• Announcements

    • Cap'n Refsmmat

      SFN Upgraded   07/22/17

      SFN has been upgraded to IPB version 4. View the announcement for more details, or to report any problems you're experiencing.
Handy andy

Blasphemy (Aether, really)

164 posts in this topic

This waterfall is exactly how I am viewing gravity to work.

 

 

A few things to note about this.

 

1. The "space falling" description is just an analogy for the mathematics.

 

2. This solution only works for a spherically symmetrical, unchanging, stationary mass (in an otherwise empty universe). But it is a reasonable approximation for many cases.

 

3. Also, it is identical (mathematically) to the more usual "curved space-time" description (the Schwarzschild metric). So there is nothing that can experimentally distinguish the "space falling" description from the "curved space-time" descriptions.

 

 

 

For the purposes of designing an experiment to quantify this movement of space, firstly I need to know how fast space is contracting.

 

The Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates tell you that.

 

 

 

I suggested in one of the earlier posts that the bending of light as it passes a star of known mass at a known distance from the star should enable a rate of contraction of space. More measurements of light at different distances from the star would enable a curve to be formed around the contraction of space.

 

This has already been done.

 

 

 

A further experiment could be carried out to ascertain if space is not only contacting towards the earth, but revolving with it also.

 

This has also been done: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

(And it does. As expected.)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A few things to note about this.

 

1. The "space falling" description is just an analogy for the mathematics.

 

2. This solution only works for a spherically symmetrical, unchanging, stationary mass (in an otherwise empty universe). But it is a reasonable approximation for many cases.

 

3. Also, it is identical (mathematically) to the more usual "curved space-time" description (the Schwarzschild metric). So there is nothing that can experimentally distinguish the "space falling" description from the "curved space-time" descriptions.

 

 

The Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates tell you that.

 

 

This has already been done.

 

 

This has also been done: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

(And it does. As expected.)

 

Thanks for confirming my sneaky suspicion it has all been done already, and thanks for link. I did not note however any experiment doing the same measurements over the poles, but I guess this has been done also and confirms space is only being dragged in the direction of rotation, as I expected.

 

I think you are wrong. A mathematical model should describe what is happening, it is not just an analogy, or an equation without meaning. Equations describe what is happening or going to happen, unless its probability, then its just best guess.

 

Most models are based on a closed system, and only take into account the most significant components, and ignore the rest to simplify the model.

 

You missed or ignored a question above. Would you say a fair analogy for the increase in speed of galaxies in the universe is they are in free fall moving away from each other and don't feel any acceleration, other than from their own local gravitational fields.??

 

Controversially but I think is still on thread ref the concept of space (the aether being a substance)

 

I am slowly getting up to speed on special relativity. Einstein formed his theories based initially on observations and then by experiment. I still have a long way to go on SR, thankyo for all the links, there is masses of reading there that will keep me going for some time. However I still have this nagging doubt in my head ref atomic clocks, and accuracy when moving through space. My understanding is atomic clocks are not radioactive because they do not rely on atomic decay. Simply, they have an oscillating mass and spring like an ordinary clock. They are normally oscillating in space which is contracting and passing through it and causing gravity. Space exists in and around the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. Once the clock starts moving horizontal to the contraction of space, the space in and around the nucleus will be moving in the opposite direction to the horizontal movement, this may affect the oscillation and cause the oscillation to slow down, this is not time slowing, it is the clock slowing. I know the oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, or a pendulum clock, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. If a wind is blown over a pendulum it will slow it down similarly if space is moving in two planes across an atomic clock it will slow the oscillation. This is not time slowing down as popularly thought it is an instrumentation error.

 

 

Wildly ... off ... topic

 

(but if you open a new thread and actually had a reference to what you were talking about someone might be able to help)

 

Calculate the fringe shift you would expect.

 

What is the easiest way to do this, has it already been done. Most of my ideas seem to have been confirmed already.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are wrong. A mathematical model should describe what is happening, it is not just an analogy, or an equation without meaning. Equations describe what is happening or going to happen, unless its probability, then its just best guess.

 

 

Exactly. However, the verbal descriptions are just analogies or approximations of what the math describes. So you cannot really rely on them (especially the ones in popular science journalism) to gain anything beyond a conceptual understanding.

 

 

 

You missed or ignored a question above. Would you say a fair analogy for the increase in speed of galaxies in the universe is they are in free fall moving away from each other and don't feel any acceleration, other than from their own local gravitational fields.??

 

I did miss. that.

 

I think it is a good way of putting it. Rather insightful.

 

The expansion is the equivalent of free fall; the natural state of motion in the absence of any opposing force.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am slowly getting up to speed on special relativity. Einstein formed his theories based initially on observations and then by experiment.

No experiments.

 

If a wind is blown over a pendulum it will slow it down similarly if space is moving in two planes across an atomic clock it will slow the oscillation. This is not time slowing down as popularly thought it is an instrumentation error.

 

What is the easiest way to do this, has it already been done. Most of my ideas seem to have been confirmed already.

If it's instrumentation error then you should be able to devise a test that would show this. What instrumentation error causes the time dilation in muon decay?

 

You can hardly say your ideas have been confirmed, when you have presented no model. IOW, nothing that can rightly be confirmed.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No experiments.

 

 

If it's instrumentation error then you should be able to devise a test that would show this. What instrumentation error causes the time dilation in muon decay?

 

You can hardly say your ideas have been confirmed, when you have presented no model. IOW, nothing that can rightly be confirmed.

 

I read Einstein made observations then developed theories and developed experiments to confirm them, which I would have thought would be the logical thing to do, rather than developing a theory not based on observations.

 

Big Bangers claim back ground radiation to be the result of a super hot start to an expanding universe. I stated earlier, when a particle decays it gives of radiation, when space expands it may also give off radiation. From this point of view I would claim background radiation as proof of the expansion of space. However it has already been claimed, how would one prove this?

 

The difficulty I perceive with devising a test to explain time dilation, is that it has already been claimed as proof for special relativity.

Think Think Think OK how about really looking at what space is, General relativity predicts expanding space and contracting space in black holes, I assume you have no problem with this. Next looking at the double slit experiment which I think has been glibly over looked by science, leaving us with wave particle duality. Light (or an electron) as it moves through space compresses the space in front of it and stretches space behind it. The movement of the photon of light (or an electron)through space leaves a disturbance in space around its path. Gravity or the contraction and expansion of space can bend the beam of lights trajectory. I am guessing you will accept this is all fair analogy so far. When applied to a radio active clock the electrons passing through space will be affected by the movement of space, in both the vertical and the horizontal, and therefore affect the clocks accuracy.

 

If we view the electron as a dipole or a donut to give it shape and spin, the muon would look similar but bigger

Ref the muon decay, a muon is an unstable particle, with a very short lifetime, with similar properties to an electron.

I view all particles and all matter as being stable waves or vortices consisting of space. An unstable particle also exists of vortices in space. From the double slit experiment we know space has a memory of what has passed, and therefore must have inertia of sorts. If a particle has the same charge as an electron it must have the same spin, if it has a significantly larger inertia it is more likely to fall apart. The muon life time is extended when moving quickly. In which directions is the muon moving with reference to the gravitational field, in the experiments you are referring too.????

 

If the muon is in free fall with reference to gravity (the contraction of space towards a mass) it will have less disturbance and may survive longer, if it is accelerated against gravity (space) its lifetime may be reduced. Therefore I would suggest an experiment on muon decay to accelerate the muon against the gravitational field of the planet, and another to have it in free fall, or moving with the flow of gravity.

 

Do you have any references to the experiments already conducted?

 

 

 

Exactly. However, the verbal descriptions are just analogies or approximations of what the math describes. So you cannot really rely on them (especially the ones in popular science journalism) to gain anything beyond a conceptual understanding.

 

 

I did miss. that.

 

I think it is a good way of putting it. Rather insightful.

 

The expansion is the equivalent of free fall; the natural state of motion in the absence of any opposing force.

 

Gravity is like that it causes things to go into free fall.:)

 

Thankyou all for your input.

 

I may be losing my access to wifi for a couple of days, but "I will be back" :)

Edited by Handy andy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I read Einstein made observations then developed theories and developed experiments to confirm them, which I would have thought would be the logical thing to do, rather than developing a theory not based on observations.

 

 

As far as I know (but I have been corrected on things like this in the past) Einstein mainly derived the theory of special relativity on purely theoretical grounds. Basically the assumption that the laws of physics (and, specifically, Maxwell's equations) are the same whatever your location or state of motion.

 

 

 

Big Bangers claim back ground radiation to be the result of a super hot start to an expanding universe. I stated earlier, when a particle decays it gives of radiation, when space expands it may also give off radiation.

 

Particle decay, if it generates radiation at all, generates very specific wavelengths of radiation. There is no evidence or theoretical reason to think that space itself can generate radiation (this would appear to violate conservation laws).

 

The CMB is a near perfect black body spectrum, which can really only be accounted for by a hot plasma.

 

 

 

Next looking at the double slit experiment which I think has been glibly over looked by science, leaving us with wave particle duality.

 

Why do you think it has been overlooked? It is a mainstay of popular science articles and there have been many variations of the experiment (for example, using light, electrons, molecules, with and without eraser, with and without delayed choice, etc.)

 

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22double+slit%22

 

More than 22,000 results. I wouldn't call that "overlooked".

 

 

 

The muon life time is extended when moving quickly.

 

You can, of course, make up ad-hoc excuses for each individual bit of evidence. But when they all point int he same direction, that is a losing game in the end.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As far as I know (but I have been corrected on things like this in the past) Einstein mainly derived the theory of special relativity on purely theoretical grounds. Basically the assumption that the laws of physics (and, specifically, Maxwell's equations) are the same whatever your location or state of motion.

 

 

Particle decay, if it generates radiation at all, generates very specific wavelengths of radiation. There is no evidence or theoretical reason to think that space itself can generate radiation (this would appear to violate conservation laws).

 

The CMB is a near perfect black body spectrum, which can really only be accounted for by a hot plasma.

 

 

Why do you think it has been overlooked? It is a mainstay of popular science articles and there have been many variations of the experiment (for example, using light, electrons, molecules, with and without eraser, with and without delayed choice, etc.)

 

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22double+slit%22

 

More than 22,000 results. I wouldn't call that "overlooked".

 

 

You can, of course, make up ad-hoc excuses for each individual bit of evidence. But when they all point int he same direction, that is a losing game in the end.

Ref the cosmic back ground radiation a I would not be the only one stating it is not evidence for a big bang, Alfven for instance a nobel prize winning plasma physicist thought the big bang theory was nonsense and put forward far more plausible theories. He new a lot more about hot plasma than most people as I am sure you are aware.

 

You state that "there is no evidence or theoretical reason to think that space itself can generate radiation (this would appear to violate conservation laws)". I would state that space is continually expanding and distorting and has it has done for an eternity, and matter evolves slowly rather than with one, or multiple gigantic big bangs. "Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

 

What I mean by overlooked in the double slit experiment is that no where is it explained, how the wave effect is produced even when single photons are shot at the double slit multiple seconds apart still producing the wave effect. Clearly the wave effect is due to waves in space, and space must have some memory of what has passed. What people do not point out that there are waves in space, as every photon passes by. They all leave a trace in their path. The only explanations given are generally on a purely mathematical basis, where the underlying explanation is obfuscated by the math. Not one mention of space the medium which the photons pass through is mentioned.

 

I agree someone is making up ad hoc theories to explain stuff, then coming to compromises to include other theories . When all the evidence points to one huge overlooked thing, that has been pointed out in the past by more than just me. When the biggest most dynamic thing in the universe that caries all forces etc is not considered in any theory, then those theories are at best approximations, closed systems. For me and many people in the past, the huge overlooked thing and the biggest most dynamic thing in the universe is space, which I and others refer to as the aether or ether you can use either ether or aether :) I noted on the explanation one of the links about special relativity given earlier on this thread by your self the ether was mentioned. Various ether theories have existed in the past, the newest I think is string theory. But it loses itself in complex maths, all things are waves or vortices made of space, is equivalent to all things can be expressed as strings vibrating in space.

 

Thanks for coming back

 

Did you have an opinion ref the Muon experiment I suggested.

Edited by Handy andy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a bit of reading it seems the muon experiment i suggested above is already claimed as a proof for ng Relativity. :)

 

I don't think SR is anything but instrumentation error. Time travel is science fiction and people of a weirdo persuasion who think they can predict the future.

 

Space is expanding and contracting and is the cause of gravity, and free fall through space. Free fall of galaxies moving apart in an expanding space, and free fall of bodies near a planet.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think SR is anything but instrumentation error.

 

 

You might as well believe it is caused by invisible pink unicorns. That would be slightly more realistic.

 

 

 

Time travel is science fiction and people of a weirdo persuasion who think they can predict the future.

 

Apparently.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You might as well believe it is caused by invisible pink unicorns. That would be slightly more realistic.

 

 

Apparently.

 

I will go with the IPU.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You might as well believe it is caused by invisible pink unicorns. That would be slightly more realistic.

 

 

Apparently.

 

The thing with special relativity I understand the math, I understand the reasoning, and I understand how people come to the conclusions they have. BUT I just DONT BELIEVE IT. I think SR is instrumentation error and a misunderstanding of the properties of space.

 

Space can be stretched and warped, shrink and expand, it can bend light, it has memory of what has passed(double slit experiment) it has properties. Everything is in freefall in space, even galaxies. Space is not just an empty nothing. Invisible Pink Animals or IPA is better than IPU.

 

Space (or a version of the aether) exists, and transmits all forces and makes up all matter. The expansion and contraction of space is the cause of gravity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The thing with special relativity I understand the math, I understand the reasoning, and I understand how people come to the conclusions they have. BUT I just DONT BELIEVE IT. I think SR is instrumentation error and a misunderstanding of the properties of space.

 

 

You say this (even though it is impossible) but then:

 

 

Space can be stretched and warped, shrink and expand, it can bend light [nonsense deleted] ... is the cause of gravity.

 

If you believe that, then it implies you accept general relativity. Special relativity is just a special case (simplification) of general relativity.

 

So you are being inconsistent in accepting a more complex case, but not the inevitable simplification. This hardly seems rational.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a bit of reading it seems the muon experiment i suggested above is already claimed as a proof for ng Relativity. :)

 

I don't think SR is anything but instrumentation error. Time travel is science fiction and people of a weirdo persuasion who think they can predict the future.

 

Space is expanding and contracting and is the cause of gravity, and free fall through space. Free fall of galaxies moving apart in an expanding space, and free fall of bodies near a planet.

 

 

What instrumentation error could possibly happen with muons, and what evidence can you present that would show that it's instrumentation?

I have no further comment on this thread.

 

!

Moderator Note

OK, then, don't bring the topic up again.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.