[David Cooper]

My calculation worked on a different tack.  Sure, the local density of matter here is larger than average.  There's a galaxy here.  But at some scale, that density is relatively homogeneous.  There is this much matter in a region of radius 0.95 BLY to 1.05 BLY, and its radius is 1 BLY, and so you can compute the gravity impact X of that shell of material.  The next shell has more mass (by R²) but less gravity (by 1/R²) so that shell should have the same gravitational well as the former.  They're all the same, so you need to keep adding them forever, even the shells beyond the event horizon.  (I say adding because I'm adding negative gravitational potential, not multiplying dilations are you are doing).

I can see now that there could be a lot more slowing than I suggested. If you keep adding them forever (or I keep multiplying forever), then we'll end up with all clocks stopped completely, so the universe wouldn't behave in the way that it clearly does. Material that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either, so there should be a finite limit to the slowing even if there's an infinite amount of stuff out there.

(This slowing, when applied to a light clock, reveals a slowing of the speed of light, so whatever our fastest ticking clock does in the way of running slow, that directly reflects the maximum speed of light in the universe, and it will be slower than c.)

It gets more complicated with big distances because relativistic effects come into play.  Things get more compressed with distance, so the shells mass starts going up with distance, and I'm not sure if that increases our calculation that seemed to be an infinite series of constants adding up to infinite negative potential.  I've heard that said total potential exactly cancels the positive potential of all mass and energy everywhere, so that puts a limit on my infinite series.

Are you sure it's because of relativistic effects? Is it not more dense further away because we're looking back in time at less expanded parts of space? Whatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).

The important thing here is to get some kind of feel for how much a clock in deep space is slowed, and it appears to be a small fraction slower than a theoretical clock outside of a gravity well, somewhere in the region one tick in a thousand being missed. Even one in a hundredth would be a small amount slower than the ideal clock.

I got a lot more than that.  Is there a flaw in my reasoning?  Not exactly claiming authority here.  I just worked that out from some limited assumptions.

I think your approach is right - each band out to 13.8 billion lightyears should be taken into account, each having more impact than the one before it due to that extra density. It's a matter of doing lots of googling to find out the distribution of matter at different distances and crunching the numbers. I don't have time to go into that at the moment, but I'll put it on the to-do list.

[David Cooper]

One is invoking the inverse square law to explain the energy density at various rungs of the ladder as the g wave ascends, as is depicted in the Inverse Square diagram. Is it agreeable that we use the inverse square law to quantify the decline in intensity of the gravitational force as we go up the ladder?

It's approximately right, but there's a complicating factor which was discovered with the Mercury anomaly and which becomes more significant the deeper you go into a gravity well. I haven't explored this in any detail as most of the physics I've explored relates to special relativity. The simulation I've suggested we make doesn't need to be precise though - it's sufficient for it to have clocks ticking at different heights in a gravity well without needing to care about putting figures to the depth, because all we need to do is compare clock A with clock B while clock B is slowed with whatever energy density you declare to be present there.

Also, in doing the simulation, we agreed we have to be watching for where the absolutes creep in. The equations used in the calculations when we apply the inverse square law include various SI units of measure, for mass, distance, time, etc. The use of SI units is one place where we should be careful about not letting absolutes creep in. It is hard to communicate without them, but standard units of measure are tied to invariant values and strictly defined conditions in how they are established, but does that mean they are tied to absolutes of nature?

You have to use some units, and established standards are as good as any because you can convert to any alternative units just by multiplying by a conversion factor.

We will be using them when we do the calculations in order to help quantify the values of the gravitational wave energy at various rungs of the ladder, so can we stipulate that their use should not be construed as some absolutes being invoked?

Just use any values you like and if they invoke any absolutes that aren't supposed to exist in the model, that will become clear at some point.

How to you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?

And if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #242

David’s simulation idea in Reply #227
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75389.msg563028#msg563028

Your gravitational wave idea, if it can produce the right numbers, should do just as well as any other mechanism, though I have to wonder where these gravitational waves are going to come from.

I wanted to go back to your Reply #227 to discuss if and how we can get our heads together.

Your first question was wondering about where these gravitational waves are going to come from.

I know that you haven’t had a chance to familiarize yourself with my Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, and I also know how that name sounds, but I’m sticking with it because it is quite descriptive; you would have to have an in depth understanding of the ISU to see how perfect the name is.

The ISU is not General Relativity. Because it is not General Relativity, in order to understand the ISU, you have to resist the temptation of see it from the perspective of curved spacetime. Spacetime, and curved spacetime, is not a feature of the ISU. Instead, all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at all points in space.The energy that must be employed to curve space in GR, is there in the ISU in the form of gravitational waves that carry energy.


I know you can’t imagine how those gravitational waves could get there, because based on general relativity learning, massive objects in space just sit there like inert mute objects, unless they move relative to other massive objects. In GR, it is that relative motion caused by the curvature of spacetime that triggers the emission of the gravitational wave energy that has been detected by LIGO. And in GR, the conception is that the objects emitting any meaningful, detectible gravitational waves, have to be very massive and their orbital motion must be at an extreme velocity, like two in-swirling black holes. That is not a description of the source of gravitational waves in my model, or how they are emitted by mass in the ISU model.


I think of gravitational wave energy on the basis that all mass has two components; inflowing and out flowing gravitational waves. That is a different and drastic idea to someone immersed in GR and curved spacetime, but gravitational wave energy replaces curved spacetime while leaving the same, very precise, mathematical equations to describe and predict it, the EFEs. But the ISU model comes with wave mechanics that describe “how” objects follow curved paths through space, as they are always observed to do. There is no mechanics that describe the “how” in GR, but there is a “how” in the ISU.

In the ISU, there is a mechanism for how that works. Einstein’s field equations are very precise, and that fact is why General Relativity won the day, back in the early 1900s, by correctly predicting the perihelion of the planet Mercury, But that success and superior reputation is based on a mathematical explanation of how mass curves spacetime, in spite of the fact that there is no real mechanism that you can point to. That mechanism is sorted out in the ISU; the ISU invokes the mathematics of the EFEs, and explains the mechanics on the basis of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.



The answer to your first question would then be, the gravitational waves come from the ever present and ever changing gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Everywhere in space, there are gravitational waves coming at you at the speed of light from all directions, from an infinite history of the two components of mass, inflowing an out flowing gravitational wave energy.

If you have a clock sitting on a static planet in deep space, the clock must be slowed by the planet's mass, but there's nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves because none of it is moving.

That statement is based on your experience and learning of General Relativity (and SR). When you think of the presence of mass being maintained in space by the continual functioning of the two ISU components of mass, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy, you then put that in place of the concept that there is nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves. The planet, and all objects with mass are composed of wave-particles, and wave particles are composed of inflowing and out flowing wave energy convergences. Each convergence has a hint of mass.

It would need to be creating energy out of nothing all the time to radiate off as gravitational waves, …

Not in the ISU model, as explained. The energy is always there in space, coming and going in all directions at all times, from an infinite history of the process of inflow and out flow that continually refreshes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

…but black holes clearly don't do that - they only produce detectable waves when orbiting each other in the final stages before merger, and while they're doing that, any object further out which is orbiting the pair of black holes on a circular path will have its clock tick at a near-constant rate while the strength of gravitational waves passing through it changes radically.

That thinking comes from your familiarity with General Relativity, and the simulation that we are looking at producing comes from a different model of cosmology called the Infinite Spongy Universe model.

However, it doesn't matter here whether your theory is broken or not - all that matters is that you're somehow producing numbers that generate the right amount of slowing of clocks, so if that needs a constant supply of gravitational waves passing through a clock to slow it, you can have that.

I hope you can make the adjustments in your thinking that are necessary to talk about a simulation from the perspective of the ISU model. You have to disregard your own thinking, and go with mine to do a simulation of my model.

Note that I have explained where the gravitational waves that are depicted in the inverse square law diagrams, and that I describe as filling the gravity well at a declining intensity as you go up the ladder, so do you see now where the waves are coming from in the ISU?

If so, the you have the answer to the question:

How do you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?

And if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?

In the ISU, an infinite universe, the ladder in the gravity well is defined to be of infinite length, and if, for purposes of the simulation, you are using a single massive object as the bottom of the well, then the higher parts of the ladder are lower than the parts above them, on an infinitely long ladder.

[Halc]

I can see now that there could be a lot more slowing than I suggested.

I'm glad you saw the conclusion I came to.  Not sure if there was some factor I missed that invalidated the conclusion.

If you keep adding them forever (or I keep multiplying forever), then we'll end up with all clocks stopped completely, so the universe wouldn't behave in the way that it clearly does.

There are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another.  That is entirely different than actually being stopped.  An example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.
I may be stopped relative to an absolute observer, but we know there is nowhere this absolute observer (whose watch runs at real time) can be, so my relative speed to this nonexistent reference is of little concern to me.

Material that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either,

I disagree with this one.  It assumes gravity travels, and at light speed.  The specific matter attracting us doesn't exist except in superposition, but the gravity it exerts very much is there.

(This slowing, when applied to a light clock,

A light clock is a clock, no different than any other.

Are you sure it's because of relativistic effects? Is it not more dense further away because we're looking back in time at less expanded parts of space?

I am talking about the mass that is, not the picture we see of the past.  This isn't about observation.  Those galaxies are length compressed as is the space between them, so they're closer together from our reference frame, the frame being dilated by this distant mass.

Whatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).

The big bang is not happening over there.  That image is billions of years old.  Earth is pulled by the moon where it is now, not by where it was a second ago (where we observe it).  This is pretty easily demonstrated.

I think your approach is right - each band out to 13.8 billion lightyears should be taken into account, each having more impact than the one before it due to that extra density. It's a matter of doing lots of googling to find out the distribution of matter at different distances and crunching the numbers. I don't have time to go into that at the moment, but I'll put it on the to-do list.

I see no reason to stop the bands at the Hubble radius.

[David Cooper]

The ISU is not General Relativity. Because it is not General Relativity, in order to understand the ISU, you have to resist the temptation of see it from the perspective of curved spacetime. Spacetime, and curved spacetime, is not a feature of the ISU. Instead, all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at all points in space.The energy that must be employed to curve space in GR, is there in the ISU in the form of gravitational waves that carry energy.

In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is no bending of Spacetime either. Something slows the speed of light in the vicinity of mass (and at a great distance too), but that thing that causes the slowing has not been identified. The slowing of the speed of light to different degrees in different places causes light to follow curved paths which match up to the paths taken in GR. If matter is thought of as being made of waves moving like light, that matter would be accelerated towards "sources" of gravity in the right manner, and the slowing of functionality which results from greater depth in a gravity well exactly matches the amount of kinetic energy apparently created out of nothing by the inward acceleration - the energy was actually there already in the higher speed of functionality of the material which is lost as the acceleration occurs. ISU sounds as if it could be a version of LET in which a mechanism has been proposed for the slowing of light. That proposed mechanism sounds wrong as it depends on continual creation of energy, but we don't have any good explanation yet for the mechanism, so there's no harm in exploring options. (Of course, with dark energy there appears to be a continual generation of new energy too, but that could be a mere illusion of accelerated expansion which we would see if there's a slowing of functionality of observers as space expands - the expansion could be slowing while our functionality slows faster.)

That is not a description of the source of gravitational waves in my model, or how they are emitted by mass in the ISU model.[/font]

Your gravitational waves appear to be gravity being propagated as waves rather than the gravitational waves that LIGO detects, but you appear to lump them together as the same thing. I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that gravity is some kind of wave radiated off from all matter and energy and which loses strength as it spreads out - the energy of this radiation could perhaps be of a kind that adds up to nothing, but which slows the speed of light in the part of space it's passing through, and the more such waves are passing through a bit of space, the more clocks will be slowed there. That is a potential mechanism behind LET. One possible problem with it is how those waves are emitted from black holes, but maybe these waves aren't slowed in the way that light is - they may be free to spread out at c in all directions. However, in a system with orbiting things moving at relativistic speed, gravitational attraction has to be adjusted along with everything else in order to fit with the phenomenon of relativity (not any specific theory of relativity, but the actual mechanism of relativity itself). The manner in which these waves spread out must also conform to the rules of length contraction and aberration. Furthermore, the speed of light is slowed relative to that moving system and not relative to space itself (when considering the component of slowing generated by local gravity) - it's particularly important to recognise this point, because without that you would enable light to escape from the event horizon at the back of a moving black hole (and thereby get out into deep space). That's why I think the mechanism for slowing light is that matter is surrounded by a dark-matter like extension of matter which spreads out through space, diminishing in density as it gets further from the centre of the matter, and this acts as a medium to slow light (while it's also impossible to suck this extended part of matter into a black hole).

What we both agree on though is that there is something there at any point in space which slows light below it's theoretical maximum, and the more of that something is there, the more light will be slowed in that place. The actual mechanism is unimportant for the simulation - the simulation will fit with whatever the real mechanism is.

That statement is based on your experience and learning of General Relativity (and SR).

No - it's based on LIGO detecting gravitational waves and that kind of wave not being compatible with what you're calling gravitational waves because the ones that LIGO detects do not come off non-accelerating bodies, whereas you need just as many of your waves to come off a non-acceleration body as an accelerating one of the same mass, and LIGO shows that you don't get that - it only detects the last moments leading into merger, and then the gravitational waves stop completely.

When you think of the presence of mass being maintained in space by the continual functioning of the two ISU components of mass, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy, you then put that in place of the concept that there is nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves. The planet, and all objects with mass are composed of wave-particles, and wave particles are composed of inflowing and out flowing wave energy convergences. Each convergence has a hint of mass.

You may be able to find a mechanism for some kind of wave coming off matter all the time, but it doesn't look to me as if it can be the same kind of wave as the ones LIGO detects. Perhaps those are the same kind though, just insignificant due to their relative scarcity and high peak strength, so most of the slowing of functionality could be driven by an astronomical number of gravitational waves of infinitesimal magnitude. I don't think it can be the same mechanism though, because the LIGO ones are carrying energy lost by orbital decay, whereas the waves you need to be coming off all matter all the time would have to emit energy without any such decay, meaning the energy has to be taken from somewhere else. None of this need worry us though when it comes to a simulation designed to explore time - the viability of the slowing mechanism is not important for that, and the simulation will necessarily be compatible with whatever the real mechanism is.

Not in the ISU model, as explained. The energy is always there in space, coming and going in all directions at all times, from an infinite history of the process of inflow and out flow that continually refreshes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

You have more of it in some places than others, and it radiates out from places with higher energy density into areas with less. That leaves you with a constant depletion of that energy in the areas of higher energy density which means they are not getting back as much energy as they are putting out.

That thinking comes from your familiarity with General Relativity, and the simulation that we are looking at producing comes from a different model of cosmology called the Infinite Spongy Universe model.

I don't think through the lens of GR (or SR). I use LET, and LET is so close to your model that they may in most respects be the same model.

I hope you can make the adjustments in your thinking that are necessary to talk about a simulation from the perspective of the ISU model. You have to disregard your own thinking, and go with mine to do a simulation of my model.

I don't need to disregard my own thinking to go along with yours - this part that we're disagreeing on is unimportant to the simulation. You have a proposed mechanism which could fill a mechanistic gap in LET. There are other proposed way of filling that mechanistic gap, but all of them have the same impact on the speed of light by slowing it down (as a light clock would demonstrate directly).

Note that I have explained where the gravitational waves that are depicted in the inverse square law diagrams, and that I describe as filling the gravity well at a declining intensity as you go up the ladder, so do you see now where the waves are coming from in the ISU?

There is no problem with that part, regardless of any difficulties that may apply to generating them.

If so, the you have the answer to the question:

How do you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?

And if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?

In the ISU, an infinite universe, the ladder in the gravity well is defined to be of infinite length, and if, for purposes of the simulation, you are using a single massive object as the bottom of the well, then the higher parts of the ladder are lower than the parts above them, on an infinitely long ladder.

I was adding a question of my own to your question, so both were aimed at fans of GR, though not in any expectation of them being answered - it's just about making them think.

[David Cooper]

There are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another.  That is entirely different than actually being stopped.

It is not different from it actually being stopped. In any example where one is stopped relative to another, that one is stopped 100%.

An example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.

Neither of them is stopped unless one is moving at c, and if he's moving at c, his functionality (apart from his ability to move at c) is 100% halted.

Material that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either,

I disagree with this one.  It assumes gravity travels, and at light speed.  The specific matter attracting us doesn't exist except in superposition, but the gravity it exerts very much is there.

If you're right, then it puts a maximum limit on how much matter exists out of sight. Any more than that maximum and all functionality is halted, preventing anything from happening at all beyond the expansion of space (with no observers in the universe being able to recognise it or anything else as happening).

A light clock is a clock, no different than any other.

It directly illustrates the slowing of light. What we call the "speed of light" is a speed that light can never reach, and it's worth just taking a moment to recognise that. When people talk about measuring the speed of light and provide the value c for it, they are always failing to measure correctly the speed of the light they're measuring, and the more you're right about how much slowing there is, the further out they are in their assertions.

I am talking about the mass that is, not the picture we see of the past.  This isn't about observation.  Those galaxies are length compressed as is the space between them, so they're closer together from our reference frame, the frame being dilated by this distant mass.

Well, the gravitational pull on us should be coming from the past action there when things were closer together, so there could be two effects both increasing density over distance. However, in LET with an added recognition of the absolute frame shifting over distance such that all galaxies are relatively stationary relative to the local fabric of space (which is what would happen with an expanding space fabric), there should be no significant length contraction acting on them or the distances between them.

Whatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).

The big bang is not happening over there.  That image is billions of years old.  Earth is pulled by the moon where it is now, not by where it was a second ago (where we observe it).  This is pretty easily demonstrated.

We are seeing back towards the big bang in every direction, but we're just seeing radiation from that time that's been travelling ever since. My point is that any gravity acting on us from matter that's too far away for light ever to reach us from there due to the expansion should be acting from the singularity 13.8 billion years ago rather than from where that material is now - it has not had the opportunity to "bend Spacetime" here since the big bang (and it didn't have any opportunity to do so before the big bang either, which is why I think it likely has no impact on us at all). With both GR and LET, the gravity wells of Earth and moon both move with the body they're associated with, and the gravitational pull is instantly applied by the local part of one body's gravity well to the other body. When you accelerate the moon, half a month later you will still have the moon's gravity well keeping pace with the moon very closely, but distant parts of the well must lag behind as they adjust to try to keep up - that adjustment should propagate at the speed of light, which means that distant objects affected by their part of the moon's gravity well are effectively reacting to what the moon did long ago rather than what it's doing now (although they are reacting instantly to the local part of the moon's gravity well (local to these distant objects; not local to the moon).

[Halc]

There are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another.  That is entirely different than actually being stopped.

It is not different from it actually being stopped. In any example where one is stopped relative to another, that one is stopped 100%.

For instance from an accelerating frame of 1G a little over a light year from me, I am stopped, but it bothers me not the least.  The experience is the same as falling into a uniform-field black hole.  Things behind me do not exist to the frame I just described.

So I find it a bit of a fault with your view that you think otherwise.  You need to solve the problem that you apparently experience infinite absolute dilation, and I don't need to do that since I don't posit a time flow.
That's actually an interesting argument against flowing time.  I should bring it up in a philosophy thread somewhere.

An example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.

Neither of them is stopped unless one is moving at c, and if he's moving at c,

Nobody is moving at c in that example.
You even agreed with that.  It is the example of trying to move the long ship a finite distance in minimal time, except in this example, I don't turn off the forward thrust after a while.

If you're right, then it puts a maximum limit on how much matter exists out of sight.
 Any more than that maximum and all functionality is halted, preventing anything from happening at all beyond the expansion of space (with no observers in the universe being able to recognise it or anything else as happening).

OK, you're trying to save your view by discarding the Copernican principle.  I was more hoping you would show me that I wasn't right.  I just figured that out myself.  It isn't an argument that I've seen asserted by physicists.  Why not?  I bet there is something wrong with it.

I am talking about the mass that is, not the picture we see of the past.  This isn't about observation.  Those galaxies are length compressed as is the space between them, so they're closer together from our reference frame, the frame being dilated by this distant mass.

Well, the gravitational pull on us should be coming from the past action there when things were closer together,

Again, this assume gravity travels at some speed.  It doesn't.  It is a field, not information.  You can show that the field from distant mass must be completely uniform, but that mass must exist.  It comes from objects in no particular state (unmeasured objects), so they cannot produce anything but a perfectly uniform field.  QM says that more than does relativity.

so there could be two effects both increasing density over distance. However, in LET with an added recognition of the absolute frame shifting over distance such that all galaxies are relatively stationary relative to the local fabric of space (which is what would happen with an expanding space fabric), there should be no significant length contraction acting on them or the distances between them.

I have a hard time arguing with that point, so I didn't work in length dilation into my calculation.  Inertial frames are only locally valid, so one gets on thin ice with arguments that depend on things like density dilation at vast distances.

With both GR and LET, the gravity wells of Earth and moon both move with the body they're associated with, and the gravitational pull is instantly applied by the local part of one body's gravity well to the other body. When you accelerate the moon, half a month later you will still have the moon's gravity well keeping pace with the moon very closely, but distant parts of the well must lag behind as they adjust to try to keep up - that adjustment should propagate at the speed of light, which means that distant objects affected by their part of the moon's gravity well are effectively reacting to what the moon did long ago rather than what it's doing now

Correct.  For objects to which the moon exists, acceleration of the moon is information, and that must travel at c.  But you are describing gravity waves now, and gravity waves do no reach us from objects beyond the event horizon.  Gravity field from it all still exists, perfectly uniform beyond a certain distance.

[David Cooper]

For instance from an accelerating frame of 1G a little over a light year from me, I am stopped, but it bothers me not the least.

Due to the change in which frame's the absolute frame at that distance, you are not stopped by the action far away. If you were stopped though, you wouldn't be bothered in the least because you wouldn't be functioning and it would be impossible for you to do anything.

The experience is the same as falling into a uniform-field black hole.  Things behind me do not exist to the frame I just described.

If you fall into a black hole, your functionality is stopped and any idea that it continues is just a fiction that comes out of applying a broken model.

You need to solve the problem that you apparently experience infinite absolute dilation, and I don't need to do that since I don't posit a time flow.

By not having any time flow, you have no causality, converting all the apparent causality into infinite luck instead, aka magic.

That's actually an interesting argument against flowing time.  I should bring it up in a philosophy thread somewhere.

It merely reveals that you're using a broken model.

Nobody is moving at c in that example.
You even agreed with that.  It is the example of trying to move the long ship a finite distance in minimal time, except in this example, I don't turn off the forward thrust after a while.

If no one's moving at c, why do you think one of them would be stopped?

OK, you're trying to save your view by discarding the Copernican principle.  I was more hoping you would show me that I wasn't right.  I just figured that out myself.  It isn't an argument that I've seen asserted by physicists.  Why not?  I bet there is something wrong with it.

How is it discarding the Copernican principle?

Again, this assume gravity travels at some speed.  It doesn't.  It is a field, not information.  You can show that the field from distant mass must be completely uniform, but that mass must exist.  It comes from objects in no particular state (unmeasured objects), so they cannot produce anything but a perfectly uniform field.  QM says that more than does relativity.

It still needs time to set up that field, and it hasn't had that time. That setting up propagates at c.

But you are describing gravity waves now, and gravity waves do no reach us from objects beyond the event horizon.  Gravity field from it all still exists, perfectly uniform beyond a certain distance.

There is a delay in setting up a field - it is not done instantaneously across any distance. If you could accelerate a star to relativistic speed, the shape of its gravity well would have to length-contract to conform to relativity, but that contraction would take time to happen. Ultimately it would reduce its pull on something distant ahead of it, but that change would not affect that distant object straight away.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #248

In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is no bending of Spacetime either. Something slows the speed of light in the vicinity of mass (and at a great distance too), but that thing that causes the slowing has not been identified. The slowing of the speed of light to different degrees in different places causes light to follow curved paths which match up to the paths taken in GR. If matter is thought of as being made of waves moving like light, that matter would be accelerated towards "sources" of gravity in the right manner, and the slowing of functionality which results from greater depth in a gravity well exactly matches the amount of kinetic energy apparently created out of nothing by the inward acceleration - the energy was actually there already in the higher speed of functionality of the material which is lost as the acceleration occurs.

I don’t see too much comparison between the ISU and LED, so I’m posting a link to the Wiki on LED for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

The reason I’ve never really taken the time to present my layman science enthusiast’s comparison between Lorentz Ether Theory and the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) layman level model is because LET was followed closely by Einstein’s very successful SR and GR which took the spotlight, and so my main comparisons have been between GR and the ISU.

ISU sounds as if it could be a version of LET in which a mechanism has been proposed for the slowing of light. That proposed mechanism sounds wrong as it depends on continual creation of energy, but we don't have any good explanation yet for the mechanism, so there's no harm in exploring options.

There is no continual creation of energy in the ISU. The continual gravitational wave energy out flow emitted by mass is replaced by the continually inflow of gravitational wave energy absorbed by mass from the gravitation wave energy density of space surrounding it: it is an inflow and out flow, subject to the change in density that exists at and near the particle boundary.

The thinking is that at all points in space, gravitational waves are inflowing from an infinite history of the inflow and out flow from massive objects at all distances. When the inflowing waves are absorbed by mass, the velocity of the inflowing wave decreases because the gravitational wave energy density of mass is so much higher than the gravitational wave energy density of the surrounding space. Conversely, as the gravitational wave energy from within the mass is emitted into surrounding space, the velocity of the gravitational waves increase to the speed of light in that surrounding space medium.

(Of course, with dark energy there appears to be a continual generation of new energy too, but that could be a mere illusion of accelerated expansion which we would see if there's a slowing of functionality of observers as space expands - the expansion could be slowing while our functionality slows faster.)

…

Your gravitational waves appear to be gravity being propagated as waves rather than the gravitational waves that LIGO detects, but you appear to lump them together as the same thing. I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that gravity is some kind of wave radiated off from all matter and energy and which loses strength as it spreads out - the energy of this radiation could perhaps be of a kind that adds up to nothing, but which slows the speed of light in the part of space it's passing through, and the more such waves are passing through a bit of space, the more clocks will be slowed there.

Good thinking, however:
What I thought LIGO detects was the velocity of light down one arm of the apparatus vs the velocity of light down the other. Any variation sets off the alarm. The chirping is a fluctuating pulse, which is interpreted as the ripples in spacetime caused by the rapid and increasing speed of the two black holes orbiting each other, but you would also get chirping if the system that was emitting ISU gravitational waves from the two individual bodies was those two bodies in an in swirling death spiral.

The key is that the intensity of the radiation must be high enough to trigger LIGO by changing the wave energy density down one arm vs the other. That apparently requires very massive bodies that are being accelerated to relativistic velocities in the death spiral.

That is a potential mechanism behind LET. One possible problem with it is how those waves are emitted from black holes, but maybe these waves aren't slowed in the way that light is - they may be free to spread out at c in all directions.

...
However, in a system with orbiting things moving at relativistic speed, gravitational attraction has to be adjusted along with everything else in order to fit with the phenomenon of relativity (not any specific theory of relativity, but the actual mechanism of relativity itself). The manner in which these waves spread out must also conform to the rules of length contraction and aberration. Furthermore, the speed of light is slowed relative to that moving system and not relative to space itself (when considering the component of slowing generated by local gravity) - it's particularly important to recognise this point, because without that you would enable light to escape from the event horizon at the back of a moving black hole (and thereby get out into deep space). That's why I think the mechanism for slowing light is that matter is surrounded by a dark-matter like extension of matter which spreads out through space, diminishing in density as it gets further from the centre of the matter, and this acts as a medium to slow light (while it's also impossible to suck this extended part of matter into a black hole).

What we both agree on though is that there is something there at any point in space which slows light below it's theoretical maximum, and the more of that something is there, the more light will be slowed in that place. The actual mechanism is unimportant for the simulation - the simulation will fit with whatever the real mechanism is.

This explanation of the ISU may help. Photons are wave-particles with mass whose gravitational out flow, radiation, is light emitted spherically from the photon mass as the photon travels at the speed of light. The spherical wave front of the emitted light and the photon wave-particle in the ISU traverse space together, but the wave front flattens out and broadens, and so the wave front can go through both slits in a two slit experiment, while the core portion of the photon particle can only go through one slit.

Since in the ISU model light is the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave particle, and since no light escapes a black hole, the thinking would be that the photons with mass that emit light as their gravitational out flow are emitting the light right there in the black hole where the photons are captured, and so neither the photons nor their radiated light can escape the black hole.

No - it's based on LIGO detecting gravitational waves and that kind of wave not being compatible with what you're calling gravitational waves because the ones that LIGO detects do not come off non-accelerating bodies, whereas you need just as many of your waves to come off a non-acceleration body as an accelerating one of the same mass, and LIGO shows that you don't get that - it only detects the last moments leading into merger, and then the gravitational waves stop completely.

The in swirling is associated with the LIGO detection, but the event is at its most massive energetic peak during the final stages of the death spiral where the acceleration of the two bodies is relativistic. When the collision occurs, you get a massive cosmic event and then it is over. The normal mass of the two black bodies does not set off LIGO alarms, but when the two bodies are accelerated in the death spiral they do. It is a function of the two, mass and acceleration of the mass in the death spiral.

Perhaps those are the same kind though, just insignificant due to their relative scarcity and high peak strength, so most of the slowing of functionality could be driven by an astronomical number of gravitational waves of infinitesimal magnitude.

Good thinking, and well put from an ISU perspective,

I don't think it can be the same mechanism though, because the LIGO ones are carrying energy lost by orbital decay, whereas the waves you need to be coming off all matter all the time would have to emit energy without any such decay, meaning the energy has to be taken from somewhere else.

I understand where you get that, but no wave energy need be lost in the in swirling death spiral of the two orbiting body scenario.

You have more of it in some places than others, and it radiates out from places with higher energy density into areas with less. That leaves you with a constant depletion of that energy in the areas of higher energy density which means they are not getting back as much energy as they are putting out.

Except that the areas of higher energy density are associated with areas in close proximity to mass, and that nearby mass is continually emitting gravitational wave energy to replace any that you perceive as being lost.

I don't think through the lens of GR (or SR). I use LET, and LET is so close to your model that they may in most respects be the same model.

Thank you for that clarification.

[David Cooper]

The reason I’ve never really taken the time to present my layman science enthusiast’s comparison between Lorentz Ether Theory and the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) layman level model is because LET was followed closely by Einstein’s very successful SR and GR which took the spotlight, and so my main comparisons have been between GR and the ISU.

LET is radically different from SR&GR, but doesn't look radically different from ISU. You have simply proposed a mechanism for gravity which fills a space in LET. That space is there because we don't know which mechanism is right. (GR has a space there too as it doesn't specify how mass curves space.) You have pushed ISU some way towards SR/GR though by ruling out absolute time, so you've placed your model somewhere in between.

I understand where you get that, but no wave energy need be lost in the in swirling death spiral of the two orbiting body scenario.

The gravitational wave being sent out is the lost energy - you can't both retain that energy at the black holes and also have it being radiated away.

There is no continual creation of energy in the ISU. ...

Except that the areas of higher energy density are associated with areas in close proximity to mass, and that nearby mass is continually emitting gravitational wave energy to replace any that you perceive as being lost.

Those areas of high mass are going to radiate more energy away than comes back. There is no way to maintain a higher concentration of that energy there - it will fill the universe and reach a uniform level everywhere with no peaks where the mass is. It's exactly like putting a hot metal object into a tank of cold water - the heat will spread out through the water and the object will cool down even though each of its atoms is initially surrounded by hot atoms which put some heat back into any atom that loses its heat energy. There will be a continual depletion of energy from your matter as it radiates off your gravitational waves, and that will lead to the system no longer functioning unless you have some mechanism for continually creating new energy wherever mass is.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #250

LET is radically different from SR&GR, but doesn't look radically different from ISU. You have simply proposed a mechanism for gravity which fills a space in LET. That space is there because we don't know which mechanism is right. (GR has a space there too as it doesn't specify how mass curves space.) You have pushed ISU some way towards SR/GR though by ruling out absolute time, so you've placed your model somewhere in between.

In the ISU model, space isn’t being created, it wasn’t created; it has always been there, everywhere; it is infinite, as a given in the ISU (call it axiomatic).

I didn’t intentionally place my model where you perceive it to be, relative to other models. I actually developed it step by step starting with the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big gangs?”

The gravitational wave being sent out is the lost energy - you can't both retain that energy at the black holes and also have it being radiated away.

Am I giving that impression? Black holes are continually accumulating matter and energy through accretion. The black holes retain essentially everything that gets into them, but in the ISU process of Arena Action, those black holes will be recycled when our arena (any arena) intersects and converges with an adjacent expanding arena in the landscape of the greater universe. The matter and gravitational wave energy contained in every black hole, in both of the converging parent arenas, gets refreshed into low entropy energy in the form of the hot dense ball of plasma energy that emerges from a big crunch when it collapse/bangs.

In the ISU, what we observe in our Hubble view is the local part of a single big bang arena. The larger picture of the ISU model is out of sight, and features an infinite landscape, filled with big bang arenas, and featuring active encounters between expanding arena waves occurring all over the place, the formation of high energy big crunches from the inflowing matter and energy of the converging parent arenas, and the collapse/bang of those crunches into arena sized out flowing waves; our observable universe is just a portion of one of those expanding arena waves, and there are a potentially infinite number of them at all times across the landscape of the greater universe.

Like a broken record, big bangs are occurring all the time across the landscape, as big bang arena waves expand, over lap, form gravitationally caused swirls of galactic matter and energy contributed by each “parent” arena, and those convergences form gravitationally accumulated swirling rendezvous of matter and wave energy, leading to big crunches, the crunches reach critical capacity and collapse/bang into new, expanding big bang arenas, and those new arenas expand until their expansion is interrupted by converging and overlapping with nearby expanding arenas, whereupon big crunches form, collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arenas, which expand until interrupted … you get the idea. That is called the process of Big Bang Arena Action, and it is going on perpetually across the entire infinite universe and always has been. It defeats any concept of entropy, and it doesn’t involve the creation of new space, it doesn’t involve the creation of new energy, it doesn’t involve the stretching or bending of space, it doesn’t involve aether in any of the versions that are mentioned in the historical developments of LED, and it doesn’t invoke the concept of spacetime.

However, the old adage that energy cannot be created or destroyed has a perfect home in the ISU. Gravitational wave energy is all there is in the ISU. Everything is composed of gravitational wave energy, and all mass has both components, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy.

I will continue the contrasting ideas, but first one commonality; in both LED, and the ISU, we see only a portion of the contents of space. In our Hubble view, we observe a finite amount of space that contains a finite amount of matter and energy, and yet, in the ISU it is posited that there is infinite space, infinite time, and infinite gravitational wave energy.

The ISU model paints a picture of a very versatile  gravitational wave energy commodity that fills all space; our observable universe is full of it, everything is composed of it in the form of matter, light, gravitational waves, virtual particles, fundamental wave-particles, atoms, molecules, massive objects, stars and planets, solar systems, galaxies, galactic structure, and to go one step into the ISU landscape of the greater universe, big bang arenas and arena action are all incarnations of the indestructible commodity called gravitational wave energy.

Take a big bang event, referred to as a common occurrence throughout the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. Each big bang, better described as the collapse/bang of a big crunch, emits a huge, hot dense ball of energy, and that dense-state energy ball quickly becomes an expanding plasma wave, it becomes a big bang arena wave that expands and cools, and starts decaying into massive exotic early particles, that then decay and cool further until the stable particles that we are familiar with form across the entire expanding new arena. That means that the common source of particles, massive objects, stars, galaxies, and galactic structure of everything that we observe filling our Hubble view, a tiny patch of space in comparison to infinity, comes from a single big crunch that collapse/banged into our expanding galaxy filled big bang arena 14 or so billion years ago in a big bang event. A single big bang is a tiny moment in a tiny place consisting of a tiny amount of energy, relative the infinities of space, time and wave energy making up the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and in the ISU model, that infinite universe is filled with nothing but gravitational wave energy.

The stage is now set to discuss the nature of wave-particles, gravity, and the gravitational wave energy profile of space within an expanding arena. That discussion would include an explanation of dark energy, particle formation, wave-particles, the components of wave particles, virtual particles, and dark matter, all associated with the tiny observable portion of our insignificant big bang arena, situated here around us in the infinite and eternal arena landscape of the greater universe. I have addressed all of those things in my discussion of the ISU, and everything is open for further discussion.

Those areas of high mass are going to radiate more energy away than comes back. There is no way to maintain a higher concentration of that energy there - it will fill the universe and reach a uniform level everywhere with no peaks where the mass is. It's exactly like putting a hot metal object into a tank of cold water - the heat will spread out through the water and the object will cool down even though each of its atoms is initially surrounded by hot atoms which put some heat back into any atom that loses its heat energy. There will be a continual depletion of energy from your matter as it radiates off your gravitational waves, and that will lead to the system no longer functioning unless you have some mechanism for continually creating new energy wherever mass is.

Look at the description of the ISU above. Do you see any way that energy can escape? If so, I didn’t describe it sufficiently.

Granted, in some models, like GR, and like The Big Rip, the end of the universe might be like what you describe, but in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy that you see “radiating off” isn’t escaping, and before it gets away the mechanism for its replacement is already working, i.e., the gravitational wave energy density profile of space is universal, and has all the energy, and is continually being refreshed by the perpetual processes of arena action and quantum action of the ISU.

[Halc]

If no one's moving at c, why do you think one of them would be stopped?

I don't think one of them would be stopped.  One of them is stopped relative to something, in this case the accelerating observer.  I'm not an absolutist, so there's no concept of just being stopped, and thus no issue with all the problems that arise from asserting such a state.

[Bogie_smiles]

I'm not an absolutist, so there's no concept of just being stopped, and thus no issue with all the problems that arise from asserting such a state.

Me either. In my view, being stopped is relative, but it goes along with the view that in a larger space, one that contains many objects that are in motion relative to each other, being stopped relative to another object still means you are in motion relative to all objects that are in relative motion. Because there is no absolute space in the ISU model, you cannot designate an absolute location in space, and you cannot return to that exact location with complete certainty (even the bread crumbs move, lol.)

[Halc]

Me either. In my view, being stopped is relative, but it goes along with the view that in a larger space, one that contains many objects that are in motion relative to each other, being stopped relative to another object still means you are in motion relative to all objects that are in relative motion. Because there is no absolute space in the ISU model, you cannot designate an absolute location in space, and you cannot return to that exact location with complete certainty (even the bread crumbs move, lol.)

I was talking about my clock being stopped, not having zero velocity.

Anyway, this is an interesting answer you give, seemingly directly from the dogma of science, rather than the absolutist view that David pushes.  I thought you were agreeing with David more until I saw this post.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #254

Me either. In my view, being stopped is relative, but it goes along with the view that in a larger space, one that contains many objects that are in motion relative to each other, being stopped relative to another object still means you are in motion relative to all objects that are in relative motion. Because there is no absolute space in the ISU model, you cannot designate an absolute location in space, and you cannot return to that exact location with complete certainty (even the bread crumbs move, lol.)

I was talking about my clock being stopped, not having zero velocity.

Anyway, this is an interesting answer you give, seemingly directly from the dogma of science, rather than the absolutist view that David pushes.  I thought you were agreeing with David more until I saw this post.

And that concept of uncertainty in regard to an absolute location in space has ramifications in regard to the concept of absolute time, because relative motion between clocks makes them function at a different rates when it comes to ticking off time in the clocks measured increments.


If you can’t be certain in regard to an absolute location in space, you cannot be certain as to which clock is ticking off time at the absolute rate. There is no absolute space and no absolute time in the ISU model.

[David Cooper]

I didn’t intentionally place my model where you perceive it to be, relative to other models. I actually developed it step by step starting with the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”

There are different aspects of models which result in they being grouped differently depending on which aspects you're focusing on at the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about how they should be set out in a chart. On the time issue though, theories which lack absolute time have something in common which they don't share with LET. On the space issue, theories which don't curve space to account for gravity have something different in common. On these two points, GR and LET share no mechanisms, but ISU shares something with each.

Am I giving that impression? Black holes are continually accumulating matter and energy through accretion.

Some of them are hardly taking in new material at all, while others are feasting. If they are the same mass though, they have the same strength of gravitational pull. That non-addition of material in the former case cannot provide the energy that would need to be radiated off all the time for ISU. I'm not here to attack ISU though and it doesn't matter for a simulation exploring the nature of time whether the model is functional or broken - you can have your gravitational waves for this because where the energy for that comes from is an issue for a different discussion.

Look at the description of the ISU above. Do you see any way that energy can escape? If so, I didn’t describe it sufficiently.

Energy isn't lost from the universe, but your gravitational waves will spread out and fill space more and more evenly, taking energy away from the mass concentrations and depleting them. They are not being recharged.

Granted, in some models, like GR, and like The Big Rip, the end of the universe might be like what you describe, but in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy that you see “radiating off” isn’t escaping, and before it gets away the mechanism for its replacement is already working, i.e., the gravitational wave energy density profile of space is universal, and has all the energy, and is continually being refreshed by the perpetual processes of arena action and quantum action of the ISU.

If you have lots of this energy everywhere ready to replace what's radiating off, that energy is going to contribute to the energy density in such a way that you won't have gravity acting the way it needs to to fit the known facts. You can only have the right energy density profile around a body by having a lack of replacement energy queueing up to replace the stuff that has to be radiated off.

[David Cooper]

I don't think one of them would be stopped.  One of them is stopped relative to something, in this case the accelerating observer.  I'm not an absolutist, so there's no concept of just being stopped, and thus no issue with all the problems that arise from asserting such a state.

Neither's functionality would be stopped, and neither's functionality would be stopped relative to the other's either. Nor is any accelerating observer going to see it as stopped.

[Halc]

If you can’t be certain in regard to an absolute location in space, you cannot be certain as to which clock is ticking off time at the absolute rate.

My point was that none of them can possibly tick at the absolute rate, or even a fraction of it, unless the absolute rate was infinite.  I don't buy into a flow rate at all, so this is not an issue.  Sounds like you don't buy into it either.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #258

There are different aspects of models which result in they being grouped differently depending on which aspects you're focusing on at the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about how they should be set out in a chart. On the time issue though, theories which lack absolute time have something in common which they don't share with LET. On the space issue, theories which don't curve space to account for gravity have something different in common. On these two points, GR and LET share no mechanisms, but ISU shares something with each.

Good to know.

I’ll buy that, and take it as confirmation that LET invokes absolute time, differing from the ISU.

On the space issue, if I interpret your plain English properly, you understand that wave energy density plays the same role in the ISU model as curved space plays in SR/GR?

Some of them are hardly taking in new material at all, while others are feasting. If they are the same mass though, they have the same strength of gravitational pull. That non-addition of material in the former case cannot provide the energy that would need to be radiated off all the time for ISU. I'm not here to attack ISU though and it doesn't matter for a simulation exploring the nature of time whether the model is functional or broken - you can have your gravitational waves for this because where the energy for that comes from is an issue for a different discussion.

I don’t consider your reasonable comments as attacks. I consider it likely that those conclusions reflect thinking that is not substantiated by the content of the ISU, but that you are not entirely familiar with. It almost looks like you're thinking of the state of our observable arena as if it stands alone as an independent universe, independent of the greater universe in the ISU model. It doesn't stand alone in the ISU; I describe our Hubble view as only a portion of one expanding Big Bang arena among a potentially infinite number of similar Big Bang arenas. Our home arena (maybe I should name it) is in constant interaction with the greater universe, and especially with our immediate neighboring arenas, and also with the “corridors of continuity” which play a role in the mechanics of ISU arena action.


The hemispherical anisotropy,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg


coupled with the cold spot anomaly,


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_10_18_2_31_37.jpeg

… support the interaction hypothesis. If the cause of the hemispherical anisotropy is the result of two previous parent arenas converging to form our expanding arena, and if the cause of the cold spot turns out to be a directional pull on galaxies in our arena from the approach of an expanding neighboring arena, then those ISU hypotheses will be confirmed.

Energy isn't lost from the universe, but your gravitational waves will spread out and fill space more and more evenly, taking energy away from the mass concentrations and depleting them. They are not being recharged.

I would propose rewording that sentence: Energy isn’t lost from the greater universe, but from the perspective of our own arena (maybe I’ll name it Big Bogie, ), gravitational waves will continue to spread out, causing the growing volume of space incorporated into Big Bogie as it expands, to have a lower overall gravitational wave energy density, while at the same time feeding low intensity gravitational wave energy into the corridors of continuity that surround all arenas that make up the landscape of the greater universe.

If you have lots of this energy everywhere ready to replace what's radiating off, that energy is going to contribute to the energy density in such a way that you won't have gravity acting the way it needs to to fit the known facts. You can only have the right energy density profile around a body by having a lack of replacement energy queueing up to replace the stuff that has to be radiated off.

I don’t entirely disagree with that statement, but would reword it into a sentence more to my own likening: You have lots of this energy everywhere out there in the greater universe, ready to replace what's radiating off from Big Bogie, out into the corridors of continuity, and it will do so in a very cataclysmic way when Big Bogie, already a high entropy arena (essentially old and cold), converges with a similar high entropy adjacent expanding arena, resulting in the gravitational accumulation of a new Big Crunch out of the galactic matter and energy of the parent arenas, and in a huge swirling rendezvous that will grow through accretion until the ISU critical capacity limit of a Big Crunch is reached, causing the new Big Crunch that has formed there in landscape of the greater universe to collapse/bang into a very low entropy, hot, dense ball of plasma, that will expand, cool, form particles out of the dense state energy as it decays, and those particles will have separation momentum imparted to them from the bang, which means that as they tend to clump in close quarters due to quantum gravity, the clumps will conserve the separation momentum of the particles in them, and the resulting massive objects that form will clump to form stars that will clump into galaxies, and the galaxies and galactic structure will all be moving away from each other due to the conservation of the separation momentum imparted to the early particles by the Big Bang itself, just like we now observe within Big Bogie, resulting in an arena which will quite nicely fit the known facts that have been taught to us by closely observing Big Bogie!

[Bogie_smiles]

If you can’t be certain in regard to an absolute location in space, you cannot be certain as to which clock is ticking off time at the absolute rate.

My point was that none of them can possibly tick at the absolute rate, or even a fraction of it, unless the absolute rate was infinite.  I don't buy into a flow rate at all, so this is not an issue.  Sounds like you don't buy into it either.

Halc, you are beginning to see that David and I have different positions on absolute time and space? We weren't trying to keep it a secret, lol.