0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Entropy properties following this concept.Space point entities tend to collapse to a single point. This can be viewed as negative energy. The information pushed into the system, also known as energy, does the opposite and can be viewed as positive energy.The tendency to collapse is a factor that, reduces the entropy of the system while the information, as positive energy increases the entropy. The positive energy is always matches the negtive energy. The total entropy depends on the definition of entropy. As a degre of disorder, the total entropy varies with time.Gravity.Instead of time space curvature, the gravity is simply a tendency of space to collapse to its initial state. As it collapses its mass/density increases. To balance this you need energy. An high density space near an even higher density will require more energy to be pushed away so the effect is that those density will travel toward each other.
The metric of space coresponds to the point entities of this concept. Near objects the metric of space is contracted. This translates to increased point entities density
Despite, energy expanding space being more intuitive, it might be exactly the opposite. Energy, makes these point entities gathering , otherwise they have the tendency to dissipate.
Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass,
which is more space density.
Initially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is not
Space is more dynamic than I thought. But somehow acceleration is harder to explain because I need to imagine waves accelerating other waves.
On top of this all waves like EM or waves corresponding to strong/weak force travel at the same rate (x/t=ct=c).
Then a velocity below c in a x direction must be because of field values propagating in y an z direction in a circular pattern.
. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.
When crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.
If gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.
Quote Analyzing the equivalence principle it looks like space itself gets continuously attracted by mass,In my opinion only mass gets attracted to mass.
Quotewhich is more space density.Why do you view it as more space density?
QuoteInitially, I thought it only gets attracted until a point of equilibrium and only Black holes don't establish the equilibrium, but it is notEquilibrium is the point between two bodies where a third body between has equal attraction.
Quote. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.
QuoteWhen crossing a glass cube, probably one of the reasons light gets slowed down is due to trajectory deviation and not higher space density.It is the decrease in energy density in mass that causes the refraction of light direction that causes the trajectory change.
QuoteIf gravity is contracting space, then gravity waves are space waves.You are confusing Doppler and gravity as the same cause. They are not. In Relativity we first had postulates. Then the math that fell from those postulates mimicked observation to show the power of Relativity as reality. The third part is the mechanics. This is what scares those in science today. What if you worked on something all your life and found it to be false? It would be as difficult as convincing the Pope there was no God. No disrespect intended. And the followers are even more committed to follow the subjective interpretations wanting to be with the group of professed knowledge.I totally believe in Relativity postulates and math. I make suggestions of a mechanical process that may or may not be true but like the postulates my mechanical view follows relativity. If you were to go into the rabbit hole (Relativity) You would need more than the math to know why things grow and shrink or why you can only see the eyes of the cat. The mechanics o relativity is the next step in the process of understanding.Why do you think the voyagers slowed down? Or did they?
QuoteQuote. Also when crossing a higher density space light must not slow down to confirm x/t constant, which seems to be true.When the voyagers left the solar system they went into a higher density space (less dilated). Their clocks tick rate increased. This sent back a closer signal like the voyagers slowed down. It was incorrect to assume they slowed down. It was just another proof of GR. c energy being more dense away from mass.Why higher density space? I think they went into lower density space, thus tick rates increased. I don't know what you mean by closer signal.
The voyagers could have slowed down because of the gravity exerted by our galaxy.
But also being in a more dilated space would make them sent the same signal.
Gravity is a difference in dilations of space. This does cause attraction between masses. But the affect between the weight of the voyagers and the solar system is insignificant by volume.
That is what I thought initially. The Minkowski spacetime diagram presents the universe as a single 4d block. This creates the appearance of a static universe. My idea is that the time dimension is totally different. Energy conservation is along the time axis only. The time as a distance dimension is only a mathematical tool. The universe is not static. When you say 'bent spacetime' you think of fowllowing a curve in spacetime, and this is correct. But this deprive you intuitively by the idea of motion. Therefore gravity is not difference in space dilation. Gravity is relative motion of space structure. Gravity is caused by a continuous process of space contraction and it is not a force itself. It doesn't follow the rules of newtonian forces. But this is what Einstein says but not quite explicitly when explaining GR. You simply follow the time line in a spacetime diagram and see that space contracts. When light is moving through this space its trajectory becomes curved.You are saying "Gravity is a difference in dilations of space". "Difference in dilations" is not very clear. Dilation is not density, but a process of decreasing density. Did you actually mean the same thing I've described? I've described it simply as a process of space contraction.
Space dilation process is the opposite of gravity also known as antigravity. Negative mass is simply a structure that creates space dilation in all directions. Black Holes probably do that but only at poles. Since mass is given by space density multiplied by volume, negative mass is not mass but an energy that makes space dilate
The points and their mass are infinitesimal, but the sum is a finite number. That is what mass essentially is.
It turns out that this problem of mass as the source of gravity is not really a problem because Einstein field equations of GR don't use the newtonian mass neither.Acording to GR, the gravitational field is caused by stress-energy tensor. In newtonian gravity, mass density is the source.
Einstein doesn't deny the aether either. I understand he says that completely rejecting the existence of an aether deprives space from all the properties,
We need to make time absolute again to escape out of this relativity illusion. These are the conclusions following this idea.
Apparently this idea of a dynamic space made of point entities doesn't seem to work
Particle spin is only expressed as orbital motion, hence angular momentum is generated. Unidirectional propagation like light only has orientation (polarisation) not angular momentum.
The c as a speed limit in absolute space works because c is the propagating speed of all fields. All fields move at a constant speed, only orbital trajectories make the appear like slowed down.
In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.
You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).
QuoteIn absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.Here we have to understand how we measure time. Relative 0.5c does not make a clock slow down by half the tick rate of relative rest. The tick rate slows down by ~13.3924%. This can be shown using geometry. The geometry and Lorentz contraction of tick rate are the same. The contracted tick rate is due to the longer path the two way direction of light has to take with velocity of mass.
At the fundamental level friction doesn't make sense.
The example you use for mechanics seems to far from a fundamental level to me. For example the wheels on a flat surface experience friction but we an asume it is a perfect grip (no energy loss).
All bosons are propagations of a Boson wave. Bosons are the wheels that propagate waves recognized as particle constructs.
If we take the atom down we might find atoms are positrons and negatrons (different spins) in a stable pattern created by fusion in suns from dark mass energy.
PS it would take 10 Bosons to complete one angular forward cycle of the electron. Any more would stop complimentary spin and any less would cause a chaotic electron path. I can not think of any other spin path but I am only of average intelligence.
This is my reverse engineering Quantum mechanics to produce relativity observations. I would like to view scenarios from others with greater intelligence.
You need to make drawing of this because what you mean by wheels, could be anything
Why do you say atoms could be positrons? Positrons are the particles that anihilate electrons. Electrons are the 'negatrons'.
Why 10 bosons ?
The ability of a man to solve problems doesn't depend on a single number (IQ). There is a huge amount of factors we can't even think about. IQ is only a orientative value. Einstein had a good IQ though and made discoveries nobody could, but there are people with insanely high IQ that didn't. How much you dedicate your time studying a particular problem matters more than anything
Yes, the idea is that my model needs to be proven wrong using accepted theories not using new theories like yours. It can be done using your model but I don't understand it. Your model also need to be confronted to modern theories to see if it is correct and not using my concept.
This new model of mine suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry. Complex particles inner geometry change time and space. An atom moving faster changes geometry and its internal tick rate changes. Because the same thing happen to electrons, it means they also have an internal cycle you could use as a clock. When travelling faster the geometry of the electron changes and makes it complete the cycles in a longer time. Most probably it is a spiral motion. Moving at c makes the spiral a single line. At rest there is a circle. The electron particle also has a wavelength associated with it (de Broglie). This wavelength experiences Doppler effect. Hence the moving electron will be measured with higher frequency / lower wavelength. However the Doppler effect is a different aspect. The clock tick rate is not the same thing as the associated wavelength. This has only to do with what a wave detector reads. Doppler effect is an illusion. It is like when you move toward pulses the appear to increase frequency. In reality they don't. This is the advantage of using the absolute reference frame. There are many other advantages. It is the complex particles geometry (any particle that has mass) that give the illusion of changing the geometry of spacetime.