To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: GRAVITY EXPLAINED
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Farsight
GRAVITY EXPLAINED

You probably think of gravity as curved spacetime. Surprisingly Einstein didnít, not quite. And neither should you. To understand gravity you have to take the ontological view. You have how to learn to see whatís there. And to do that, you have to put time to one side, because time isnít the same kind of dimension as the Dimensions of space. Yes, an object passing a planet traces a curved path, but you donít stare up at a plane and decide that itís a silver streak in the sky. You take a mental snapshot, flash, a picture of it in a timeless instant. Itís the same with gravity. Take the time-derivative of that curved spacetime. What you get is a gradient. And itís a gradient in space, not curved spacetime.

But letís tackle it an easier way, via an old favourite. Think about a cannonball sitting on a rubber sheet. The cannonball is heavy, and it makes a depression that will deflect a rolling marble, or even cause the marble to circle like an orbit. Itís a nice analogy, but itís wrong. Itís wrong because it relies on gravity to pull the cannonball down in the first place. It uses gravity to give you a picture of gravity.

User posted image

To get a better handle on it, imagine youíre standing underneath the rubber sheet. Letís make that a silicone rubber sheet. Itís transparent, like my snorkel and mask. Grab hold of the rubber around the cannonball and pull it down further to give yourself some leeway. Now transfer your grip to the transparent silicone rubber itself. Gather it, pull it down some more. Now tie a knot in it underneath the cannonball, like youíd tie a knot in the neck of a balloon. Now pull it all the way down and let go. Boinggg! The cannonball is gone. Forget it.

Now, what have we got? Weíve got a flat rubber sheet with a knot in it. The knot will stand in for a region of stress, where the rubber is under pressure. Stress is the same as pressure. Itís force per unit area, and force times distance gives us the units for both work and energy. So energy is stress times volume. The knot represents energy. Or matter if you prefer. OK hereís the deal. Surrounding the small central region of stress is a much larger region of tension extending outwards in all directions. Whenever you have a stress you always have a tension to balance it. It isnít always obvious, but itís always there, like reaction balances action, and force balances force. The tension gradually reduces as you move away from the stress. If you could measure it, you would measure a radial gradient. But measuring it is trickier than you think. Because in this analogy we canít use a marble rolling across a rubber sheet. This rubber sheet represents the world, thereís no stepping outside of it. Our ďmarbleĒ has to be within the rubber sheet, and a part of it, made out of the same stuff as that knot.

We need an extra dimension. So turn your top hat upside down and tap it with your magic wand. Abracadabra! A flash of light and a puff of smoke, and that rubber sheet is now a solid block of clear silicone rubber extending in all directions. And youíre standing inside of it. Letís make you a ghost so you can glide around unimpeded, for the purposes of gedanken. Our knot is now three-dimensional, like a moebius doughnut, maybe a little silvery like a bubble underwater. Itís not really made out of anything, it hasnít got a colour, and it hasnít even got a surface. Itís a soliton, a topological defect, a travelling stress thatís basically a photon, but going nowhere fast because itís twisted round on itself. So E = hc/λ = pc = mc≤ means the momentum is now inertia, and we call it an electron.

user posted image

Our electron has replaced our cannonball, and now we need a photon to stand in for that rolling marble. Letís conjure one up, and send it propagating across our rubberworld so that it passes by our electron. We could run after it and take some snapshots with our ontological camera, but letís save that for another day. For now our photon is just a shear-wave ripple, travelling at a velocity determined by the stiffness and density of the medium. Thereís an equation for it in mechanics that goes like this:

v = √(G/ρ)

The G here isnít a gravitational constant, but is the shear modulus of elasticity, to do with rigidity. Itís different to the bulk modulus of elasticity, because itís a lot easier to bend something rather than compress its volume. The equation says a shear wave travels faster if the material gets stiffer, and slower if the density increases. In electrodynamics the velocity equation is remarkably similar. Youíve probably seen it before:

c = √(1/ε0μ0)

Here ε0 is permittivity and μ0 is permeability. The two are related by impedance √(μ00). High permittivity means a material will take a larger charge for the same voltage, for example Barium Titanate has 1200 times the permittivity of air, so we donít make capacitors out of air. High permeability means a material exhibits more magnetism when you change the charge. Iron has lots of it, wood doesnít, so magnets are made of iron. There are some marvellous similarities between mechanics and electrodynamics, though confusions abound too. With the piezoelectric effect you subject a material to mechanical stress and you get an electrical stress, a voltage, but high voltage is called high tension, which is negative stress. And electric current goes from negative to positive, so things are backwards. But letís come back to that another time, and just say higher impedance means lower velocity.

Back in rubberworld, our photon-marble is passing our electron-cannonball. We notice it veers towards it a little. Thatís because where the rubberworld tension is slightly greater, the real-world impedance is slightly higher, so the velocity is slightly lower. What weíre seeing is refraction.

User posted image

Hereís the crucial point: our real world is like that rubberworld with the knot in it plus an extra dimension, and weíre made out of this stuff, along with our rulers and clocks. So we donít see the tension. We donít measure the change in c. But we can infer it. Like in the Pound-Rebka experiment, where a photon is blue-shifted at the bottom of the tower because c there is lower. Or in the Shapiro experiment, where the light takes longer to skim the sun because the c there is lower too.

Thereís an equivalence going on here between General Relativity and Special Relativity, but itís tricky to spot. Imagine that I stay here on earth while you travel to Alpha Centauri in a very fast rocket travelling at .99c. We can use 1/√(1-v≤/c≤) to work out that you experience a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). We normally think of time dilation as being matched by length contraction, but thatís only in the direction of travel. Hold up a metre ruler transverse to the direction of travel and itís the same old metre. Your metre is the same as my metre, and your time is dilated by a factor of seven, which means it takes a beam of your light seven times longer to traverse your transverse metre. Looking at it another way c = s/t and your t changed, your s didnít, so your c did. Your c is a seventh of mine. Donít get confused about this. Donít tell yourself that your lightbeam is following a diagonal path and has to cover a greater distance. Thatís introducing an absolute reference frame, mine. Stay in your own frame. Then when you come back after your year-long round trip, I aged seven years, but you only aged one. You aged less because your c was slower than mine, but you never noticed it at the time. The equivalence comes in because I could have slid you into a black box and subjected you to high gravity instead of sending you to Alpha Centauri. We know that ďclocks run slowĒ in a high gravity situation, just as they do when youíre travelling fast. And itís for the same simple reason. The c is reduced. But you wonít measure it as reduced, because itís just a distance/time conversion factor. Just like you when you go to the moon you donít get three ounces to the pound.

User posted image

I know itís difficult to stop thinking c is a constant. Yes itís always measured to be the same in all frames. But when you step back to see the big picture that is the whole gallery, when you look at all the frames side by side, you see what distinguishes them is the way c changes. Itís a constant, but it isnít constant. Once you realise that c changes in a ďgravitational fieldĒ you can allow yourself the epiphany of understanding gravitational potential energy. We know that E=mc≤, so a cannonball sitting quietly in space represents maybe 1011 Joules of energy. If the earth now trundles on to the scene, the cannonball will fall towards it, and just before impact will also have kinetic energy of say 109 Joules. Now hold it right there. Freeze frame. Where did that kinetic energy actually come from? Has it been sucked out of the earth? Has it been magically extracted from some zero-point bottomless bucket? Has it come from the ďgravitational fieldĒ? No. Thereís no free lunch from Mister Gravity. The energy came from the cannonball. And it hasnít come from its mass because mass is ďinvariantĒ. Only it isnít invariant because the mass has actually increased, check the Pound-Rebka experiment. So E=mc≤ and weíve got a pile of kinetic energy that hasnít come out of the m. Thereís only one place left it can have come from. The c. The c up there is greater than the c down here, and thereís a gradient in between.

Thereís always a gradient in c when thereís gravity. Even across the width of an electron. Yes, the gradient might be very small. But it isnít negligible. If you think it is, as per the General Relativity Equivalence Principle, youíve just thrown the baby out with the bathwater. An accelerating frame with no tidal gradient isnít the same as a proper gravity situation. Thereís always a tidal force. The gradient has to be there. There can be no Uniform Gravitational Field. Because without that gradient, things donít fall down.

Letís go back to rubberworld. But itís time we did a Reverse Image and made the rubber the ghost. Now youíre back to normal again take a look at that electron once more. Itís a travelling stress localised because itís going round in a circle. Stick this ring of light in a real gravity gradient, caused by a zillion other electrons some distance downaways. Whatís going to happen? Flash, take a picture. At a given instant we have a quantum of light travelling down like this ↓. Thereís a gradient top to bottom, but all it does is gives the photon a fractional blueshift. A little later take another picture. Flash. Now the photon is moving this ← way, and the upper portion of the photon wavefront is subject to a slightly higher c than the lower portion. So it bends, refracts, curves down a little. Later itís going this ↑ way and gets fractionally redshifted, and later still itís going this → way and curves down again. These bends translate into a different position for our electron. The bent photon path becomes electron motion. Only half the cycle got bent, so only half the reduced c goes into kinetic energy. The other half goes into mass, but itís only a scale-change falling out of the clear blue sky:

User posted image

So hereís your free lunch:

User posted image

Now you can understand why gravity is not some magical, mysterious, action-at-a-distance force. There is no curvature of spacetime, no hidden dimensions, no gravitons sleeting between masses. Thereís no energy being delivered, so gravity isnít even a force. Itís just the tension gradient that balances the stress that is mass/energy. And weíre just rubberworld Fatlanders getting to grips with our wrinkles and bumps.

No energy delivered, extra mass to use as collateral... that means thereís no energy cost. So if we could somehow contrive a gradient that goes the other way... whoo, itíll be The Stars My Destination. But first of all we must also understand the thing we call Space. We must learn how light is a ripple of nothing, and how all the somethings are made from it. Itís a tale of something and nothing, and since nothing comes for free, there will be a Charge...

User posted image

Acknowledgements: thanks to J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark for Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf, to Peter M Brown for his many papers on his excellent website http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/, to Robert A Close for for Is the Universe a Solid? http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/]home , to Reg Norgan for http://www.aethertheory.co.uk/pdfRFN/Aether_Why.pdf, to G S Sandhu for The Elastic Continuum http://www.geocities.com/gssandhu_1943/index.html to all the forum guys with their relevant posts and links, Wikipedia contributors, and to anybody who Iíve forgotten or whose pictures Iíve used. Thanks guys.
Farsight
All: I'd appreciate any feedback you can give on the above. Even if it's some kind of photon torpedo that sinks the whole essay.

Farsight, aka Popular.

fizzeksman

Farsight
A beautiful job on the essay and the graphics and you are to be commended for the job done.
I think, perhaps though, you have confused cause and effect. The rubber sheet analogy and curved spacetime were never intended by Mr. Einstein to represent cause, as has been so interpreted by so many, but rather to be analogous with effect.
I interpret your essay as providing another analogy of effect, but as such, there are infinite possibilities. The possibilities, and therefore the probabilities, relating to cause however are rather limited. The same energy and diligence (as demonstrated above) applied to determining cause might produce astounding results. >>>>> Warp Speed Mr. Farsight!

"Every effect has a cause.. and every cause has an effect.. even tension!'
Zephir
QUOTE (fizzeksman+Mar 4 2007, 08:15 PM)
Every effect has a cause.. and every cause has an effect.. even tension!

Of course, even the (surface) tension can be considered as the manifestation of the matter/energy to spread along the straightest path available, i.e. as the consequence of Newton inertia law in Aether foam. I described this mechanism here by many times, for example by using of mercury droplets model.

The inertial motion of particle environment leads to the formation of surfaces gradients of Aether density. These gradients are the result of the principle of least action: the energy is trying to found the compromise between the most dense path (the surface wave spreading along surface density gradient) and the most straightest one (the simple bulk wave). The only problem is, the bulk waves are less intensive, then the surface ones, so the formation of surfaces is preferred at the higher energy density requirements (the formation of spongy density fluctuations). But the surfaces cannot be radial, they're always perpendicular to the energy spreading direction, so the most intensive energy spreading requires the formation of another nested surfaces, i.e. the nested foam.

user posted image user posted image

The resulting foamy structure is the result of the dynamic equilibrium in the finding of the most effective path for energy spreading with the balanced portion of the energy spreading in the form of transversal and longitudinal waves. But such approach doesn't explain the origin of the gravitational interaction in fact, it just explains the macroscopic forces by these microscopical ones.
Nick
Gravity is acceleration but curved space time is also a part. G forces are identical almost to gravity with one exception: G forces involve time in motion for their weight. A body stationary in a gravitational field does not experience a rate of change in weight. There is no motion. And freefall is weightless acceleration. biggrin.gif

Freefall is inertial in that it doesn't have any weight but it is moving. They are identical to inertial frames in that they are weightless. G forces and bodies stationary in gravity experience weight but with a difference. I call it timeless acceleration. The equivalence principle is not one of complete identity. biggrin.gif

Take the time rate out of gravity's weight in the equivalence principle and you have it! There is no motion so there can be no rate of change of velocity in the EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE in that sense for a stationary frame still in a gravitional field. tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Farsight
Thanks fizzeksman. I'll think about cause and effect across all the essays including this one.

Nick/Zephir: I'd be grateful if you could read the essay and give me some feedback on it.
Farsight
To expound a little, here's an animation of the Shapiro Effect:

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

And here's a wikipedia-style article, not that we can rely on it 100%, but I imagine the Einstein quote is correct:

http://www.answers.com/topic/shapiro-delay

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)
Imagination
Its the collapse of the Spectrum(electro-magnetic wave) to a Point(as in an Atom).

Gravity= the Highest Point of Organization of Light.

Gravity collapses the Spectrum of the Manifest World of Light.


Gravity= Need/Inward/Centripetal.
Light= Facillitate/Outward/Centrifigal.


*They cancel each other out= 'One-Thing'
Nick
Light slows down as it bends. laugh.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL -
manco
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 4 2007, 04:02 PM)



a travelling stress thatís basically a photon, but going nowhere fast because itís twisted round on itself. So E = pc = mc≤ means the momentum is now inertia, and we call it an electron.


E is not equal to pc. for the electron.
E is not equal to mc≤ for the photon.
So you got all the equations wrong.


QUOTE
Like in the Pound-Rebka experiment, where a photon is blue-shifted at the bottom of the tower because c there is lower.


No, the Pound Rebka experiment prves that the FREQUENCY changes, not that "c there is lower". c never changes, it is not affected by gravitation. If you are trying to explain gravitation, at least get this elementary fact straight.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Like in the Pound-Rebka experiment, where a photon is blue-shifted at the bottom of the tower because c there is lower.


No, the Pound Rebka experiment prves that the FREQUENCY changes, not that "c there is lower". c never changes, it is not affected by gravitation. If you are trying to explain gravitation, at least get this elementary fact straight.



Looking at it another way c = s/t and your t changed, your s didnít, so your c did.


c never changes, try to learn that.

QUOTE
I know itís difficult to stop thinking c is a constant. Yes itís always measured to be the same in all frames. But when you step back to see the big picture that is the whole gallery, when you look at all the frames side by side, you see what distinguishes them is the way c changes. Itís a constant, but it isnít constant.


Nonsense, c is always constant, contrary to what you may believe.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I know itís difficult to stop thinking c is a constant. Yes itís always measured to be the same in all frames. But when you step back to see the big picture that is the whole gallery, when you look at all the frames side by side, you see what distinguishes them is the way c changes. Itís a constant, but it isnít constant.


Nonsense, c is always constant, contrary to what you may believe.



The c up there is greater than the c down here, and thereís a gradient in between.


No, c "up there" is the same as "c down here".
Farsight
Hmmn. Perhaps I should copy a little of MASS EXPLAINED to clarify the pair-production conversion of a photon into an electron and positron.

And maybe I need a little more on Pound-Rebka and Shapiro to nail them down properly.

As regards c never changing, it's like you're measuring your shadow, and the only thing you can measure it with is the shadow of your ruler. It does change. Trust me on this.

But thank you for your input nevertheless.
Nick
QUOTE
The c up there is greater than the c down here, and thereís a gradient in between.


This is exactly right. Einstein said that where time slows light slows. Since gravity is part slowing OF time this explains the Shapiro effect. Period. You cannot get rid of it.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
manco
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 6 2007, 06:17 PM)


As regards c never changing, it's like you're measuring your shadow, and the only thing you can measure it with is the shadow of your ruler. It does change. Trust me on this.

But thank you for your input nevertheless.

There is no experimental proof that c changes. c is constant. I trust prefessional physicists.
manco
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 6 2007, 06:55 PM)

This is exactly right. Einstein said that where time slows light slows.

Einstein never said that, experiment contradicts your point and the whole thing has nothing to do with the Shapiro effect. Everything else that you said is correct, you might be reading too much sci-fi.
Nick
Einstein said it period. In my opinion you don't have a clue.

Light is still a constant but in a skinnier metric.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 5 2007, 12:34 PM)
I'd be grateful if you could read the essay and give me some feedback on it.

(Gravity)... itís just the tension gradient that balances the stress that is mass/energy.

Nice english. What you can predict by such explanation?
Farsight
I don't know Zephir, I only finished the essay at the weekend and haven't had time to think it through further. Maybe some interference fringes if you place a series of Casimir plates in a vacuum chamber. Or something more dramatic. Like superconductive weight reduction.
czeslaw
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 6 2007, 09:40 PM)
(Gravity)... itís just the tension gradient that balances the stress that is mass/energy.

Nice english. What you can predict by such explanation?

If the energy is an inwards oscillation of the space we have space curvature caused by the energy (mass).
Every mass (energy) oscillate and emits microscopic warpings.
There is a gradient of the oscillations between masses and it causes a tension we call gravity.
I agree with this idea.
Turanyanin
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 6 2007, 06:17 PM)
As regards c never changing, it's like you're measuring your shadow, and the only thing you can measure it with is the shadow of your ruler. It does change. Trust me on this.


Basically you are right. Einstein was fully aware that light speed is not constant under gravitational influence. See at:
Ueber den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes, Einstein, Albert, 1911
einstein-annalen.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/annalen/alphabetical/Einst_Ueber_de_1911

Einstein there reached for ďspeed of lightĒ in ďhomogenous G-fieldĒ,

c_g = c(1 Ė GM/c^2r)

After the year 1915 maths/tensorial formalization of so-called GR, K. Schwartzschildís through linearization of the equations reached singular kind of metric for week spherically symmetric field:

ds^2 = -dr^2 /(1 Ė 2GM/c^2r) + r^2(theta^2 + sin^2theatdphi^2) + (1 Ė 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2

Because of by very definition of Minkowski idea that light follows null-geodesic for a given metric, e.g. ds^2 = 0 then obviously must be

ds/dt = c(1 - 2GM/c^2)

which is double of the above from 1911. Of course, one always can doubt about comparison between c_g and c, namely from what perspective (metric) we are measuring such a speed.

About possible confusion in evaluation of light speed (better as vector ďvelocityĒ) in the frame of GR you can see this short and direct article by a russian physicist from Lab. of High Energies, Joint Inst. for Nuclear Research
Dubna
V.N.Strelítsov, Light Velocity in General Relativity, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-5, at www.journaloftheoretics.com/second-index.htm.

In my opinion and from results of one pretty developed theoretical concept, light speed is not kinematical constant/limit at all. Moreover this c is only a part of one really fundamental electrogravitodynamic constant H_g where

H_g = G/c^2

In conclusion, since 1905 (or earlier) we have great conceptual confusion regarding the physical meaning of c. One of interpretations is here (Farsight) mentioned H. Bondiís idea that c is only factor of proportionality in space and time conversion.
Needless to say that behind the confusion is our (non)understanding the real nature of the Space-Gravity-Light phenomena in general. Hopefully, we are in the front of a significant paradigm shift.

Regards

p.s. Fine try with your essay, besides lack in "quantization". Seeing the Space as a dynamical entity is in accordance with mentioned paradigm changing. In fact, such a dynamics is wavy and non-linear by its very nature.
manco
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Mar 7 2007, 04:06 PM)
Basically you are right. Einstein was fully aware that light speed is not constant under gravitational influence. See at:
Ueber den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes, Einstein, Albert, 1911
einstein-annalen.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/annalen/alphabetical/Einst_Ueber_de_1911

Einstein there reached for ďspeed of lightĒ in ďhomogenous G-fieldĒ,

c_g = c(1 Ė GM/c^2r)

After the year 1915 maths/tensorial formalization of so-called GR, K. Schwartzschildís through linearization of the equations reached singular kind of metric for week spherically symmetric field:

ds^2 = -dr^2 /(1 Ė 2GM/c^2r) + r^2(theta^2 + sin^2theatdphi^2) + (1 Ė 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2

Because of by very definition of Minkowski idea that light follows null-geodesic for a given metric, e.g. ds^2 = 0 then obviously must be

ds/dt = c(1 - 2GM/c^2)
     
which is double of the above from 1911. Of course, one always can doubt about comparison between c_g and c, namely from what perspective (metric) we are measuring such a speed.
 
About possible confusion in evaluation of light speed (better as vector ďvelocityĒ) in the frame of GR you can see this short and direct article by a russian physicist from Lab. of High Energies, Joint Inst. for Nuclear Research
Dubna
V.N.Strelítsov, Light Velocity in General Relativity, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-5, at www.journaloftheoretics.com/second-index.htm.

In my opinion and from results of one pretty developed theoretical concept, light speed is not kinematical constant/limit at all. Moreover this c is only a part of one really fundamental electrogravitodynamic constant H_g where

H_g = G/c^2

In conclusion, since 1905 (or earlier) we have great conceptual confusion regarding the physical meaning of c. One of interpretations is here (Farsight) mentioned H. Bondiís idea that c is only factor of proportionality in space and time conversion.
Needless to say that behind the confusion is our (non)understanding the real nature of the Space-Gravity-Light phenomena in general. Hopefully, we are in the front of a significant paradigm shift.

Regards

p.s. Fine try with your essay, besides lack in "quantization". Seeing the Space as a dynamical entity is in accordance with mentioned paradigm changing. In fact, such a dynamics is wavy and non-linear by its very nature.

You are talking about the RADIAL component c_r of the light speed in Schwarzshild coordinates. Here is the correct treatment:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

Of course the RADIAL component c_r is affected because we already know that gravity bends the light path. Gravity doesn't slow down light, it just bends its path, try to read the link I posted so you understand what the discussion is all about.
Farsight
Thanks Turanyanin. Much appreciated. So many people have a false idea of what Einstein thought. They think I'm against Einstein, when instead I'm the one who's with him.

Manco, if it bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.

Turanyanin
QUOTE (manco+Mar 7 2007, 05:06 PM)
...
Of course the RADIAL component c_r is affected because we already know that gravity bends the light path. Gravity doesn't slow down light, it just bends its path, try to read the link I posted so you understand what the discussion is all about.

Thanks for the link, I've studied the subject seriously and directly from the proper sources long ago. I recommend the originals to You too.

You speak from the one, say dogmatic, even not Einstein's, interpretation of the GR. So, read again V. N. Strelcov article for the start. The theme is exactly about radial and tangential part of the light velocity in only two pages. Or for You might be much better S. N. Arteha's:

www.antidogma.ru

That is not even my opinion yet. Mine is much beyond relativity-antirealtivity debate. Seems long way in front of You.

Regards
manco
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 7 2007, 08:08 PM)
Thanks Turanyanin. Much appreciated. So many people have a false idea of what Einstein thought. They think I'm against Einstein, when instead I'm the one who's with him.

Manco, if it bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.

First of all your "essay" talks about c, about "gradient in c" and an assortment of other nonsenses. So, one more time , c is CONSTANT.
I doubt that you will understand the following, I will post it for the benefit of the people that understant physics>
From Taylor and Wheeler's "Black Holes":
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
chapter 5, section 4.

For the local shell observer at radius r, you get
cs_r_b = +/- sqrt( 1 - (1 - 2 m/r) b^2/r^2 ) (radial component)
cs_t_b = +/- sqrt( 1 - 2 m/r ) b/r (tangential component)
the magnitude of which is 1, as expected.



manco
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Mar 7 2007, 08:26 PM)
Thanks for the link, I've studied the subject seriously and directly from the proper sources long ago. I recommend the originals to You too.

You speak from the one, say dogmatic, even not Einstein's, interpretation of the GR. So, read again V. N. Strelcov article for the start. The theme is exactly about radial and tangential part of the light velocity in only two pages. Or for You might be much better S. N. Arteha's:

www.antidogma.ru

That is not even my opinion yet. Mine is much beyond relativity-antirealtivity debate. Seems long way in front of You.

Regards

You quoted two crackpot references, I prefer to use mainstream physics. Please refer to the answer I gave Farsight above.
bukh
Hej Farsight and Zephir

"(Gravity)... itís just the tension gradient that balances the stress that is mass/energy."

I have proposed this before - "Aether virgin energy eventually forming particles IS the Gravitational Force".

Are you not saying more or less the same in the above?
Farsight
QUOTE (manco+Mar 7 2007, 10:03 PM)
First of all your "essay" talks about c, about "gradient in c" and an assortment of other nonsenses. So, one more time , c is CONSTANT. I doubt that you will understand the following, I will post it for the benefit of the people that understand physics. From Taylor and Wheeler's "Black Holes": http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
chapter 5, section 4...


Aw, don't try to duck and dive by changing the subject to black holes, kid. I know more about black holes than you've had hot breakfasts. Now, let me repeat the question that you so studiously avoided:

Manco, if it bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.

Got an answer? Didn't think so. LOL.
Euler
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 7 2007, 11:03 PM)
...let me repeat the question that you so studiously avoided...

I've tried desperately not to read through this thread, because every time I read one of your "essays", a little part of me dies inside. To think that there are people out there quite as stupid as you, that spend sooo much of their time talking about things they clearly don't understand, is enough to make a person lose faith in humanity.

Firstly, let me clarify something. The quantity you have referred to several times is "c", that is the speed of light. You said, quite categorically:

QUOTE (Farsight+)
I know itís difficult to stop thinking c is a constant... (it just gets worse from here, so I won't put the readers through any more misery)


that you seem to think it isn't a constant. This is simply a prime example of someone with next to no physics knowledge attempting to punch waaaay above their weight. Let's take an extract from your first paragraph for example:

QUOTE (Farsight+)
Take the time-derivative of that curved spacetime. What you get is a gradient. And itís a gradient in space, not curved spacetime.

Time derivative of space-time? What you get is a gradient? Are you a complete idiot or do you intentionally use this place to look stupid? In GR, referring to "spacetime" means you're referring to a 4 dimensional, Lorentzian manifold. So to "differentiate spacetime", would mean to "differentiate a manifold" - this is far from a well defined statement (but then, you wouldn't know that - you don't know anything about GR that isn't contained in a kiddies explanation of the theory).

Your "essays" are nothing but a sorry waste of webspace, and only serve to aid the ludicrous charade that you insist on playing out, in which you understand deep areas of physics and are in a position to explain things to others. Personally, I wouldn't let you teach physics to my furniture - there are creatures that live under the rocks in my garden that could do a considerably better job.

And let's reiterate a point I've made to you before:

QUOTE (Farsight+)
Itís a soliton, a topological defect...

You obviously don't have the technical knowledge (and I'm willing to bet, the ability to take on such knowledge) to understand things like topological solitons, in any context. So don't force me to make another example of you, by posing a simple question that will demonstrate your understanding (or lack thereof) of such things. We've been down that road before, with your insisted use of the word "topology".

QUOTE (Farsight+)
Aw, don't try to duck and dive by changing the subject to black holes, kid. I know more about black holes than you've had hot breakfasts.

Really, why do you put yourself in such stupid situations? Your knowledge (again, I feel I should insert a "lack thereof" reference) of Black Holes won't stray beyond the type of watered down, kiddie analogies found on the web and in popular science books, aimed at those who don't have the knowledge to understand these things properly. Now would you like me to give you a quantitative question about Black Holes, the type accessible to anyone who has covered the basics of the subject, so we can assess exactly how much you know?

I still find it amazing that so many people like you clearly spend large amounts of time talking about things of which you haven't the first clue. If you're that interested in physics, try to learn some. If not, don't be surprised when lots of people laugh at you.
Farsight
Four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold? LOL, Euler, you wouldn't know your space from your time if it jumped up and bit you on the arse. Now hop off back to your reality-free mathematical-mind-game crayoning, and leave the physics to the grown ups. Oh, and your stupid-kid insults (let's have a look... yep, that's all you offer) still don't detract from the question:

Manco, if it bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.



NoCleverName
I'm just going to toss this out for consideration, having no special knowledge at all.

The velocity doesn't change. As far as the light is concerned, it's still travelling in a straight, unbent path. True, space may have been distorted, but I'm not sure you could tell that if you were inside it. It would still have three orthoganal dimensions, as far as you could tell.

I would be interested, truely, to learn otherwise. Like I said, no special knowledge here.
Farsight
Not a bad answer that. The trouble is, if you fell to the ground, you'd have to say your velocity didn't change either. Do read the essay, but I'm wondering if we don't live in some weird kind of "hard light" RIMMERWORLD. If you were made of light, trying to measure things absolutely would be hopeless because your ruler would be made out of light too - lengths could change and you'd never know. It's easier to think of in terms of shadows - try to measure the length of your shadow with the shadow of your ruler. All very interesting.
manco
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 01:10 AM)
Four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold? LOL, Euler, you wouldn't know your space from your time if it jumped up and bit you on the arse. Now hop off back to your reality-free mathematical-mind-game crayoning, and leave the physics to the grown ups. Oh, and your stupid-kid insults (let's have a look... yep, that's all you offer) still don't detract from the question:

Manco, if it bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.

see Euler's answer.
Euler
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 01:10 AM)
Four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold? LOL, Euler, you wouldn't know your space from your time if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.

So when you use the word "spacetime", you're not referring to the object used in General Relativity by physicists to model the Universe we live in, but something else completely?

Of course, this is just you squirming - people like you aren't in the habit of knowing when to be quiet.

QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 01:10 AM)
Manco, if it bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.

If this really the best you can do? We can all see the several times you've referred to the speed of light as being non-constant. Here, you tell us exactly what you mean by the letter "c":

QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 01:10 AM)
c = √(1/ε0μ0)

which is most definitely a scalar quantity. The fact that you're now changing your story when someone has pointed out a gross misconception of yours, is testament to the fact that you aren't in the least bit bothered about understanding physics, but rather: you would like people to think you understand physics. Refer back to my furniture/rocks in garden sentiments to see why this latter option is a bit of a non-starter.
Farsight
QUOTE (manco+Mar 8 2007, 02:56 AM)
see Euler's answer.

LOL manco, I didn't quite catch that. I can't see a yes or a no in Euler's response, don't try to pretend that it's some kind of "answer" because it's just his usual schoolboy insults in some vain attempt to deflect us from the moot point. So come on:

If gravity bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.

Jeez, what is the problem?

Imagination
Gravity is the 'Mind of the Universe' which operates according the the Golden Ratio PHI.

Gravity is quite logical too, because its mass reflectance makes some very beautiful patterns of Light(spin anything fast enough-aether wave-..., it will reveal its spectrum).
Farsight
Bah, here's your answer manco. Not from me. From some other guy.

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

And if we're agreed that gravity does alter the velocity of light, perhaps you'd like to talk sensibly about what gravitational time dilation says about the speed of light?
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 04:43 PM)
And if we're agreed that gravity does alter the velocity of light, perhaps you'd like to talk sensibly about what gravitational time dilation says about the speed of light?

The gravity can change the both the speed, both the velocity - it just depends on the role of the observer, i.e. the fact, whether he/she's affected by this gravity too, or not. Without such differentiation we can discuss here for infinite time without relevant result, which is not very good for anybody of us.
manco
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 10:30 AM)
LOL manco, I didn't quite catch that. I can't see a yes or a no in Euler's response, don't try to pretend that it's some kind of "answer" because it's just his usual schoolboy insults in some vain attempt to deflect us from the moot point. So come on:

If gravity bends the light, it changes the velocity, velocity being a vector quantity. Now, does gravity affect the velocity of light? Give me a yes or no answer.

Jeez, what is the problem?

Since you insist: in your BS "essay" you claim that the SPEED of light ,c (which is a SCALAR) is SLOWED by gravity. This is NOT TRUE. I showed that to you mathematically.

You now changed your tune and you picked up that the VELOCITY of light (the VECTOR) is affected by gravity. The DIRECTION of light VELOCITY is changed by gravity. This does NOT mean that the SPEED of light is slowed by gravity.

Euler explained that to you (TWICE already), so this is the THIRD time that you are pointed out that you are wrong.

Since we are on the subject of gross errors in your so-called "essay", you got BOTH the energy of the photon and the energy of the electron WRONG. You never addessed that criticism. You got most everything else wrong, so Euler is correct in his criticism of your so-called "essay": it is junk.
manco
QUOTE (Euler+Mar 7 2007, 11:41 PM)
Personally, I wouldn't let you teach physics to my furniture - there are creatures that live under the rocks in my garden that could do a considerably better job.


I laughed a lot, good one! biggrin.gif
Albers
Very nice presentation, Farsight, this is a party at which I am comfortable. We are perhaps both speaking of the "rubber sheet" aspect of space which is what was assumed could be discussed in a differential calculus, General Relativity. When I mention "Euclidean manifold" I mean the coordinates in a gravitational farfield. One can then consider changing polarizability which I refer to as a "thickening of the vacuum." This seems so to me because the blowup of permittivity at a horizon is accomplished by an increase of the polarizability with respect to the farfield, of a finite factor of 3. "Electrons as topological defect" is nice, and I will say more when I spend more time reading.
Farsight
Thanks Albers. I'm not keen on the thickening of the vacuum myself, because of the mental image it conjures up. But I do know what you mean. I wanted to say hardening, but that gets it backwards with respect to the rubber-sheet analogy where higher mechanical tension means higher shear wave velocity. I've heard others like amrit say "density", and I'm not fond of that either. But maybe I'll have to grin and bear it. I'll see how it pans out in the next essay.

Thanks too Zephir. You can see how this is in essence is an aether model. I don't bang the drum about this because it isn't popular - most people are unaware of the "aether 2" that Einstein acknowledged in his 1920 Leyden address.

manco: if you want to understand the conversion of energy to mass re that maths you couldn't follow, look at MASS EXPLAINED. It's very simple when it clicks. And now that you've conceded that the velocity of light changes, I'll explain afresh how the speed changes. For background I suggest you read TIME EXPLAINED. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

TIME EXPLAINED v2.1
MONEY EXPLAINED, light relief
ENERGY EXPLAINED, needs a little revision
MASS EXPLAINED
Albers
SEMANTICS; What to call an increase of polarizability? What statements might be useful? This is the vacuum medium which is presumed to be Lorentz-transformable but also transformable in a general relativistic way.
Farsight
We talk about "hard vacuum" so I've toyed with softens, and also capacitance. I work in IT, and "semantics" is important to me. One of the important things to do in systems analysis and design is to get the names of things right, be they data fields and files, variables, subroutines, programs, subsystems, et cetera. I'll give this and polarizability some thought in CHARGE EXPLAINED.
Albers
Yes polarizability is capacitance. It is also the only thing needed to transmit magnetic energy and so it does double duty as permeability. Puthoff argues that in all we observe the two necessarily change proportionally together, or the fine structure constant would not be preserved. With the help of SALLY I am stimulated to try to show that a dipole response is all that is necessary to carry electric forces of moving currrent elements.
Farsight
Woof woof same tree, Albers. See my post on your thread re charge is not fundamental.
Guest_amrit
QUOTE (manco+Mar 8 2007, 02:38 PM)
Since you insist: in your BS "essay" you claim that the SPEED of light ,c (which is a SCALAR) is SLOWED by gravity. This is NOT TRUE. I showed that to you mathematically.

You now changed your tune and you picked up that the VELOCITY of light (the VECTOR) is affected by gravity. The DIRECTION of light VELOCITY is changed by gravity. This does NOT mean that the SPEED of light is slowed by gravity.

Euler explained that to you (TWICE already), so this is the THIRD time that you are pointed out that you are wrong.

Since we are on the subject of gross errors in your so-called "essay", you got BOTH the energy of the photon and the energy of the electron WRONG. You never addessed that criticism. You got most everything else wrong, so Euler is correct in his criticism of your so-called "essay": it is junk.

gravity change only frequency of light (red shift) and not speed, sped is independent on gravity and anything else
Albers
QUOTE (Guest_amrit+Mar 9 2007, 02:56 PM)
gravity change only frequency of light (red shift) and not speed, speed is independent on gravity and anything else

Measured locally, the speed of light is invariant
Farsight
amrit: in the model presented by this essay, the speed of light is altered by gravity, but is always measured locally to be 300,000km/s. See TIME EXPLAINED for details of how c defines time. We know that c also defines distance, but the transverse metre rule gives you a conceptual situation where time dilation is not offset by length contraction. I've heard you talk of an increased "density of space". In the rubber-sheet analogy this would mean a reduced shear wave velocity, which suggested to me that your own mental model would include a non-constant 300,000km/s. See GRAVITY EXPLAINED text for details.
manco
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 06:55 PM)


manco: if you want to understand the conversion of energy to mass re that maths you couldn't follow, look at MASS EXPLAINED. It's very simple when it clicks. And now that you've conceded that the velocity of light changes, I'll explain afresh how the speed changes. For background I suggest you read TIME EXPLAINED. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

TIME EXPLAINED v2.1
MONEY EXPLAINED, light relief
ENERGY EXPLAINED, needs a little revision
MASS EXPLAINED

If I want to understand physics, I read books by scientists, I don't need to read your junk "essays" which are nothing but a collection of pretentious errors and misconceptions.
BTW, you still haven't addressed the criticisms to the current thread.
Your :
-photon energy is wrong
-electron energy is also wrong
-you state that "c slows down in a gravity field" (also wrong)

etc,etc.
elas
It is probably better to say that gravity determines the speed of light. Consider the graviton to be the particle that carries (transfers) the photon from particle to particle at a fixed rate. Then the speed of light (and time) is determined by the density of the gravitons, it is not related to the speed of the sender or receiver. The passage of light is curved when there is a difference in graviton density at an angle to the photon's trajectory. Given the size of photon, it will be seen that there has to be a very strong gravity force to create a difference either side of a photon. Hence the very small course change caused by the sun.
Zephir
QUOTE (manco+Mar 11 2007, 09:43 PM)
...you state that "c slows down in a gravity field" (also wrong)..

By AWT this stance depends on the role of the observer, i.e. the fact, whether he's influenced such gravity field too, or not.

User posted image User posted image

For example, the gravitational lensing effects or relativistic aberration can be considered as the sort of optical effect, i.e. the refraction of the light by the more dense Aether at the presence of large massive bodies. With the constant speed of light such effect couldn't be observed at all.

QUOTE (manco+Mar 11 2007, 09:43 PM)
...I don't need to read your junk "essays" which are nothing but a collection of pretentious errors and misconception...

I don't think, the Farsight's "essays" brings, what they promising, i.e. the explanation of time or gravity at all. He didn't even realized, what he never understood. Read the theory full of holes instead, the Aether foam based AWT.. wink.gif
manco
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 11 2007, 11:15 PM)
By AWT this stance depends on the role of the observer, i.e. the fact, whether he's influenced such gravity field too, or not.

User posted image User posted image

For example, the gravitational lensing effects or relativistic aberration can be considered as the sort of optical effect, i.e. the refraction of the light by the more dense Aether at the presence of large massive bodies. With the constant speed of light such effect couldn't be observed at all.


I don't think, the Farsight's "essays" brings, what they promising, i.e. the explanation of time or gravity at all. He didn't even realized, what he never understood. Read the theory full of holes instead, the Aether foam based AWT.. wink.gif

I looked at it, it is also junk.
Zephir
QUOTE (manco+Mar 12 2007, 02:38 AM)
I looked at it, it is also junk.

What you looked at is irrelevant - the important is, what you've proved.
elas
Farsight

One of the important things to do in systems analysis and design is to get the names of things right, be they data fields and files, variables, subroutines, programs, subsystems, et cetera. I'll give this and polarizability some thought in CHARGE EXPLAINED.

The names of things are the result of a historical practice in physics where anything that cannot be defined is given a name and then left undefined.
In the introduction to most books on QT and Relativity there is a statement to the effect that we do not know what things, such as gravity, mass, electromagnetism etc; are; we only know how to compute them (i.e. what they do).
I have gone back to basics in the forum:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13304
it includes an explanation of the relationship between vacuum force, gravity and electromagnetic force (Table 7).

I had previously written a piece on charge that is not in my current page as It is being revised, I would like to know where to find your charge explained

The greatest need in physics today is an interpretation of the great mathematical theories (Relativity and QT). I would like to see a forum devoted to interpretation as a counterbalance to the abundance of forums devoted to mathematical variation of current theories.
bukh
Hej Zephir

You Say: "For example, the gravitational lensing effects or relativistic aberration can be considered as the sort of optical effect, i.e. the refraction of the light by the more dense Aether at the presence of large massive bodies. With the constant speed of light such effect couldn't be observed at all."

I think that all of the effects which are ascribed to gravity is an effect of what you rightly say - namely that the density of Aether is influenced by and adjusted to the distance of Aether to any particle. The Bigger (denser) the particle the more dense and vice versa.

And Yes - light propagates with the characteristic speed of A Photon, and this speed is defined by the speed of its constituents (building blocks), because the Photon cannot tame the inherent speed - velocities - of its building blocks.

And that is why I suggest that the sub-quantum particles in a Photon is arranged in such a way that they are forming a particle without any internal center / geometry, and that is why the Photon does not (nearly not) express mass, - and that is why the Photon particle form cannot entrap the sub-quantum particles into standing waves, - and that is why the Photon HAS TO PROPAGATE.

But the Photon consumes a little energy - in the form of oscillations - during its way through the Aether - and this is the explanation behind the red-shift. The denser the more.
Farsight
Noted, elas. The essays TIME EXPLAINED, ENERGY EXPLAINED, MASS EXPLAINED, and GRAVITY EXPLAINED address those undefined things. I haven't written CHARGE EXPLAINED yet. My working title for all of this is Relativity++. I'll get back to you later re your thread on that thread.

Manco: I rather thought I had addressed your criticism. The energy of a photon E=pc involves no mass, but we can create an electron from this photon via pair production. Then we do have mass, and we can say E=mc≤. Yes, there's a little wastage, and we do create a positron as well. Perhaps you'd be happier with E=pc => E = mc≤. Read the essay regarding c, and ask yourself why you have a point-blank insistance that "c is flat". Understand that light defines our metres and seconds, so we can never measure any different value for c, even when it changes.
bukh
Hej Farsight

You say: "Understand that light defines our metres and seconds, so we can never measure any different value for c, even when it changes."

Yes - or perhaps even more fundamental - we can say that the velocity of A Photon is a reflection of the "Beat of Change" in the Universe, which reflects the velocities (relatively) of any structure, and ofcourse also the velocities of any of the individual sub-quantum particles.

And the speed of a photon - it should be remembered - is not a reflection by any way of the fastest speed in universe. It is no more than the speed of that particular structure that a Photon happens to be, namely the structure which carries the amount of energy which is just observable for humans (and their instruments - at least at those days where the photon was defined), and the Photon is just THE structure designed for speed. No other structures can carry the same amount of energy that fast. But there exist many many structures composed of smaller amounts of energy - complexity, exerting velocities far far beyond the photons.

And a very essential task for the photon is to carry energy around in the system - and because it is so fast, it is more than logic that humans use the photon as a visualizer.
Zephir
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 12 2007, 12:23 PM)
...we can say that the velocity of A Photon is a reflection of the "Beat of Change" in the Universe, which reflects the velocities (relatively) of any structure, and of course also the velocities of any of the individual sub-quantum particles...

If the light speed is universal constant, it should apply to everything, including the speed of surface waves at the water surface, isn't it? We can say, the speed of water waves is slower, because the water surface gradient is less dense/curved, then that one inside of vacuum, but I'm afraid, the general relationship will be more complex, because the real waves are the mixture of transversal and longitudinal ones, they can be result of composite interactions, and so on.
Ivars
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 12 2007, 09:23 AM)
And the speed of a photon - it should be remembered - is not a reflection by any way of the fastest speed in universe. It is no more than the speed of that particular structure that a Photon happens to be, namely the structure which carries the amount of energy which is just observable for humans (and their instruments - at least at those days where the photon was defined), and the Photon is just THE structure designed for speed. No other structures can carry the same amount of energy that fast. But there exist many many structures composed of smaller amounts of energy - complexity, exerting velocities far far beyond the photons.

And a very essential task for the photon is to carry energy around in the system - and because it is so fast, it is more than logic that humans use the photon as a visualizer.

This is indeed a very subbtle insight.

When Aether breaks due to rotation of Vortex breakdown structures,when Aether is not able anymore catch itself, due to speed, the BREACH in Aether forms a structure called Photon.

As BREACH, TEAR progresses in Aether Photon structure which fills it propagate forward with speed c.

Photon carries the energy of the BREACH in Aether. What is this energy? It is the energy released from Aether by forming of a surface where is has been with no surfaces.

So e=mc^2 is actually the mass of surfaces created in 1 second by tearing Aether!

So the energy of photon is = extra surface energy of Aether in that spot. Question remains, why these surfaces are modulated with Photon frequency, what is their structure?

On this side of AETHER surface, v<c.Classical physics mostly. VOid physics.
On the otherside, v>c. Subquantum physics. Aether physics.
On border case, on surface, inside surface- quantum physics.

dx dp <h/2 = dx = thickness of the surface; in durface, speed changes from c to >c or from c < c = MEASURED C so speed varies.


So we have been looking at nature Head down. Time to reverse back.

Thanks, bukh, for inspiration rolleyes.gif
Farsight
bukh: the important thing is that everything is in essence made of light. An electron is basically a photon tied in a moebius loop. A knot of stress if you like. A positron is an electron with the knot going the other way, like the mirror image. A proton is a tighter knot, with more turn in it and a lot more energy all tied up into one location. I'm not sure about a neutrino, I think it's some kind of unknotted loop.

Ivars: you don't tear it, you squeeze it. It's not a breach it's a stress. Yes it's a topological defect, but there's no surface to a stress. All this is akin to the rubberworld analogy, but not quite, and if everything "is made of light" you need to be a little cautious when you talk about aether. If there's no light, then in a way that aether isn't there either. I'll try to explain all this properly in my next essay.
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 02:28 PM)
the important thing is that everything is in essence made of light.

It's better to say "of bosons", as the photon is the specific sort of boson, just the most common one. Here's lotta interactions, which aren't affected by the light spreading at all. The sterile particles are the apparent exception, too. The vacuum can be considered as the mixture of different bosons.
Farsight
If you like, Zephir. The thing is that everything is just some ripple in this ghostly rubberworld. Like I said in the essay, it's a tale of something and nothing, and I need to explain this properly using valleys and holes because the concept is difficult. Yes we can use the word aether, but it's not the aether people used to think of, like some kind of material substance. There are no material substances, just ripples in this aether. And if there are no ripples... no, I need to deal with it properly, later. For now, it's the "aether" that Einstein talked about in his 1920 Leyden address. And it definitely doesn't flow.
Ivars
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 11:28 AM)
Ivars: you don't tear it, you squeeze it. It's not a breach it's a stress. Yes it's a topological defect, but there's no surface to a stress. All this is akin to the rubberworld analogy, but not quite, and if everything "is made of light" you need to be a little cautious when you talk about aether. If there's no light, then in a way that aether isn't there either. I'll try to explain all this properly in my next essay.

There is a SURFACE. That is fundamental.

And this surface is MOVING against aether, similar to superfluid thin films moving all around rotating vessels.

This thin moving film is attaached to a pure Aether surface.

http://www.ujf-grenoble.fr/PHY/FOREXPER/TP...ion%20film.html

It just climbs after Aether which is there already, helium just attaches itself to existing Aether surface structure as in superfluid, there is no friciton to hold it back. This explains the surface tension effects in all liguids
Farsight
Ivars: no, there is no surface. That's why particles cause so much difficulty. They have no surfaces. There is no "pure aether surface". And no fluids. But let's just agree to differ on this.

Zephir: re what I was saying about something and nothing, here's a hole, in the middle of the dots:

... ...

We say it exists. Now if I leave it alone, if I don't touch it at all but instead remove what's around it, well.... here's your hole now:







Does it still exist?
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 04:09 PM)
Here's your hole now: Does it still exist?

By AWT the hole cannot exist, just the gradients of Aether density. No gradients, no hole, or whatever you'll call this artifact.

QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 04:09 PM)
There is a SURFACE. That is fundamental.

The surface is rather well pronounced, specific kind of Aether density gradient (it separates two distinct phases of Aether), but this insight is basically correct. For me is just surprising the number of ways, the people are trying to interpret the fundamental insight of AWT: the AWT is made of the infinitely dense mixture matter and energy (particle system), which fulfills the Newtonian mechanic. Everything else follows from this introductional assumption.
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 03:04 PM)
Yes we can use the word aether, but it's not the aether people used to think of, like some kind of material substance. There are no material substances, just ripples in this aether.

In fact the inertial ripples are the typical property of matter surface. We can say, the matter is formed just by density gradients of another matter, which fulfills the Newton inertia laws and the energy conservation law. Both these laws are typical for matter, the other mainstream theories doesn't uses the Newtonian mechanic.

We can say, for tiny water waves the underwater doesn't exist, just the surface as exists, because these surface waves doesn't reflect the underwater movement . This aspect of matter behavior is just much more pronounced in Aether due the incredible density of Aether. We have the tendency to neglect the tiny bulk density fluctuations of the matter. At the case of the Aether it's the most apparent manifestation of it, because we are formed by the Aether, too.
Farsight
Density is the wrong word, Zephir. It suggests some material substance. It makes your aether too substantial. Have a read of MASS EXPLAINED and see how the stress that is energy can be localised to convert momentum into inertia and so create mass. Only then do you have a material substance with a density. You need to drill down deeper and get past this and then come up with something more meaningful than "aether foam". The fundamental entity here is IMHO better described as electric space, and here's the rub: without the electric it's just wall-to-wall hole.

Edit: and you must drop all analogies of fluid and surface. Transverse waves don't travel through fluids, and they don't have surfaces. Stick with elastic. And definitely drop this idea of recursiveness. It's no explanation at all, just turtles all the way down.
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 05:11 PM)
Density is the wrong word, Zephir. It suggests some material substance. It makes your aether too substantial.

The infinitely dense Aether cannot be "too substantial". It's a part of AWT definition of Aether.

QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 05:11 PM)
The fundamental entity here is IMHO better described as electric space, and here's the rub: without the electric it's just wall-to-wall hole.

I don't know, what the "electric space" means. But the usage of electricity concept in the role of universal field description is naive. The electricity is the manifestation of material nature of Aether, not vice versa. The Newtonian mechanic is much simpler and more fundamental, then the Maxwellian equations. The matter can exist without electricity at all, whereas the electricity cannot exist without matter.

QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 05:11 PM)
† And definitely drop this idea of recursiveness. It's no explanation at all, just turtles all the way down.

I can understand, you wanna find some easy non-recursive explanation of the inertia and matter concepts, like the others - but at this point I can't see any trivial solution of this dilemma. Whole our understanding of reality is based on the recursion. For example, how do you want to create the gradient without another, less or more hidden environment on the background, assumed ad hoc?
Albers
QUOTE (elas+Mar 12 2007, 06:51 AM)

The greatest need in physics today is an interpretation of the great mathematical theories (Relativity and QT). I would like to see a forum devoted to interpretation as a counterbalance to the abundance of forums devoted to† mathematical variation of current theories.

I am offering possibilities in GR with gravitation and now also with the Reissner-Nordstrom metric. Also it may be possible to reformulate quantum mechanics with a photon position operator constructed with the acknowledgement of the inhomogeneous contributions of the vacuum polarization field. I am not the first person to discuss what is known as the PV, or Polarized Vacuum theory; I saw something from R. Dicke in the late 1950's. I think I am offering a new piece of the puzzle, however; my brother thought I should persist at JMP for this reason, but I do not care to. All papers I have seen work with a scalar permittivity field interpreted in a Scwarzschild metric. I suggest we can put horses before our cart by seeing that charged particles, and thus even neutral assemblages, are dispositions of the vacuum medium which create the populations mirrored in the relativistic metrics. I feel great opportunities beyond "mathematical variation" lie here, what do you think, elas?
Farsight
Zephir: then you'll have to fix your AWT definition of aether. Because infinitely dense it is not. Because there are no infinities, and there is no density to it. What we think of as material are just stresses in that immaterial ghostly rubberworld that is empty space. For your definitions to work you have to relabel empty space as matter, and that's a step too far. Read MASS EXPLAINED for the momentum to inertia step. Understanding matter is trivial. And I'll demonstrate why your recursion is unnecessary in my next essay.
Farsight
Albers: I've now got a working title for the "toy model" presented in my series of layman's essays...

RELATIVITY++
Ivars
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 12 2007, 01:48 PM)

The surface is rather well pronounced, specific kind of Aether density gradient (it separates two distinct phases of Aether), but this insight is basically correct. For me is just surprising the number of ways, the people are trying to interpret the fundamental insight of AWT: the AWT is made of the infinitely dense mixture matter and energy (particle system), which fulfills the Newtonian mechanic. Everything else follows from this introductional assumption.

I need visible model, and may be also hearable and touchable. Symbolic math offers very weak approximation, too little information, and I mostly avoid dealing with it.

If You say Your AWT model supports the idea of a surface as something fundamental that separates 2 phases of Aether, then it is correct in that point. As I arrived this concept from pure numerology + sentences, it is encouraging.

However, You seem to still maintain the idea of infinite reduction of physical scale which I do not agree with because of Kolmogorov minimal Aether Scale which is 0.675*10-58 m, and fundamental frequency derived from Aether Kolmogorov time. There is a cutoff frequency, smallest scale, where physical recursiveness of Aether foam ends but physics as such does not end and we enter the realm of Thermal phenomena. In all scales.

I have also not seen earlier derivations of the thickness of this surface as a function of frequency which came out nicely ( in other thread) as

r^2=1/pi * ( c^2/ni^2)

dx = r+ -( r-) = +1/sgrt(pi)* (1/k +(1/ i^2)*1/k) [B]

where r^2 is radius of rotation of Aether tube around photon of frequency ni.

I suppose, this formula is true for really ideal liquid. All other REAL liguids must have boundary layers whose thickness in vortex is :

[B]dx = 2 sgrt ( r^2) = 2* (linear mean speed v/de broglie frequency)* sgrt (1/pi)


For liguids with friction, the observable layer thickens compared to this as a function of viscosity.

In effect, we are dealing with channeling of Aether waves in these surfaces. But that is only small part of the whole system, although very important.
Imagination
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 9 2007, 05:52 PM)
the speed of light is altered by gravity

Again, that is why Gravity and Light are of the same coin.

However: Light is 'consequence' of Spin Rotation, and that there be an Observor.

Gravity is the Root Unit from which all Manifest into Perceptual Awareness upon our Senses.
Gravity links directly to Universal Consciousness
Zephir
QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 12 2007, 05:56 PM)
...You seem to still maintain the idea of infinite reduction of physical scale which I do not agree with because of Kolmogorov minimal Aether Scale which is 0.675*10-58 m..

This recursiveness is practically limited by the speed of energy spreading. We can imagine, the Universe simply will decompose more early, then we can even detect/observe it's subtleties in its full depth. The same constraint follows from the idea of gravitational pressure inside of black hole of infinite size. As the black hole size increases, it becomes more dense. The more dense the black hole is, the slower it mediates the gravitational pressure. We can imagine the black hole huge by such way, so it cannot maintain it's own gravitational pressure. This gives a practical limit for the Universe size by such way, but the number of Universe generation still remains unlimited.
Albers
Farsight, sure and how about QMII? It's either that or NQFD. Zephir, how do we express "gravitational pressure"?
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 05:51 PM)
For your definitions to work you have to relabel empty space as matter, and that's a step too far

The empty space cannot vibrate, undulate, it cannot exhibit no change at all without apparent reason. In fact, the smaller the initial change appears, the more dense environment we should consider/assume to achieve such change in it.

This is just a causality problem.

I'm considering the formation of space from dense matter just because such relabeling appears quite commonly in the Nature, only by more subtle way.
Ivars
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 12 2007, 03:24 PM)
This recursiveness is practically limited by the speed of energy spreading. We can imagine, the Universe simply will decompose more early, then we can even detect/observe it's subtleties in its full depth. The same constraint follows from the idea of gravitational pressure inside of black hole of infinite size. As the black hole size increases, it becomes more dense. The more dense the black hole is, the slower it mediates the gravitational pressure. We can imagine the black hole huge by such way, so it cannot maintain it's own gravitational pressure. This gives a practical limit for the Universe size by such way, but the number of Universe generation still remains unlimited.

OK.

I have not got THAT far yet.

As to fate of Universe if it survives, it may be infinite reaching of higher level of complexity.

But it is not given it will survive. There is a test to pass before next level. If Universe fails, then of course new one will be born, from ASH (thermal type destruction because heat generated by Aether currents will exceed cooling caused by expansion).

You may say this circle of rebirth goes for ever. It seems so at least. But does Your theory really explain HOW it happens, these 2 types of cycles?
Robert Neil Boyd

The speed of light, c, is not a constant. The speed varies directly with the density of the media, and alters instantly on encountering a density gradient. More dense the transparent media, the slower light will travel through that media. The velocity of light can be slowed to a crawl, and even made to reverse its initial propagation direction without mirrors, in a Bose-Einstein Condensate. See:

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/physnews.415.htm#1

This article also appeared in Nature, 18 February 1999. Hau and his colleagues "... also observed unprecedentedly large intensity-dependent light transmission. Such an extreme nonlinear effect can perhaps be used in a number of opto-electronic components (switches, memory, delay lines) and in converting light from one wavelength to another."

User posted image

Velocity-distribution data confirming the Bose-Einstein condensate

This is old news, dating from 1999. We can do a lot more these days.

The speed of light also alters during gravitational transient events, as a result of variations in the permeability and permitivity of the media caused by such events. The speed of light is altered during delta E grad events (where E grad is charge density), if the light is transiting the volume of the delta E grad event. Gravitation and inertia also exhibit variations in the volume of the delta E grad effect.
The pace of time in the volume of the effect varies as well, during a delta E grad event.
bukh
Hej Farsight

You say: "bukh: the important thing is that everything is in essence made of light. An electron is basically a photon tied in a moebius loop. A knot of stress if you like. A positron is an electron with the knot going the other way, like the mirror image. A proton is a tighter knot, with more turn in it and a lot more energy all tied up into one location. I'm not sure about a neutrino, I think it's some kind of unknotted loop."

Well - I favour the idea that the Photon (like any other of the so-called elementary particles) is construed from a (probably fairly high) number og sub-quantum particles - which are build of sub-sub-quantum particles --etc.

The important point is that the quality of any particle is dependant on SHAPE and SIZE. And by Shape I mean the outer conture - as I said in this thread about ten days ago.
(Posted on: Mar 3 2007, 08:50 AM)

And Yes the Photon is configurationally transformed into an Electron, but this is probably only ONE - and not specifically outstanding - example about how subquantum particles transform from one quality to another by configurational changes. And one can easily imagine how such changes also involves loss or uptake of one or more extra sub-particles.



bukh
Hej Ivars

On this side of AETHER surface, v<c.Classical physics mostly. VOid physics.
On the otherside, v>c. Subquantum physics. Aether physics.
On border case, on surface, inside surface- quantum physics.

Yes - exactly - YES
bukh
Hej Ivars and Zephir

QUOTE (Zephir @ Mar 12 2007, 03:24 PM)
"This recursiveness is practically limited by the speed of energy spreading. ----etc"

Sometimes I get the impression that I cannot see the direction - what is the egg / hen --

I would say that everything starts in the small - meaning that recursiveness in a sense builds upwards.

Quote myself: Posted on: Feb 21 2007, 03:24 PM

"Nothingness does not apply, but infinite concentration of density neither. It is here that AWT is such a strong concept in that complexity goes infinite - smallness goes infinite, but "energy" or "density" will always be counterbalanced against the 3D structure, which is an absolute requirement in order to get a motion. And it is the motion - creating the wave - that creates a condensation - that creates a particle - and upwards in complexity untill we have the elementar forces and further upwards.

And any particle is made of particles, with the possibility of re-arrangment and transformation, so any energy can be expressed and some energy forms can be freely exchanged to each other - others only with difficulties - but with preservation of energy. And the quality that we measure (light - mass - gravity ---) is exclusively the consequence of the outer gross appearance of that specific particle.

In the EVERYTHING energy must be preserved as a constant because energy in its pure virgin unexpressed form is the origen of EVERYTHING.
Entropy is following the laws of thermodynamics in our Universe - but not necessarily in the EVERYTHING - because complexity can be reduced probably by forces belonging to black hole structures."

Huh - that was a long quote - wonder if you read it.

Anyhow it implicates that recursiveness downwards never should be a problem - we can always discuss when / or if the physical world is grown out of the imaginary world -

It means that gravitational force / density - so to speak exist in its maximal form - and always will in any place where matter exists - but of course the amount of materialized matter growing out from any particle structure is very different.

Is this totally absurd ?




Farsight
bukh: no, there's no recursion, that's just putting off explanation with a "turtles all the way down" non-argument. You're going the wrong way here, the right way is to build up with higher energies not down, and consider particle physics to be the study of knots.

Albers: Yes, sure. I'm with Einstein. I'll be looking to explain it.
bukh
Hej Farsight

"the right way is to build up with higher energies not down, "

Energy will always be preserved - it is all about in which form the energy happens to be.

So the highest energy will be in places with highest density (complexity), and before matter is formed, one can talk about "potential density - complexity.

Before matter is formed there is no variation in density - matter is characterized by having density variation - density gradients - complexity gradients.

The physical world is the establishing of stable (nearly stable) gradients, in a delicate balance.

And yes - I still see recursiveness as a good principle - but recursiveness shall not be taken too rigorous - nature would be very boring if it was just a perfect recursive system - simple fractal-like.

But EVERYTHING is beeing build up from downwards - and there is no such thing as MINIMAL UNIT. Everything starts when a fortunate - approbiate form of order happens to pup up in chaos.
Ivars
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 12 2007, 09:44 PM)
Hej Ivars

On this side of AETHER surface, v<c.Classical physics mostly. VOid physics.
Riemann
On the otherside, v>c. Subquantum physics. Aether physics.
Klein
On border case, on surface, inside surface- quantum physics
Euclid.

There is one more geometry inside vs/ outside of structures in the void:

Outside - Riemann
Inside - Fractal geometry and fractal scales

Yes - exactly - YES

More concrete: I hope You still agree.
Ivars
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 13 2007, 08:15 AM)

"But EVERYTHING is beeing build up from downwards - and there is no such thing as MINIMAL UNIT. Everything starts when a fortunate - approbiate form of order happens to pup up in chaos.

Hej bukh,

Energy flows from Big to small, structure is build from small to big. That means there is a place where these flows is in balance. That is where we Humans live.


There is a smallest structure unit and biggest energy unit, corresponidngly, and biggest structure unit and smallest energy Unit.

But Aether exists also at scales smalles that smallest structure. it is Thermal Aether which consists of chaotic movement of something hot gas like.

Is there a smallest unit? I do not know yet.
Zephir
QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 13 2007, 01:33 PM)
But Aether exists also at scales smalles that smallest structure. it is Thermal Aether which consists of chaotic movement of something hot gas like.

It's probable, these structures had appeared by the very same mechanism, like the existing particles in observable Universe, i.e. like the diffusional fluctuations of some previous generation of Universe, so they can exhibit the inertial properties.

QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 13 2007, 01:33 PM)
Is this totally absurd ?

You can read my posts for yourself and compare your stance with that of mine.
Farsight
Can we try to stay on topic, chaps. GRAVITY.
Albers
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 12 2007, 11:36 PM)
bukh: no, there's no recursion, that's just putting off explanation with a "turtles all the way down" non-argument. You're going the wrong way here, the right way is to build up with higher energies not down, and consider particle physics to be the study of knots.


A few constants and a few geometric relations.
elas
Can we try to stay on topic, chaps. GRAVITY.

Perhaps you could start by clarifying some of the points I find difficult to grasp.

You take a mental snapshot, flash, a picture of it in a timeless instant. Itís the same with gravity. Take the time-derivative of that curved spacetime. What you get is a gradient. And itís a gradient in space, not curved spacetime.

I find this a little confusing, Mass distorts gravity so a distortion point travels in a straight line, but a timeless flash of that point is a point not a line. If on the other hand we take a flash of all the points active at a given moment in time then we observe that the points form a curve (for a moving body), neither flash reveals a straight line gradient. If the mass is stationary there is no gradient because the points on any given concentric are equal to each other and every radial is the same, there is no specific gradient particular to a specific line. Finally if we take the two body case then they cannot be stationary in relation to each other and we are back with point or curve but, not a straight gradient.

The cannonball is heavy, and it makes a depression that will deflect a rolling marble, or even cause the marble to circle like an orbit. Itís a nice analogy, but itís wrong. Itís wrong because it relies on gravity to pull the cannonball down in the first place. It uses gravity to give you a picture of gravity.

How do you have something without gravity? Saying mass distorts gravity is simply saying that the larger gravity force carrier distorts the lower gravity force carrier.

There can be no Uniform Gravitational Field. Because without that gradient, things donít fall down.

But things do not fall down they are drawn towards a common centre of gravity, which is not quite the same thing.

We must learn how light is a ripple of nothing.

Nothing cannot have a ripple because a ripple is something, but something created by nothing could.
czeslaw
The gravity is a curvature of the space. We have a time dilation in the gravitational field and in a relativistic motion.
How it is possible in an empty space ?
We need a field, a structure of the interacting particlec to transmit the information according to certain condition. This field have to be built in a specific order.

We know that energy is it oscillation with a certain frequency. More energy (mass) - more oscillation. If mass (energy) causes a curvature of the space it means the oscillations creates this curvature. Oscillations of what ?
Something has to oscillate.
In string theory there are strings or membranes or bags.
Did you notice how the String Theory changes ?
One dimensional string - two dimensional membranes - three dimensional bags.
If there are oscillating volumes we are in Quantum Loop Gravity or in Heim Theory or in Aether.

If we recognise that space oscillate inwards towards the energy as the oscillations source, the Gravity is simple.
The Gravity causes the exchange of the oscillations between particles of the energy (mass).
The potential energy is just oscillation of the space and kinetic energy is oscillation of the rest mass particle.
Zephir
QUOTE (czeslaw+Mar 13 2007, 08:45 PM)
Oscillations of what ? Something has to oscillate.

Well, sometimes I've feeling, I'm living in kindergarten...wink.gif The most trivial things are most difficult for people to understand... The oscillation requires always inertia, if its followed by the periodic motion in the space. It doesn't matter, if we believe in inertial environment or not, if we believe in undulations of strings. The only question remains, how such strings are formed.

user posted image user posted image

The explanation is easy: these strings are apparently the diffusional fluctuations of Aether particles. They're heavily compacted by the pressure into flat membranes. The same undulating streaks will appear during condensation of heavily pressurized vapor or during mixing of two sparingly miscible fluids. We can model their formation by the trivial model of compressed particles on the computer. Whole program will be just a few lines long...

Maybe this explanation is wrong. Maybe these strings are formed by quite different, mysterious mechanism, involving many hidden variables. But this is not reason to ignore the most trivial and explicit explanation at the first line. This stance just demonstrates, how the mainstream science is remoted for everyday physic understanding.
Faithkills
I came upon this while searching for information to disprove or support an idea I have had for some time, please pardon my intrusion here.

I have read all the replies and see lots of rebuttals, but I think the OP may be on to something. It's similar to an intuition I've had for some time. Forgive me if this has been suggested before or if I have made some glaringly silly leaps. (please do point them out however)

What if the universe/present is some shape of hypersphere exploding through 'time'. (possibly from the force of the big bang event, or just due to the nature of hyperspheres) Our 3d universe/present is the surface of that hypersphere. Time is the media in which the universe is exploding through, and c is the rate at which it exploding. What if matter is not transparent to the flow of time, however, and causes reduced time flow in it's vicinity which creates reduced time 'pressure' in their vicinity as any two objects traveling thru a fluid do. (I'm not imputing to time general properties of fluids, understand) Gravity is then the 'intertial' response of matter to travel the shortest path possible through 4 dimensions, in this case by wanting to be close to each other, since it has to travel through less time. In the vicinity of matter time flows slower.

So then there would be no gravitons ever found. Gravity is a result of the inertial response of matter to time flow or matter flow thru time, whichever way you prefer to look at it.

So yes, c is constant in a greater sense, and in fact c is the rate at which the universe is exploding through time, which is certainly constant for any useful purpose. However in any particular frame perceived flow of time is reduced, and c is in a sense literally reduced in that frame, since matter impedes the flow of time, which in turn literally slows the speed of light, since there can be no change faster than the time 'flux' allows. We know the speed of light is reduced in the proximity of matter/in a gravity 'well'. We know that time is reduced similarly. In the degenerate case enough matter/energy can completely impede the flow of time or light. A gravitational singularity.

Further this explains why gravity propagates at the speed of light.

So maybe we would then better view c not as the speed of light, but as the 'speed' of time. That light travels at that speed is merely a tautological result of that being the greatest possible rate of change of anything.

Again please forgive any naivete.
Zephir
QUOTE (Faithkills+Mar 13 2007, 11:01 PM)
What if the universe/present is some shape of hypersphere exploding through 'time'.

If yes, what will change? Can you explain/predict something new by such insight?
What does it mean "exploding through 'time'"?
Ivars
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 12 2007, 10:50 PM)
Hej Ivars and Zephir
Anyhow it implicates that recursiveness downwards never should be a problem - we can always discuss when / or if the physical world is grown out of the imaginary world -

Hej bukh,

This is it; below Kolmogorov Scale of Aether ( remember , if we suppose c= u Kolmogorow , l Kolmogorov = 0.675*10^-11/4*10-58 m , alternatively
l min = 0,675*10-58 m = (G/c^2) m electron).

There are 2 scales which are separated by 10^-11/4.

The biggest ( from physical constants G,c, m electron) is the outer radius of a matrix, a rotating Aether selfresonance shape ; The smaller ( True Kolmogorov) is the inner diameter of this shape, the smallest regular global resonance structure in Aether.

Below that scale, there is Thermal, or LOCAL resonance Aether; Life time of these local resonance shapes depend on there size.

If we look at imaginary space, it also has minimal structure. It is 1 GLOBALLY stable bit. Below that structure, there are locally stable information packages.
Here locality is described not by time lenght, but by spatial length. A single frequency sound which resonates with all Universe is globally stable information structure while it physical representation is globaly stable shape.

At Kolmogorov scale, smallest Globally stable information structure (a SOUND) connects with smallest globally stable physical structure.

Below Kolmogorov scale, Information wavelets ( locally stable - a resonance between surfaces of 2 surfaces anywhere) are mixed with physical wavelets.

Before any structure appears, they are mixed in a form of total chaos- very hot gas. The temperature of that gas can be derived from T Absolute 0, but yet I do not know how. In this gas, no global, no local space or information dimensions exist.

There is one fundamental number which characterizes physical space which is

c^4- 81*10^32 m4/s4 = const what ever happens with dimensions.

There has to be similar number characterizing information space, probably based on base 2.

Between Imaginary and Real physical world which appear when chaos gets first global resonance structure - wall dividing it, quantum physics live. As structures develop, they form a lattice of energy flow inside moving surfaces where Quantum mechanics hold. This wall also has constants characterizing it - e.

i is the link between Imaginary and real world - a connection going via Kolmogorov radius- a small flowing cylinder, in fact.

pi is a harmony constant, linked to the ratio between the spatial frequency of the broglie waves and radius of a structure - in a way, height/to radius ratio.

For a globally harmonic Universe structure, SGRT(pi/2) =1.25331414= H/R where H is height and R is Radius or Growth of a structure.

A human when lifting his hands at the level of the top of his head ( sea Da Vinchi man in the circle) has this ratio....

By the way, arcttan 1.25331414= 51.4141 degrees= 360/ 7,001960020....











Albers
WHY ARE YOU PUTTING IN THE SAME THREAD YOU PUT INTO "PARTICLES HAVE MASS"???
Farsight
If it's not clear, elas, I haven't done my job right. So here you go:
QUOTE
I find this a little confusing, Mass distorts gravity so a distortion point travels in a straight line, but a timeless flash of that point is a point not a line. If on the other hand we take a flash of all the points active at a given moment in time then we observe that the points form a curve (for a moving body), neither flash reveals a straight line gradient. If the mass is stationary there is no gradient because the points on any given concentric are equal to each other and every radial is the same, there is no specific gradient particular to a specific line. Finally if we take the two body case then they cannot be stationary in relation to each other and we are back with point or curve but, not a straight gradient.

Search the internet and you'll other versions of this essay with the graph below. I omitted it here because this forum imposes a limit. I was rather thinking that it plus the actual gradient in the rubber sheet analogy was enough.

User posted image

It's all to do with graphs and plotting new graphs of their slopes. If we start with distance, you'll recognise the expression 1/2at≤. If we take the derivative of this we get velocity at, which is the rate if change of distance per unit time. If we derive it again we're left with a for acceleration, the rate of change of velocity per unit time. We can relate acceleration to force via F=ma and we can also use F=GMm/r≤ to tell us that acceleration a=GM/r≤, then we can omit the G and the M to realise that acceleration is proportional to 1/r≤. Now look at the numbers. If r=1 a=1, if r=2 a=1/4, if r=3 a=1/9. It's the inverse square law. Flip this around and you know the acceleration is increasing as we get closer to the central mass. It's the measure of the amount of "spacetime curvature". But integrate over time and the velocity increases by more, and integrate again and the distance increases by even more. The acceleration is a measure of the local gradient at any one point, which is what I was really talking about. I could wriggle and say derive again to get a gradient in the increase of curvature... but point taken, I need to polish this to remove any doubt.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I find this a little confusing, Mass distorts gravity so a distortion point travels in a straight line, but a timeless flash of that point is a point not a line. If on the other hand we take a flash of all the points active at a given moment in time then we observe that the points form a curve (for a moving body), neither flash reveals a straight line gradient. If the mass is stationary there is no gradient because the points on any given concentric are equal to each other and every radial is the same, there is no specific gradient particular to a specific line. Finally if we take the two body case then they cannot be stationary in relation to each other and we are back with point or curve but, not a straight gradient.

Search the internet and you'll other versions of this essay with the graph below. I omitted it here because this forum imposes a limit. I was rather thinking that it plus the actual gradient in the rubber sheet analogy was enough.

User posted image

It's all to do with graphs and plotting new graphs of their slopes. If we start with distance, you'll recognise the expression 1/2at≤. If we take the derivative of this we get velocity at, which is the rate if change of distance per unit time. If we derive it again we're left with a for acceleration, the rate of change of velocity per unit time. We can relate acceleration to force via F=ma and we can also use F=GMm/r≤ to tell us that acceleration a=GM/r≤, then we can omit the G and the M to realise that acceleration is proportional to 1/r≤. Now look at the numbers. If r=1 a=1, if r=2 a=1/4, if r=3 a=1/9. It's the inverse square law. Flip this around and you know the acceleration is increasing as we get closer to the central mass. It's the measure of the amount of "spacetime curvature". But integrate over time and the velocity increases by more, and integrate again and the distance increases by even more. The acceleration is a measure of the local gradient at any one point, which is what I was really talking about. I could wriggle and say derive again to get a gradient in the increase of curvature... but point taken, I need to polish this to remove any doubt.

How do you have something without gravity? Saying mass distorts gravity is simply saying that the larger gravity force carrier distorts the lower gravity force carrier.


Could you rephrase this? Mass doesn't distort gravity. The gravity is the "distortion" which people call curved spacetime. Masses travel through space and we talk about force (see above), but the masses feel no actual force. Something is different in the space, but I maintain it's a simple change in permittivity and hence c rather than some magical mysterious dimensional deformation.

QUOTE
But things do not fall down they are drawn towards a common centre of gravity, which is not quite the same thing.


Granted. Hands up guv, I was trying to be dramatic.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But things do not fall down they are drawn towards a common centre of gravity, which is not quite the same thing.


Granted. Hands up guv, I was trying to be dramatic.

Nothing cannot have a ripple because a ripple is something, but something created by nothing could.


This is a very difficult subject. If you take all the ripples out of empty space, are you left with some kind of "aether" that somehow is something, even though there's nothing there? The issue is related to holes and properties, wherein a hole is defined by the things around it, and if you keep removing properties one by one you suddenly find yourself empty-handed. I plan to address something and nothing in my next essay... but it's a little scarey.
Albers
It is a "simple change in permittivity", (a "simple twist of fate"), but the kicker is that this is also the substrate of the matter field, which is to say matter is arranged electromagnetic energy.
Farsight
Don't worry about intruding, faithkills. It's a free country. I have great accord with what you said here:

QUOTE (Faithkills+Mar 13 2007, 08:01 PM)
So maybe we would then better view c not as the speed of light, but as the 'speed' of time...

However I have some very different ideas about time. In essence I say it doesn't flow, and there's no moving through it. In fact it was thinking about time that got me thinking about gravity. It goes like this: time is not fundamental so it can't be curved spacetime so it Occam's razor says it's space with something changing in it.

See TIME EXPLAINED for details:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11306&st=0
Farsight
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 13 2007, 11:04 PM)
It is a "simple change in permittivity", (a "simple twist of fate"), but the kicker is that this is also the substrate of the matter field, which is to say matter is arranged electromagnetic energy.

Well said Albers. Everything is made of light, so nothing can go faster than light. Everything is drawn in light, you can only measure the length of your shadow with the shadow of your ruler. The dimensions are only in the light, like pictures on a screen, like shadows on the cave.
bukh
Hej Ivars


You say: "Energy flows from Big to small, structure is build from small to big. That means there is a place where these flows is in balance. That is where we Humans live."

When You say that energy flows from big to small - then exactly how do you define energy in this context?

What I try to say is that energy is expressed in many ways, and one extreme is in its "least expressed form" - and that is actually where one would normally say that it is not expressed - namely as potential energy - where chaos exists - and huh, perhaps even in imaginary world - as a potential!

On the other extreme, - energy is present in its pure expressed form - easy to transform in any other formed matter - and this could perhaps be in the form of the Photon (at least in the observable universe).

And Yes, - structure is being build from small to big - but is this building-up perhaps a kind of transformation of energy into more and more materialized matter?

So it is all about the energy balance between potential on one hand, and the fully expressed materialized energy on the other hand ?? - and then the question remains - where is energy highest?

And Yes - we humans live exactly in this balance of potential and materialized energy - that we happens to be the product from. So-called lower forms of existences / complexities are less materialized forms of energy and vice versa.

And you say: "Is there a smallest unit? I do not know yet."

I think I favour the idea that there exists such thing as the smallest unit - because irrespective imaginary or physical world - it would not make any sense if there was no such thing as a definition on unit - and that implies that there must be a smallest one - absolute intuitively, and no more.

Albers
"A simple twist of fate..." Thus this business of time in different frames of reference gets really weird. The entire reality gets relatively slowed or speeded, for real on any measurable level, I guess. My grasp of cosmologies is not yet good.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youíll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.