiralling stop before they're inside each other's event horizon or does it continue to generate gravitational waves after that point? I thought this might give us some indication of what's happening on the inside.

Quote
Quote
But the forces must be transferred through the material of the box from top to bottom and bottom to top to affect the whole thing and they surely must in the course of that transfer be amplified or reduced as they are passed down or up, leading to an equalisation for both directions and no acceleration of the box.

You're differentiating stuff from stuff.

What I'm trying to say is that the light which hits the bottom of the box is transferring energy which must act on the whole box and not just on the base, and the same applies to light hitting the top - in propagating that energy through the whole box it looks to me as if it should equal out. The bottom of the box feels the light punch harder because its functionality is running slow, but it transfers a lot of that energy on up to the rest of the box where the functionality of the material there is not running so slow and will not feel it as such a strong downward force. Likewise, the top of the box feels a soft punch from the light because its functionality is running faster, but it transfers a lot of that energy on down to the rest of the box where the functionality of the material is running slower such that it will feel it as a stronger upward force. The net result of this should be no movement.

Quote
Again classically when waves are moving and there is a region where the propagation speed is slower those waves will curve towards the region. Lookup Snell's Law and Huygens Principle. The wave number will also increase and of course the velocity of the waves will decrease. The difference with gravity is that the waves are the force carriers AND all particles. The waves also carry momentum p = h k and energy E = h f. This means a non speed of light particle in a gravity well standing still relative to some observer at infinity gets hit harder by photons heading downward than photons heading upward. This causes an acceleration feeling that stops when the particle equalizes the shift (free falls). Just a TINY shift in the forces causes a fairly large acceleration for... everything.

I'm still finding it hard to see how there would be such an effect unless you're using photons generated by something other than the object that's being acted upon by them. Is there any role for a difference in the speed of light downwards versus upwards? Next to the event horizon of a black hole, the speed of light upwards is very low but may still be high in a downwards direction, so I assume there's a gradual transition to that starting with a tiny difference a very long way out in space.

Quote
In fact I showed in my thread how length contraction arises simply by shifting a wave structure by v in the classical (and quantum relativistic) wave equations.

I will attempt to understand that thread properly at some point, but it will take time (my mind is loaded up with other complex work at the moment and I can't afford to get too deep into anything else).
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 08/06/2017 00:19:11
You could create light just outside the event horizon from a laser pointing directly upwards...

Your missing the point. There is no electron motion to create light in the first place.

Just outside of the event horizon there is, though it would come out as a very weak radio wave rather than light.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 08/06/2017 00:31:14
If the movement is via muscular energy, you burn calories and your body warms up and experiences fatigue. If via a machine, energy is still needed.

Indeed, but what about when there is no movement and all you want to do is hold the object still? If you put it on a table, it just sits there without the table burning energy continually to hold it up, so there's something very different going on with muscles that forces them to work hard all the time, and yet they too can hold objects up without doing any work if you just place an object directly on a piece of muscle (meat) on the floor. It must be because they're highly non-rigid and need to work hard to avoid being lengthened by the force the object is applying to them. They function something like electromagnets, so it must take a continual amount of input energy to maintain sufficient force to balance the force from the object.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 08/06/2017 11:58:17
There is no motion without time. There is no time without fundamental energy.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: phyti on 08/06/2017 17:08:13
The PE is in the g-field, formed by unknown processes, which surrounds the dominant mass M. The g-field is always ON.

In the gravitational center of a planet (where you are weightless) is the g-field still on?

Yes, but it's value is zero,since (ideally) one hemisphere cancels the opposite hemisphere.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 09/06/2017 11:42:25
Yes, but it's value is zero,since (ideally) one hemisphere cancels the opposite hemisphere

That is one way of looking at it. But that way suggests that the center is also attracted to the surface. This is not the case even though removing mass from one side does change the center of gravity. PE is just that and the energy level is reduced the greatest in the center. Mass being attracted to the most dilated energy position in space.

If you believe energy resides in mass why is the space dilated to make light travel further in clocks as mass increases its density. Energy is of space not mass if you want to follow the logic of mass and light being confounded in every frame.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: phyti on 09/06/2017 19:36:25
Yes, but it's value is zero,since (ideally) one hemisphere cancels the opposite hemisphere

That is one way of looking at it. But that way suggests that the center is also attracted to the surface. This is not the case even though removing mass from one side does change the center of gravity. PE is just that and the energy level is reduced the greatest in the center. Mass being attracted to the most dilated energy position in space.

If you believe energy resides in mass why is the space dilated to make light travel further in clocks as mass increases its density. Energy is of space not mass if you want to follow the logic of mass and light being confounded in every frame.
Remove the mass and remove the field, so they must be connected.
lookup 'shell theory', gravity rule outside mass is not the same as inside the mass.

Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 10/06/2017 14:27:33
Remove the mass and remove the field, so they must be connected.lookup 'shell theory', gravity rule outside mass is not the same as inside the mass

Yes a field arises when mass occupies space but the field creation is the affect on space already existing as energy c. Energy c dilates to accommodate and cause electron motion. Electron motion does not create a field from its own existence. What moves the electron?

In a BH there is no motion due to mass being so compact. No electron movement. And it has the strongest gravitational field in the universe. No time energy only kinetic energy. Above c attraction all mass close enough is being absorbed.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: phyti on 10/06/2017 19:01:49
In a BH there is no motion due to mass being so compact. No electron movement. And it has the strongest gravitational field in the universe. No time energy only kinetic energy.
How do you have KE with no motion
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: phyti on 10/06/2017 19:30:21
David Cooper #44;
Quote
Indeed, but what about when there is no movement and all you want to do is hold the object still? If you put it on a table, it just sits there without the table burning energy continually to hold it up, so there's something very different going on with muscles that forces them to work hard all the time, and yet they too can hold objects up without doing any work if you just place an object directly on a piece of muscle (meat) on the floor. It must be because they're highly non-rigid and need to work hard to avoid being lengthened by the force the object is applying to them. They function something like electromagnets, so it must take a continual amount of input energy to maintain sufficient force to balance the force from the object.
The structures depend on their molecular bonds to support the load. The skeleton is the supporting framework, with a low load bearing rating. The muscles are not rigid, but can be activated to boost the rigidity of the body to support a greater load. Power assisted functions are commonly used where manual efforts arent sufficient.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 11/06/2017 15:21:45
How do you have KE with no motion

Everything in the universe is moving. A BH is not moving inside itself though. KE is probably the wrong term but no term exists to separate energy from mass. BH's are the ultimate entropy of mass. Gravity is a monopole while BH's are the ultimate monopole. We define energy as work being done but a new definition is needed in physics to describe fundamental energy that move the electrons and photons. The current belief is the photons are not obstructed so they are constant. Except that they slow down then speed back up going through mass such as air then space. To say light does not slow down in air then speeds back up in space sacrifices truth for the standard model none are willing to challenge because it is a futile effort. Could you convince the pope there is no God?

Photons are a wave on and of energy particles propagating at c which is maintained in space. Energy is dilated in mass and the photon wave has to go further through space while curving a path to follow gravity dilation. Light is not attracted by gravity. Light seeks a path curved around mass following the mass (planets) dilation curve. Mass seeks a lower potential energy state. Light waves seek a higher potential energy state. Light created in a lower potential energy closer to the center of a planet is more red shifted because of dilation of energy particles. Mass dilates energy by conservation of energy to expand the particle distance of energy (which is dilation of course).

Energy is a conveyer belt of sorts for electrons encapsulating the electron and path. Particles of spin energy orientate complimentary paths for positrons and negatrons. Positrons are only in the protons and neutrons as complimentary paths never to cross in the two configurations (proton and neutron). All quarks are made up of positrons and negatrons. A negatron moves out of the proton to c of space and dilation decreases away from the proton curving the electron path back to the proton itself. This is the basis of gravity, mass attracted to more dilated space mechanically. The path of the electron would appear as rotation around a string. In 3d space there is no strings only points closer together.

If you believe there is only mass of the size we can detect you are limiting your ability to imagine possibilities for explaining actions without a understanding of cause.

I may be correct or incorrect but I always want to follow relativity. While you cannot measure energy c directly we can measure it by distance with itself for an approximation of a light second within your frame.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 11/06/2017 21:32:15
Quote
I don't know if anyone has a viable proposed account of what happens in black holes. I wonder if any information about how things behave inside them is coming from the gravitational wave data.

According to General Relativity NO information including gravity waves escapes the event horizon.

The radius of two merging blackholes of mass M is 2rs where rs is the event horizon of a single mass M blackhole. The volume we don't know anything about goes up by a factor of 8 when the two blackholes merge. Watch this video below (under number 4):


What you will notice in the video is the event horizon drastically grows when the BHs merge and even start doing so before the blackholes are 2rs away from each other.

A larger problem is that time dilates significantly close to the blackhole. Regardless of how you think this occurs the light escaping is severely redshifted and the wavelength will get severely stretched out. Notice how calm the gravity waves are around the event horizon in the videos in the link below? Gravity waves that we've detected on Earth have wavelengths of hundreds or thousands of kilometers. How much detail we can see depends on wavelength so we're severely limited with what we can see. We know we detected gravity waves, we know the waves move at c, and we know the approximate size of the blackholes that collided. We can't know what happens at the horizon or below and we're even limited close to the horizon because of time dilation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/gravitational-waves-black-holes/528807/

Quote
What I'm trying to say is that the light which hits the bottom of the box is transferring energy which must act on the whole box and not just on the base, and the same applies to light hitting the top - in propagating that energy through the whole box it looks to me as if it should equal out. The bottom of the box feels the light punch harder because its functionality is running slow, but it transfers a lot of that energy on up to the rest of the box where the functionality of the material there is not running so slow and will not feel it as such a strong downward force. Likewise, the top of the box feels a soft punch from the light because its functionality is running faster, but it transfers a lot of that energy on down to the rest of the box where the functionality of the material is running slower such that it will feel it as a stronger upward force. The net result of this should be no movement.

What you're not understanding is EVERYTHING is wavelike including the mirrors and when observed locally EVERYTHING has a propagation speed of c. Forget the entire light box (which you're seeing as a rigid object for some reason) and think of a single particle. Time is running slower on the bottom than the top. OK? Say the difference is 50%. This means time is 50% slower and the particle's frequency is oscillating 50% less on one side than the other. E = h f so if one side of the particle has energy lowered to half then like an airplane's wing the lower side of the particle will be lower "pressure." All processes will slow by 50% moving downwards doubling wavenumber. If the frequency drops by half and the wavenumber doubles this means the speed of light is 1/4 as viewed from infinity (but c viewed locally because objects are half as wide and frequency is half so light speed appears normal). A lowered speed of a wave in a medium ALWAYS curves the wave towards that medium classically. Again the only difference between gravity and a classical "medium" is that the slow down reflects in a change in wavelength AND frequency instead of just wavelength (the change in both as required by GR is ALWAYS such that c is measured to be the same locally; Leonard Susskind explains this in his series on blackholes).

Instead of the wavenumber going up by a factor of 4 and the frequency staying the same the wavenumber goes up by a factor of 2 and the frequency drops in half. This classically was viewed as impossible. Say cars evenly spaced at a mile go down the road at 100 MPH if the speed of the cars drops to 25 MPH when they cross a barrier you'd think the cars would space at 1/4 of a mile after the barrier. However, for light changing the value of c locally would change the fine structure constant, it would change the strengths of the forces relative to each other, and it would change physics as we know it. ALL Relativity requires is that frequency and wavenumber change such that c locally remains the same. Because we measure distance with wavenumber and time with frequency shifting the wavenumber and frequency corresponds to a shift in distance and time. Again k'/k = x'/x  and  f'/f = t'/t. We measure distance with light so changing wavenumber of light "curves" space and we measure time with oscillations so changing frequency of the fundamental forces changes "flow" through time.

Instead of the cars dropping to 1/4 of a mile separation they only drop to a half mile separation. This preserves c and the relative strengths of the fundamental forces. This automatically means frequency drops by 50% and f/k = .5/2 = 1/4. This doesn't require time as a fourth dimension or a true curvature of "spacetime" but rather requires nature to have a mechanism that keeps the strengths of the fundamental forces exactly the same locally. I want to figure out this mechanism. General Relativity does not give a mechanism but rather uses the equivalence principle to describe gravity.

What happens as something approaches the event horizon is that time slows down and wavenumber increases. At the event horizon wavenumber goes to infinity and time stops from the outside observer's perspective. This is exactly what Leonard Susskind says in the video below. He discusses it at about minute 10 of the video.


What I don't agree with is what happens from the perspective of the free falling observer. I think the Doppler Shift of the free falling observer does cancel the gravitational red/blue shift for the observer. However, the viewpoint for most physicists is that the time goes back to a normal rate (like you can tell what a normal rate is in your own frame). I think the time goes down to the lowered gravitationally dilated rate that locally exists. This means an in-falling observer runs slower through time and stops on the horizon. They don't know their time slows to a stop so they think they're accelerating and moving at an ever faster rate. I think blackholes are a highly compacted form of matter where time is running at the slowest rate possible and particles are crammed in to maximum density allowed for that amount of mass. I think the math we have for inside the horizon (or exactly on the horizon) is wrong. 

What do I think is the cause of gravity? Well classically light slows down in water because of the huge number of interactions with the charge structure of the medium. In a similar way particles (matter energy) may interact when their extended wavepackets start overlapping causing a slow down in c (observed from a distance) and thus shifting both frequency and wavenumber.
 
Quote
I'm still finding it hard to see how there would be such an effect unless you're using photons generated by something other than the object that's being acted upon by them. Is there any role for a difference in the speed of light downwards versus upwards?

You can't in principle measure the one-way speed of light. Why does there need to be a difference between the speed of light downwards and upwards? Again if the speed of light is 1/4 at r and this 1/4 is reflected in a 50% drop in frequency and a doubling in wavenumber the math works out perfectly (and matches GR from the outside perspective). One can certainly view gravity as space falling inwards towards the gravity well at an increasing rate. This is written into Einstein's Theory with the Equivalence Principle (gravitational acceleration appears the same as acceleration in open space). However, I don't see space in falling (or light speed increasing inward and decreasing outward) as correct. The exact center of a gravity well (say the center of the Earth) still experiences time dilation but it does not experience acceleration when viewed from the observer at infinity.

Again Relativity assumes the observer is unchanged and instead space and time change. The unchanged observer simply moves to a new time and space coordinate. I find it far more likely wavenumber and frequency changes for wavelike entities than space and time curves. The only problem is that I don't know how you'd prove a difference between the two unless one wants to take a one-way trip into a blackhole... and even more importantly they have one available. I don't think singularities exist. I think our math is showing blackholes do have a size AKA the radius of the event horizon.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 13/06/2017 22:43:43
So there's no evidence even from gravitational waves of two singularities moving towards each other and merging into a single singularity, but only evidence of black holes moving together and their event horizons merging. That means they still no evidence for the existence of anything close to being a singularity.

What you're not understanding is EVERYTHING is wavelike including the mirrors and when observed locally EVERYTHING has a propagation speed of c. Forget the entire light box (which you're seeing as a rigid object for some reason) and think of a single particle. Time is running slower on the bottom than the top. OK? Say the difference is 50%. This means time is 50% slower and the particle's frequency is oscillating 50% less on one side than the other. E = h f so if one side of the particle has energy lowered to half then like an airplane's wing the lower side of the particle will be lower "pressure." All processes will slow by 50% moving downwards doubling wavenumber. If the frequency drops by half and the wavenumber doubles this means the speed of light is 1/4 as viewed from infinity (but c viewed locally because objects are half as wide and frequency is half so light speed appears normal). A lowered speed of a wave in a medium ALWAYS curves the wave towards that medium classically.

That's more convincing explanation - I can imagine that if a particle is really a wave of some kind that might lead to it moving continually within a zone of space, any horizontal oscillation of it (horizontal over a massive object like a planet) will turn into a curve which takes the particle lower and adds downward speed to it which it further builds on such that it accelerates. I can't see a similar effect being possible for for any vertical oscillation of the particle, but I imagine that it will be oscillating in all directions and that most of those will involve curved paths which drag it down.

Quote
Leonard Susskind explains this in his series on blackholes).

My machine freezes repeatedly these days (I've cleared everything I can off the hard drive, but it must be filled up with updates or damaged sectors) and I have to keep rebooting, so I've only managed to watch a small chunk of that so far, but it appears to be telling me what I've recently begun to suspect - that there is no singularity and not even anything remotely like one. All the material that falls into a black hole stops right next to the event horizon and goes no further (unless the black hole grows bigger). If the speed of light downwards was higher than the speed upwards, which I had assumed they'd proved, then everything would have to carry on to the centre, but if the speed of light's the same in both directions at the event horizon, it's not possible for anything to get inside the black hole (unless the thing grows out past it, and even that might be impossible).

Quote
What I don't agree with is what happens from the perspective of the free falling observer. I think the Doppler Shift of the free falling observer does cancel the gravitational red/blue shift for the observer. However, the viewpoint for most physicists is that the time goes back to a normal rate (like you can tell what a normal rate is in your own frame).

Their clocks would stop completely if they reached the event horizon and no further ticks would be possible for them - the black hole will evaporate away as Hawking radiation in a cold, dark universe before another tick could occur for them and they would effectively evaporate away too as Hawking radiation before any further tick could happen.

Quote
You can't in principle measure the one-way speed of light. Why does there need to be a difference between the speed of light downwards and upwards?

It's the idea of singularities or near-singularities and the near-certainty with which physicists appear to pin on them which has always led me to think the speed of light must be faster downwards than up - if the speed is actually the same up and down, then there's nothing remotely like a singularity in any black hole.

Is your position on all this stuff part of a named camp with lots of people saying the same things as you or is it unique to you? You appear to be closer to the mark than anyone else I've ever encountered and I want to make sure I can continue to read up on this.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 15/06/2017 05:40:23
Quote
So there's no evidence even from gravitational waves of two singularities moving towards each other and merging into a single singularity, but only evidence of black holes moving together and their event horizons merging. That means they still no evidence for the existence of anything close to being a singularity.

Yes, exactly. Using Gauss' law mass uniformly spread inside the blackhole, existing in a singularity in the center, spread over the surface, or otherwise symmetrically placed would produce the exact same gravitational field. This is why the metric for a blackhole is used to model the Earth and Sun (except here r >> rs). Furthermore, according to General Relativity NO information leaves the event horizon including gravitational waves. Even the angular momentum of a blackhole manifests as frame dragging occurring outside the event horizon. From an outside observer's perspective using GR nothing crosses the event horizon and no structure exists to the outside observer. Why even discuss the inside? According to any physics we can do (if our theories are correct) the inside does not exist.

Quote
That's more convincing explanation - I can imagine that if a particle is really a wave of some kind that might lead to it moving continually within a zone of space, any horizontal oscillation of it (horizontal over a massive object like a planet) will turn into a curve which takes the particle lower and adds downward speed to it which it further builds on such that it accelerates.

Think about this: take f'/f = t'/t , kx'/kx = x'/x,  ky'ky = y'/y , kz'/kz = z'/z and input into GR and you get the same exact math as GR. For example replacing x for kx does nothing to how the math works (but then GR's equations make no sense inside the event horizon). Light is our ruler so a shift in kx corresponds to a shift in measured distance and a shift in f corresponds to a shift in time. I don't see gravity "curving space-time" but rather gravity distorting waves. The waves are distorted such that the fine structure constant remains... constant. This is required for the laws of physics to remain the same (locally) in all reference frames and this guides how GR forms it's solutions. I'm not sure what you mean by the horizontal and vertical.

If light is viewed as a constant locally then why can't we call "curvature of space-time" the "curvature" of wavenumber and frequency spectra? The principles would be the same. Noting c is a constant when measured by our rulers and clocks then stating space and time curves leads to the inescapable conclusion that wavenumber and frequency spectra must appear to curve (leading to an apparent change in c non-locally). Does the curvature of spacetime cause the apparent curvature of these wave properties or does the curvature of the wave properties cause the apparent curvature of spacetime? I think our current theory GR gets the cause and effect backwards.

Quote
I can't see a similar effect being possible for for any vertical oscillation of the particle, but I imagine that it will be oscillating in all directions and that most of those will involve curved paths which drag it down.

According to Quantum Field Theory "particles" are field excitations (waves). It's impossible by any method I've ever seen in Quantum Mechanics to explain particles without a wave nature. Wave particle duality is kind of a misnomer. 95% of what particles do can be fully explained as wave entities. The 5% is important and makes quantum mechanics hard to understand and a little bizarre. With interpretations like MWI or Bohmian Mechanics (or similar ideas) this last 5% may be explainable. However, "wave collapse" and the Plank Constant h doesn't change how the particles transform... as waves. Other particle like properties can be explained with the wavepacket concept.

Quote
Their clocks would stop completely if they reached the event horizon and no further ticks would be possible for them - the black hole will evaporate away as Hawking radiation in a cold, dark universe before another tick could occur for them and they would effectively evaporate away too as Hawking radiation before any further tick could happen.

Yes, this is definitely a possibility and to me makes the most sense. Perhaps the matter exists on the event horizon or it's distributed in the lowest state throughout the black hole. GR predicts that c goes to negative infinity from the outside observer's perspective at the singularity. Perhaps nature lower bounds this at 0 or very close to 0. What Einstein did makes sense as we have no experiments to input a lower bound into the math. Nearly all physicists agree something breaks but I think it's closer to the horizon than the singularity.

Quote
It's the idea of singularities or near-singularities and the near-certainty with which physicists appear to pin on them which has always led me to think the speed of light must be faster downwards than up - if the speed is actually the same up and down, then there's nothing remotely like a singularity in any black hole.

Well there could still be a thing like a singularity if c goes to negative infinity (where at any single point c is the same up, down (not left and right) but it is still decreasing towards negative infinity at the singularity from the outside observer's perspective; it changes slowly over a distance so up is c + dc and down is c - dc but it's not for example 0 upwards at the event horizon and 2c downwards). I'm not sure how people will say over and over that c is constant both directions when discussing Special Relativity when no experiment measures the one-way speed of light independent of two spatially separated clocks. We simply can't measure the one-way speed. These same people then go on to explain GR by stating c is larger downward into the black hole than it is outward (the event horizon traps light on the surface up but sucks it down in the other direction). Again... the one-way speed of light cannot be measured. The equivalence principle works equally well here. To measure it you're again relying on two spatially separated clocks. Two spatially separated clocks running at different rates is indistinguishable from acceleration. We can't tell if the clocks are in different environments and thus running at different rates or... the speed of light is truly anisotropic. This is why physicists have very weird things happening on the EH such as matter falling in but also plastering onto the event horizon (and entangling). This is a central reason they thought up the holographic principle.

I personally think changing to a different velocity is anisotropic but gravity is isotropic (gravity can be a mixture of both if the gravity well is changing velocities). I find that nature tends to use all options available to her.

Quote
Is your position on all this stuff part of a named camp with lots of people saying the same things as you or is it unique to you? You appear to be closer to the mark than anyone else I've ever encountered and I want to make sure I can continue to read up on this.

I don't like named camps. However, I've been looking into blackholes for more than 15 years and I'm no layperson. Many of the ideas in my explanation come from different physicists and some go all the way back to Lorentz. However, I don't know of anyone who pushes this wave interpretation of GR as much as I do.
 


Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 22/06/2017 15:11:57
Yes, exactly. Using Gauss' law mass uniformly spread inside the blackhole, existing in a singularity in the center, spread over the surface, or otherwise symmetrically placed would produce the exact same gravitational field. This is why the metric for a blackhole is used to model the Earth and Sun (except here r >> rs). Furthermore, according to General Relativity NO information leaves the event horizon including gravitational waves. Even the angular momentum of a blackhole manifests as frame dragging occurring outside the event horizon. From an outside observer's perspective using GR nothing crosses the event horizon and no structure exists to the outside observer. Why even discuss the inside? According to any physics we can do (if our theories are correct) the inside does not exist.

First we have to understand what causes gravity. Only then will we have a clue to BH's. If you follow relative size for  BH we go from a marble to a football field in normal relativity, normal mass. A BH is a football field full of marbles. Relativity has no relationship to a BH other than how it affects space. We need to separate space from mass as the conductor of and creator of energy c. If we consider energy c is of space and not of mass your waves become c through space as a representation of mass rather than normal mass itself. Bata radiation, alpha radiation just a wave form of propagation wave of space energy c. This dual system could explain relativity and quantum mechanics very well. I can create a grid pattern of space particles (dark mass) with spin orientation (dark energy c) that would create relativity observations. No information leaves the BH because they are mass suckers. They will not evaporate because energy exists only outside of a BH. Light would not be sucked inward because light is a wave on energy c. There is no energy c inside of a BH. Dilation does not increase to the center of a BH as it does in normal mass. It is a single gravity particle like an electron in normal space. Mass exists inside of a BH as an electron in a fractal universe.


Think about this: take f'/f = t'/t , kx'/kx = x'/x,  ky'ky = y'/y , kz'/kz = z'/z and input into GR and you get the same exact math as GR. For example replacing x for kx does nothing to how the math works (but then GR's equations make no sense inside the event horizon). Light is our ruler so a shift in kx corresponds to a shift in measured distance and a shift in f corresponds to a shift in time. I don't see gravity "curving space-time" but rather gravity distorting waves. The waves are distorted such that the fine structure constant remains... constant. This is required for the laws of physics to remain the same (locally) in all reference frames and this guides how GR forms it's solutions. I'm not sure what you mean by the horizontal and vertical.If light is viewed as a constant locally then why can't we call "curvature of space-time" the "curvature" of wavenumber and frequency spectra? The principles would be the same. Noting c is a constant when measured by our rulers and clocks then stating space and time curves leads to the inescapable conclusion that wavenumber and frequency spectra must appear to curve (leading to an apparent change in c non-locally). Does the curvature of spacetime cause the apparent curvature of these wave properties or does the curvature of the wave properties cause the apparent curvature of spacetime? I think our current theory GR gets the cause and effect backwards.

You are exactly correct but the curve is a two dimension explanation of a three dimensional dilation from the center of mass. A gradient energy dilation of energy particles c spin moving electrons. It is the movement of the electrons that dilate space energy c increasing its dilation down a gravity well. Mass is attracted to the most dilated position of energy. Mass creates its own attraction through dilated zero point energy (spin). Dilated space also dilates mass in GR to measure the longer distance for light with a longer measuring stick. Reactions in all frames are relative to that frames dilation of measurement sticks. Reactions are relative to time measurement and time measurement is relative to dilation.


According to Quantum Field Theory "particles" are field excitations (waves). It's impossible by any method I've ever seen in Quantum Mechanics to explain particles without a wave nature. Wave particle duality is kind of a misnomer. 95% of what particles do can be fully explained as wave entities. The 5% is important and makes quantum mechanics hard to understand and a little bizarre. With interpretations like MWI or Bohmian Mechanics (or similar ideas) this last 5% may be explainable. However, "wave collapse" and the Plank Constant h doesn't change how the particles transform... as waves. Other particle like properties can be explained with the wavepacket concept

Macro mass particles and micro mass energy c waves are separate. A wave packet of propagated energy c solves the particle wave duality.  We can transfer energy as a particle when we have a wave of particles and be a wave that is not virtual. A real physical item for the energy transfer. An actual cause of relativity rather than a postulate.


Yes, this is definitely a possibility and to me makes the most sense. Perhaps the matter exists on the event horizon or it's distributed in the lowest state throughout the black hole. GR predicts that c goes to negative infinity from the outside observer's perspective at the singularity. Perhaps nature lower bounds this at 0 or very close to 0. What Einstein did makes sense as we have no experiments to input a lower bound into the math. Nearly all physicists agree something breaks but I think it's closer to the horizon than the singularity.

It exists at a zero state of energy c throughout the BH. Light bends completely around the BH because there is no energy c for a wave to ride. Energy is pushed out of existence within a BH causing extreme dilation where normal mass is attracted to locally.
Well there could still be a thing like a singularity if c goes to negative infinity (where at any single point c is the same up, down (not left and right) but it is still decreasing towards negative infinity at the singularity from the outside observer's perspective; it changes slowly over a distance so up is c + dc and down is c - dc but it's not for example 0 upwards at the event horizon and 2c downwards). I'm not sure how people will say over and over that c is constant both directions when discussing Special Relativity when no experiment measures the one-way speed of light independent of two spatially separated clocks. We simply can't measure the one-way speed. These same people then go on to explain GR by stating c is larger downward into the black hole than it is outward (the event horizon traps light on the surface up but sucks it down in the other direction). Again... the one-way speed of light cannot be measured. The equivalence principle works equally well here. To measure it you're again relying on two spatially separated clocks. Two spatially separated clocks running at different rates is indistinguishable from acceleration. We can't tell if the clocks are in different environments and thus running at different rates or... the speed of light is truly anisotropic. This is why physicists have very weird things happening on the EH such as matter falling in but also plastering onto the event horizon (and entangling). This is a central reason they thought up the holographic principle. I personally think changing to a different velocity is anisotropic but gravity is isotropic (gravity can be a mixture of both if the gravity well is changing velocities). I find that nature tends to use all options available to her.

Velocity of light does not change but the energy c density does. Light has to go further in more dilated space. The electron jumps further causing a red shift measurement in a lesser dilated position. If you take a detector from one dilated position to another it would automatically change calibration to the new dilated position by changing cell size to the new dilated position. Our perception never changes but our reaction rate  and relative size does.

By the way we can measure the one way speed of light on the Earth using atomic clocks and relativity. Clocks on the Earth measure the same tick rate at sea level. North to south directions measure distance only without rotation interference. From the North or south axis we can synchronize all clocks with just knowing the distance. And we can measure the distance with an atomic clock.

Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 23/06/2017 19:19:51
First we have to understand what causes gravity.

Mass/energy and how it moves causes gravity. What I think you're trying to say is how does mass/energy do it?

Quote
By the way we can measure the one way speed of light on the Earth using atomic clocks and relativity.

To measure the one-way speed of light you must use 2 or more clocks that are spatially separated. You must know when the light beam is at point A and you must know when the light beam is at point B. Einstein, Lorentz, and others exhaustively showed that fast clock transport (synchronizing with light) and slow clock transport are identical.

You cannot measure the one-way speed of light because it depends on the synchronization of the two different clocks. I can be in a reference frame moving 99% the speed of light relative to some other frame and I could say all light is moving c relative to me in all directions (we're in flat spacetime in this example). I could look at the other frame and light would be going 1.99c in one direction and .01c in the other relative to that frame. From my perspective this is justified and follows relativity. However, the other frame sees the speed of light as 1c in both directions... because they synchronized their clocks to their reference frame. The combination of time dilation, contraction, and most importantly the clocks being out of sync accounts for the fact that I can see the light moving at 1.99c and .01c relative to them but they see it as 1c in both directions. They chose a certain synchronization for their clocks.

Why is the following true?  "showed that fast clock transport (synchronizing with light) and slow clock transport are identical"

Einstein and others proved it by using the Lorentz Transformation (backed by experiment). However, I think matter follows the same transformation as light for a deeper reason. All particles seem to be made out of similar stuff (massive or massless). The Lorentz Transform and the Relativistic Doppler Shift Equation can derive each other directly (I showed how the LT and the Relativistic DS are the same in another thread). Matter and massless particles are both excitations of fields (waves and this is how they're described in QFT) just that matter particles occur when the excitation of one field interacts with another field (like the Higgs Field). The complex interaction slows down the group velocity of the particle-wave giving it a rest frame (speed less than c), a rest mass, and an internal time (proper time). However, the underlying nature of all particles is still to move at the speed of light. All fields still propagate change at c and all transform via the LT but some just get "stuck in the mud" via interacting with other fields.

A classical example of this (but less pure and fundamental) occurs when light propagates through a medium like water. The photon moves less than the maximum speed c because of the numerous interactions with the charge structure of the medium. The photon gets an effective rest mass and has the ability to change internally (a proper time). However, the fundamental nature of the photon still moves at c.

I don't understand the other stuff you said.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 23/06/2017 22:11:32
I don't understand the other stuff you said.

You're not alone in that.

Hi dutch,

I've been thinking about the functionality of matter slowing as it descends into a gravity well, and the business of how the kinetic energy which it appears to acquire in falling downwards is equal to the amount of energy lost by its functionality slowing. But what happens to that energy when it gets deep enough for the functionality to slow towards a halt while its progress towards the event horizon of a black hole also slows to a crawl? I wonder if it starts to manifest itself more and more as some equivalent of relativistic mass.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 24/06/2017 05:47:03
Quote
I've been thinking about the functionality of matter slowing as it descends into a gravity well, and the business of how the kinetic energy which it appears to acquire in falling downwards is equal to the amount of energy lost by its functionality slowing. But what happens to that energy when it gets deep enough for the functionality to slow towards a halt while its progress towards the event horizon of a black hole also slows to a crawl? I wonder if it starts to manifest itself more and more as some equivalent of relativistic mass.

Well looking at gravity exclusively with time dilation only works with weak gravity fields. It also definitely holds true for an observer falling into the gravity well that doesn't notice their time slowing down (one doesn't notice this effect on themselves). It correctly predicts acceleration towards an area where time dilation is more extreme. However, the full treatment must include the Lorentz Contraction effect. Matter and energy gets compacted according to the outside observer as it approaches the event horizon. Time slowing down doesn't cause the matter to disappear.

Also time may dilate slowing some interactions but some other interaction is drastically increasing. Gravity is most likely an effect where the wavepackets of particles overlap and start to interact (some physicists have thought the effect could be due to entanglement of particles and "spacetime" in one way or another is emergent). This interaction has one direct effect. It slows down the clocks including the proper time of particles. Light falling into this area of time dilation will naturally contract as it enters the field (similar to light entering a medium). Matter particles will also contract just like the light. We measure distance with light so space seems to warp. The matter and energy doesn't disappear as the inertia of the blackhole increases. The gravitational field is also increasing in size as matter falls towards the blackhole. The particles may be ticking their clocks slower but they're "entangling" much more (whatever you want to call it; actual quantum entanglement may play a role) .

I look at photons going into a medium for some inspiration as the medium slows down the photons due to the large number of interactions with the charge structure of the medium. The photons also compress together but classical medium don't slow down time.

I could easily see gravity working by matter/energy interacting slowing down time and (as a result) contracting objects. The speed of light would be maintained as c locally in all directions to preserve the ratio of the strength of the fundamental forces. To have the speed of light as something other then c (as locally measured) is really demanding that somehow the fundamental forces don't maintain their strength ratio. Which force and which field excitation wouldn't transform like the other forces / excitations? If everything follows the same transformation then c must locally remain the same.

Frame dragging would also be predicted. If I orbit around the equator counter to the Earth's rotation I fly over more ground per second than if I fly with the Earth's rotation. If time dilation increases by interacting with more particles then going against the rotation would increase time dilation and going with rotation would lessen it. If extreme enough one might be forced to rotate with a body (or lose the fight with gravity) and hence we have a frame dragging effect.

So to recap:

1) Matter/energy interacting with matter/energy leads to time dilation (the more there is and the closer together the greater the effect). How the matter/energy is moving affects this interaction.

2) Time dilation leads to an acceleration effect towards the massive body (as explained with the red and blue shift in previous comments).

3) Entering an ever increasing area of time dilation naturally leads to length contraction (as explained before and can be explained similar to light entering a medium like water; metamaterials can simulate this effect by continuously changing the refractive index; this also leads to a curving effect). Conservation of wavetrain/information also demands this effect. Gravity is of course different because of its effect on time/frequency.

4) Preserving the strength of the fundamental forces relative to one another forces the preservation of c locally. Wavenumber in x, y, and z will stretch/contract as time dilates such that c remains the same locally in all directions. This would look like space "warping."

5) The Plank length is derived from the strengths of the fundamental forces. The Plank length would transform just like everything else. The Plank length like the speed of light is a locally measured value.

6) Mass wouldn't disappear entering into a gravity well even if approaching an event horizon. Sure, time is dilated but the matter is also compressed and the inertia and gravitational field of the mass is very much present.

7) Gravity may dilate time (shift frequency lower) and thus increase/decrease wave number in x, y, and z to maintain a constant c locally. However, I don't think this fundamentally changes the background of the universe whatsoever. An entire blackhole gravity well Lorentz Transforms relative to a far off observer just like a small spaceship would (actual acceleration [changing speed] still causes some ripples AKA gravitational waves just like acceleration causes EM waves but Lorentz Translation, constant speed, does not).

I never invoked a change in any kind of background at all to explain gravity. I have gravity as an effect of matter/energy interacting with matter/energy. You could say the total speed of light is c everywhere (in an absolute sense). The gravitational interaction of matter saps some of this speed (ability to interact) just like moving at high-speed through space slows down one's progress through time. This changes the speed of light viewed non-locally (it's speed through space). Gravity isn't a "change in a 3D background medium" and it can't be (Relativity wouldn't make any sense). However, gravity caused by excitations (particles) interacting with other excitations within a medium (fields) slowing time isn't limited to the same rule. You can't have frame dragging effects / time dilation and describe gravity with a classical medium. However, gravity warping space and time has always bothered me. I find it much more likely waves are affecting other waves altering their structure (kx, ky, kz, and f shift).

Why keep a LET like viewpoint? Because it makes too much sense and fits together too well (as shown in my other post with all the math). Gravity as a change in an aether doesn't fit and doesn't work. However, gravity caused by interaction between mass/energy (as described above) riding on a preferred frame that Lorentz Transforms could work. Similar to how the tick of time slows as one approaches the speed of light the matter/matter interaction saps some of the fundamental propagation speed. Does this make sense? Everything is fundamentally moving at c (so it can Lorentz Transform). However, linear motion saps some of this speed (slowing time). Likewise, the tendency "to get stuck in the mud" interacting with a plethora of nearby particles also saps some of this speed (slowing time).

Everything in a blackhole must have a total speed of c because the entire blackhole (center of mass) can move at a maximum speed of c relative to a far off observer. It must Lorentz Transform in the same way as a whole as a small spaceship.

8) I'm not really sure what happens at event horizons but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they don't really exist. Perhaps gravity wells "bottom out" with a time dilation extremely close to zero (blackholes effectively exist). We may learn more about the area around an event horizon with more study of grav waves. However, it won't be easy because of time dilation.

Again Einstein isn't wrong even if my ideas here are right as his theory matches experiments thus far done. You can change out x for kx, y for ky, z for kz, and t for f and think of GR in terms of waves as I do (although I go a little further than this). Invoking the equivalence principle and the speed of light being measured as c locally would tell you how these must shift (and would match GR if accounting for the flow of mass/energy). Nearly all physicists think GR needs modification somewhere between the event horizon and singularity but we don't have any experiments to decide where this modification is. This modification could lead to a slightly different description of gravity and I think GR is wrong closer to the horizon.

This is my best attempt to explain how gravity works.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/06/2017 13:33:44
Quote
I've been thinking about the functionality of matter slowing as it descends into a gravity well, and the business of how the kinetic energy which it appears to acquire in falling downwards is equal to the amount of energy lost by its functionality slowing. But what happens to that energy when it gets deep enough for the functionality to slow towards a halt while its progress towards the event horizon of a black hole also slows to a crawl? I wonder if it starts to manifest itself more and more as some equivalent of relativistic mass.

Well looking at gravity exclusively with time dilation only works with weak gravity fields. It also definitely holds true for an observer falling into the gravity well that doesn't notice their time slowing down (one doesn't notice this effect on themselves). It correctly predicts acceleration towards an area where time dilation is more extreme. However, the full treatment must include the Lorentz Contraction effect. Matter and energy gets compacted according to the outside observer as it approaches the event horizon. Time slowing down doesn't cause the matter to disappear.

Also time may dilate slowing some interactions but some other interaction is drastically increasing. Gravity is most likely an effect where the wavepackets of particles overlap and start to interact (some physicists have thought the effect could be due to entanglement of particles and "spacetime" in one way or another is emergent). This interaction has one direct effect. It slows down the clocks including the proper time of particles. Light falling into this area of time dilation will naturally contract as it enters the field (similar to light entering a medium). Matter particles will also contract just like the light. We measure distance with light so space seems to warp. The matter and energy doesn't disappear as the inertia of the blackhole increases. The gravitational field is also increasing in size as matter falls towards the blackhole. The particles may be ticking their clocks slower but they're "entangling" much more (whatever you want to call it; actual quantum entanglement may play a role) .

I look at photons going into a medium for some inspiration as the medium slows down the photons due to the large number of interactions with the charge structure of the medium. The photons also compress together but classical medium don't slow down time.

I could easily see gravity working by matter/energy interacting slowing down time and (as a result) contracting objects. The speed of light would be maintained as c locally in all directions to preserve the ratio of the strength of the fundamental forces. To have the speed of light as something other then c (as locally measured) is really demanding that somehow the fundamental forces don't maintain their strength ratio. Which force and which field excitation wouldn't transform like the other forces / excitations? If everything follows the same transformation then c must locally remain the same.

Frame dragging would also be predicted. If I orbit around the equator counter to the Earth's rotation I fly over more ground per second than if I fly with the Earth's rotation. If time dilation increases by interacting with more particles then going against the rotation would increase time dilation and going with rotation would lessen it. If extreme enough one might be forced to rotate with a body (or lose the fight with gravity) and hence we have a frame dragging effect.

So to recap:

1) Matter/energy interacting with matter/energy leads to time dilation (the more there is and the closer together the greater the effect). How the matter/energy is moving affects this interaction.

2) Time dilation leads to an acceleration effect towards the massive body (as explained with the red and blue shift in previous comments).

3) Entering an ever increasing area of time dilation naturally leads to length contraction (as explained before and can be explained similar to light entering a medium like water; metamaterials can simulate this effect by continuously changing the refractive index; this also leads to a curving effect). Conservation of wavetrain/information also demands this effect. Gravity is of course different because of its effect on time/frequency.

4) Preserving the strength of the fundamental forces relative to one another forces the preservation of c locally. Wavenumber in x, y, and z will stretch/contract as time dilates such that c remains the same locally in all directions. This would look like space "warping."

5) The Plank length is derived from the strengths of the fundamental forces. The Plank length would transform just like everything else. The Plank length like the speed of light is a locally measured value.

6) Mass wouldn't disappear entering into a gravity well even if approaching an event horizon. Sure, time is dilated but the matter is also compressed and the inertia and gravitational field of the mass is very much present.

7) Gravity may dilate time (shift frequency lower) and thus increase/decrease wave number in x, y, and z to maintain a constant c locally. However, I don't think this fundamentally changes the background of the universe whatsoever. An entire blackhole gravity well Lorentz Transforms relative to a far off observer just like a small spaceship would (actual acceleration [changing speed] still causes some ripples AKA gravitational waves just like acceleration causes EM waves but Lorentz Translation, constant speed, does not).

I never invoked a change in any kind of background at all to explain gravity. I have gravity as an effect of matter/energy interacting with matter/energy. You could say the total speed of light is c everywhere (in an absolute sense). The gravitational interaction of matter saps some of this speed (ability to interact) just like moving at high-speed through space slows down one's progress through time. This changes the speed of light viewed non-locally (it's speed through space). Gravity isn't a "change in a 3D background medium" and it can't be (Relativity wouldn't make any sense). However, gravity caused by excitations (particles) interacting with other excitations within a medium (fields) slowing time isn't limited to the same rule. You can't have frame dragging effects / time dilation and describe gravity with a classical medium. However, gravity warping space and time has always bothered me. I find it much more likely waves are affecting other waves altering their structure (kx, ky, kz, and f shift).

Why keep a LET like viewpoint? Because it makes too much sense and fits together too well (as shown in my other post with all the math). Gravity as a change in an aether doesn't fit and doesn't work. However, gravity caused by interaction between mass/energy (as described above) riding on a preferred frame that Lorentz Transforms could work. Similar to how the tick of time slows as one approaches the speed of light the matter/matter interaction saps some of the fundamental propagation speed. Does this make sense? Everything is fundamentally moving at c (so it can Lorentz Transform). However, linear motion saps some of this speed (slowing time). Likewise, the tendency "to get stuck in the mud" interacting with a plethora of nearby particles also saps some of this speed (slowing time).

Everything in a blackhole must have a total speed of c because the entire blackhole (center of mass) can move at a maximum speed of c relative to a far off observer. It must Lorentz Transform in the same way as a whole as a small spaceship.

8) I'm not really sure what happens at event horizons but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they don't really exist. Perhaps gravity wells "bottom out" with a time dilation extremely close to zero (blackholes effectively exist). We may learn more about the area around an event horizon with more study of grav waves. However, it won't be easy because of time dilation.

Again Einstein isn't wrong even if my ideas here are right as his theory matches experiments thus far done. You can change out x for kx, y for ky, z for kz, and t for f and think of GR in terms of waves as I do (although I go a little further than this). Invoking the equivalence principle and the speed of light being measured as c locally would tell you how these must shift (and would match GR if accounting for the flow of mass/energy). Nearly all physicists think GR needs modification somewhere between the event horizon and singularity but we don't have any experiments to decide where this modification is. This modification could lead to a slightly different description of gravity and I think GR is wrong closer to the horizon.

This is my best attempt to explain how gravity works.

Well that is interesting but also a lot to digest. I assume k is the Bondi factor.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 24/06/2017 17:08:48
1) Matter/energy interacting with matter/energy leads to time dilation (the more there is and the closer together the greater the effect). How the matter/energy is moving affects this interaction.

Dilation of space does not bring things together. They increase the distance by dilation of energy. Gravity is not contraction it is dilation for electrons to go further per/cycle tick.


2) Time dilation leads to an acceleration effect towards the massive body (as explained with the red and blue shift in previous comments).

Yes but time is the cycle in electrons, in physical clocks, Don't confuse time with distance the electron has to travel. There is no fixed travel distance we can relate using timing techniques. Time is energy c to move the electrons timing is the cycle with distance being the frame.

3) Entering an ever increasing area of time dilation naturally leads to length contraction (as explained before and can be explained similar to light entering a medium like water; metamaterials can simulate this effect by continuously changing the refractive index; this also leads to a curving effect). Conservation of wavetrain/information also demands this effect. Gravity is of course different because of its effect on time/frequency

Unlikely, Dilation increases the space the electron travels in and increases the volume mass resides  so mass expands further down a gravity well. If the gravity is greater than the speed of light energy can no longer keep atoms apart and a BH of atoms next to each other with no motion within the BH.


4) Preserving the strength of the fundamental forces relative to one another forces the preservation of c locally. Wavenumber in x, y, and z will stretch/contract as time dilates such that c remains the same locally in all directions. This would look like space "warping."

There has to be communication between particles. They do not touch so where is the communication? Energy c dilation is the c locally from space and not mass. Energy moves the electrons and photons to be confounded n every frame.


5) The Plank length is derived from the strengths of the fundamental forces. The Plank length would transform just like everything else. The Plank length like the speed of light is a locally measured value.

Yes Planks length depends on the energy dilation c of space.


6) Mass wouldn't disappear entering into a gravity well even if approaching an event horizon. Sure, time is dilated but the matter is also compressed and the inertia and gravitational field of the mass is very much present.

Mass falls together when energy can no longer keep molecules apart into a BH. This happens with attraction at the speed of light. Mass expands by dilation until mass pops.


7) Gravity may dilate time (shift frequency lower) and thus increase/decrease wave number in x, y, and z to maintain a constant c locally. However, I don't think this fundamentally changes the background of the universe whatsoever. An entire blackhole gravity well Lorentz Transforms relative to a far off observer just like a small spaceship would (actual acceleration [changing speed] still causes some ripples AKA gravitational waves just like acceleration causes EM waves but Lorentz Translation, constant speed, does not).

You might have that backwards. The dilation of energy increases the volume of mass but does not increase mass. The extra volume increases the wavelength towards the red. It is mass being attracted to greater dilation of space locally that causes attraction (g=a) 32 ft/s/s.

Fields are either an extension of mass or separate physical entities where mass affects space and space affects mass. If its space then energy c comes from space to move the electrons. For relativity to work the particles of space have to be uniform and spin in complimentary association.

I have a configuration that would create relativity. Electron motion is at the speed of light. Electrons move through space in a helix. Like moving on a vibrating string but free to move in all directions and no extra dimensions.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 24/06/2017 18:34:44
Hi dutch,

Thanks for putting so much time into your replies - they are very much appreciated, and I'm ever more convinced that you're on the right path with it. I imagine that you've written a fair amount about this elsewhere, so I wonder if you have links to any of that so that I (and others) can read through it all without you having to rewrite it all here? Then I'll hopefully be able to go straight to discussing the deeper issues instead of dragging you back repeatedly into the shallows.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 26/06/2017 14:08:52
Hi Dutch
QuoteBy the way we can measure the one way speed of light on the Earth using atomic clocks and relativity. To measure the one-way speed of light you must use 2 or more clocks that are spatially separated. You must know when the light beam is at point A and you must know when the light beam is at point B. Einstein, Lorentz, and others exhaustively showed that fast clock transport (synchronizing with light) and slow clock transport are identical.

On the Earth all clocks tick the same at sea level. The Earths Axis either North or South down a Latitude line at sea level will only tick off distance traveled unlike the Longitude. So in affect an atomic clock can measure the speed of light by distance traveled between the north and south pole at sea level along a Latitude. If we can trust the two way speed of light then it stands to reason that we can adjust the distance for the one way speed of light with an atomic clock measured as distance by difference in ticks. All measurements are indirect in one way or another. We either trust Relativity or we have nothing to trust. The Canadians used 7 atomic clocks in a van driving from NY to SF. They found a 14 ns difference from the synchronized adjustment demonstrating relativity for the one way distance. Start out at any Latitude and travel the same road in a Longitude and back the clocks will return synchronized with the one you left. The MX result was because clocks tick at the same rate.

Apparently the Earth carries its rest frame in its Latitude similar to gravity going straight down. Gravity is another indication energy c measurements rotate with the Earth. Gravity follows potential energy, potential energy follows dilation and dilation follows attraction to the highest dilation locally. g=a towards the lowest energy level. Dilation of energy means less dense energy. When will we understand energy state is a physical issue and not a virtual one?
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 26/06/2017 17:49:36
Start out at any Latitude and travel the same road in a Longitude and back the clocks will return synchronized with the one you left.

Not possible unless you move too slowly for the timing difference to be measurable.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: dutch on 26/06/2017 19:05:37
Quote
Well that is interesting but also a lot to digest. I assume k is the Bondi factor.

No, my k is the wavenumber. I'm defining k as k = 1/λ . Normally k = 2π/λ but I'm using the non-angular form so I'm dropping the 2π. I want the same type of unit as frequency which is cycles/time. Wavenumber is cycles/distance.

I'm relying on the following fact from Relativity as an observation in Special Relativity:

t'/t = f'/f   = γ ( 1 - v/c)

x'/x = k'/k = γ (1 - v/c)

Actually in this form k' (or f') = k-bondi factor. So my k and the k-bondi factor are related.

Even with the classical Doppler Shift there is a large amount of symmetry between the k and f forms:

kmo/k = (1 - v/c)     and   kms/k = 1/(1 + v/c)

fmo/f = (1 - v/c)       and   fms/f = 1/(1 + v/c)

The classical Doppler shift treats wavenumber and frequency identically. The difference with the above is there are two different general forms so you can tell you're moving relative to some preferred frame. However, in physics experiments like the "Couder Walking Drop Experiment" the classical medium takes on Relativistic symmetry. I discuss the symmetries and mechanics of waves at length in my thread "Different View on Relativity." In any case there is a large symmetry between the forms.

Going off of the idea everything is wavelike (using quantum mechanics for support) we don't measure distance and we don't measure time directly. We measure cycles, frequency, and wavenumber.

You can look at General Relativity as warping spacetime or you can look at it as distortion of waves. In Relativity if light in a vacuum increases or decreases in wavenumber from point A to point B the space is curved. If frequency changes from point A to point B then time is warped. Remember with this I'm meaning a shift in the entire spectrum (not a specific k or f).

For the Schwartzchild Metric we have:

dτ = (1 - rs/r) dt - 1 / (1 - rs/r) dr + dΩ

The formula for the frequency is (the below are outside the event horizon):

f √(1 - rs/r) = f'

The formula for time dilation is:

t √(1 - rs/r) = τ

The formula for wavenumber in the radial direction is:

k / √(1 - rs/r) = k'

The formula for x in the radial direction is:

x / √(1 - rs/r) = x'

There is a symmetry here as there must be (conservation of information and wavetrain demands it). We use light to define our distance (actual definition of the meter is based on it). We fundamentally use it to define our time also. We can define our meter as 1 trillion cycles of a certain frequency of light. If we count 1 trillion cycles its our meter. Interferometers can accomplish doing exactly this. If we send a beam of light in towards a blackhole the light compresses and wavenumber goes up. However, acknowledging the wavelike nature of all particles leads to a different conclusion. Instead of space and time curving wave structures are distorting.

Showing how the following gives us the Lorentz Transformation:

t'/t = f'/f   = γ ( 1 - v/c)   →    t' = γ ( t - t v/c) 

x'/x = k'/k = γ (1 - v/c)   →    x' =γ (x - x v/c)

Assume the Einstein Clock Synchronization Convention (synchronize clocks and rulers with light   c t  = x  and  t = x / c)

t' = γ ( t -  v x/c) 

x' =γ (x - v t)

The above is the Lorentz Transformation. The Einstein Clock Synchronization Convention is a method of synchronization one can always assume (but it's not the only one).

The following is always true:

t'/t = f'/f  ,   x'/x = kx'/kx  ,  y'/y = ky'/ky  ,  z'/z = kz'/kz
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: GoC on 26/06/2017 21:02:30
Quote from: GoC on Today at 14:08:52Start out at any Latitude and travel the same road in a Longitude and back the clocks will return synchronized with the one you left.Not possible unless you move too slowly for the timing difference to be measurable.

You have not fully comprehended the scope of atomic clocks ticking at the same rate on the Earth at sea level. This allows a fixed point all along the Latitude. Moving west of a latitude shortens the distance while moving East increases the distance. The distances cancel for two way speed of light exactly. Your clock speeds up going West and slows down going East. When you stop it remains same as all clocks at sea level. We are using all situations at sea level or another equal level. You could circle the earth 8 times at the equator west to east and lose a little time upon synchronization. When you retraced your steps that 8 times the clocks would be back in synchronization. It does not matter the speed of the clock to get there and back. Each direction will be different by c+v and c-v for distance. This is just an energy issue. You used the same fundamental energy in both directions as you did sitting still. This proves energy is of space and not mass. Energy of space remains c. Latitude is a fixed position in space for light locally only measuring distance North and South without rotation. Both directions will be equal distances. The true reason the MMX had a null result.
Title: Re: LET: gravity and magnetism explained
Post by: David Cooper on 27/06/2017 18:29:17
You have not fully comprehended the scope of atomic clocks ticking at the same rate on the Earth at sea level. This allows a fixed point all along the Latitude. Moving west of a latitude shortens the distance while moving East increases the distance. The distances cancel for two way speed of light exactly. Your clock speeds up going West and slows down going East. When you stop it remains same as all clocks at sea level. We are using all situations at sea level or another equal level. You could circle the earth 8 times at the equator west to east and lose a little time upon synchronization. When you retraced your steps that 8 times the clocks would be back in synchronization.

You've made the mistake of thinking that the trip with a clock running slow will exactly balance out the trip with the clock running fast. It won't - it will always lose more time when running slow than it gains back when running fast.