I hereby challenge Relativity and promote Aether.

Recommended Posts

Ok but have we ever observed light resting? I thought it automatically travelled at or near C at all times.

correct hence no rest mass all particles are field excitations not bullet like objects. The photon is no exception. A field can and does have medium like properties but is not a medium.

By the way how can the thermodynamic laws be too early to prove your model that is trying to overturn estsablished and well tested physics? GR takes the thermodynamic laws and utilizes them in its field equations? ie the stress/momentum tensor

Edited by Mordred

• Replies 137
• Created

Popular Days

Light has no rest mass it still has inertial mass

All of the above can be answered if you stop to think.

1.Take an electric field for example. Have you ever heard the term "propogation delay" ie you can slow down signals via an electromagnetic field?

2.Mass is "resistance to inertia change"

3.Spacetime is a geometry that describes freefall motion. Fields can and do interact and interfere with kinematic motion via their respective coupling constants

1."Propogation rate and propogation delay" were terms I planned to associate with my pet aether theory. But about EM fields, there are some options. Maxwell said Light itself is an electromagnetic field. So if I put Light in the opposite direction of another light, will it reduce each other's speed? Also, magnets. Magnets are a field which has been proven to have an effect on electric fields.

2. True.

3. Spacetime is drawn as dimensionally incorrect (like Picasso or topography.) So let me ask you this, is Spacetime supposed to be denser the closer you get to a planet, or less dense? Either way, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because if gravity was a result of an abberation in Time itself, then time should be radically different in gravitational fields. What makes more sense to me, is that Spacetime is just a metaphor/analogy for Aether, and that objects move to less dense zones (less dense Aether near earth, so they fall to Earth).

I am still trying to figure out why "Spacetime" would cause a force to occur in the first place.

Share on other sites

Yes two light beams can interfere with each other. A strong enough light beam can also generate gravity. All forms of energy can.

Your definition of spacetime will get you into problems. Space is simply volume spacetime is any metric of space that includes time as a coordinate. When you map spacetime you are generating a map of goedesics called worldlines that equate to freefall motion. This mapping technique replaces the need to treat freefall via force. However its appropriate as mass is resistance to inertia change.

The principle you need to study is the "Principle of least action"

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

Yes two light beams can interfere with each other. A strong enough light beam can also generate gravity. All forms of energy can.

But by interefere do you mean that they can reduce each other's velocity?

1.correct hence no rest mass all particles are field excitations not bullet like objects. The photon is no exception. A field can and does have medium like properties but is not a medium.

2.By the way how can the thermodynamic laws be too early to prove your model that is trying to overturn estsablished and well tested physics? GR takes the thermodynamic laws and utilizes them in its field equations?

1. Hmm this goes along with my aether, that light is just a field excitation of the aether field.

2. My theory is too incomplete to make any thermodynamic conclusions. Einstein spent more time on it and was probably more savant than me, so he had more time to refine and make his theory match the data. Sort of like how Plato did with his theory of 5 shapes...impressive to the greeks but doesn't mean it is actually a model of reality.

Share on other sites

So let me ask you this, is Spacetime supposed to be denser the closer you get to a planet, or less dense?

It doesn't have a density. It is just a set of measurements; in other words, geometry.

Either way, it doesn't make any sense to me.

That doesn't make it wrong.

I am still trying to figure out why "Spacetime" would cause a force to occur in the first place.

Here is an analogy that might help.

Imagine two people standing a few feet apart at the equator. They then start walking due North. As they go, they will gradually get closer together (look at the lines of longitude to see why). There is no force, but they are effectively drawn together.

In this analogy, the lines of longitude represent the time dimension (everything moves along that). The presence of mass cause curvature of space-time that causes things to get closer together as they move forward in time.

Share on other sites

Like I said forget eather think in terms of fields and their interactions and you will be able to make sense of relativity. All fields contribute to mass. When you fully comprehend it Spacetime curvature is simply the sum of all field interactions. Electromagnetic/strong/weak/Higgs etc.

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

Like I said forget eather think in terms of fields and their interactions and you will be able to make sense of relativity. All fields contribute to mass. When you fully comprehend it Spacetime curvature is simply the sum of all field interactions. Electromagnetic/strong/weak/Higgs etc.

Not sure I fully comprehend my own aether theory yet, let alone my rivals theory that I don't fully understand, yet understand enough to note a few paradoxes. Because the theory has paradoxes, it may not actually be possible for me to ever understand it, since by definition, a paradox, or set of logical contradictions, cannot be understood.

It doesn't have a density. It is just a set of measurements; in other words, geometry.

That doesn't make it wrong.

Here is an analogy that might help.

Imagine two people standing a few feet apart at the equator. They then start walking due North. As they go, they will gradually get closer together (look at the lines of longitude to see why). There is no force, but they are effectively drawn together.

1. In this analogy, the lines of longitude represent the time dimension (everything moves along that). 2. The presence of mass cause curvature of space-time that causes things to get closer together as they move forward in time.

1. True, everything moves through time. 2. Here's the part I'm not getting. You say mass causes a curvature in space-time. But I see no curvature in either space, or time. Time does not slow down as well fall to earth. Nor does space curve as well fall to earth. If space time was curved, and our forward motion would cause our descent, then a rock thrown vertically, would leave the bounds of the atmosphere.

Share on other sites

Ok lets explain spacetime curvature. It is not space is curved.

What it really describes is a set of mathematical relations in terms of differential geometry. The mathematical relations it is mapping is freefall motion. After all GR is all about kinematic motion.

Lets try a different tact. Take a thermometers and measure the rise in temperature of water as you heat it. With the exception of the phase changes you have a linear relation.

Spacetime curvature is just that. A set of relations done in terms of geometry.

Another example is universe curvature in Cosmology. It is not saying that the universe is flat in terms of its volume.

It is specifically describibg the density evolution of the universe over time.

Physics is based upon math, 90% of its descriptions are mathematical in nature spacetime curvature is no exception.

Share on other sites

My theory is too incomplete to make any thermodynamic conclusions. Einstein spent more time on it and was probably more savant than me, so he had more time to refine and make his theory match the data. Sort of like how Plato did with his theory of 5 shapes...impressive to the greeks but doesn't mean it is actually a model of reality.

Reality, yes, let's get back to that. Again, when are we going to see a comparison between whatever predictions you make and reality? E.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 Stories and YouTube videos and words are all meaningless. Show us that your predictions are better than relativity's. Full stop.

Edited by Bignose
Share on other sites

Ok lets explain spacetime curvature. It is not space is curved.

What it really describes is a set of mathematical relations in terms of differential geometry. The mathematical relations it is mapping is freefall motion. After all GR is all about kinematic motion.

Lets try a different tact. Take a thermometers and measure the rise in temperature of water as you heat it. With the exception of the phase changes you have a linear relation.

Spacetime curvature is just that. A set of relations done in terms of geometry.

Another example is universe curvature in Cosmology. It is not saying that the universe is flat in terms of its volume.

It is specifically describibg the density evolution of the universe over time.

Physics is based upon math, 90% of its descriptions are mathematical in nature spacetime curvature is no exception.

I thought physics, was based on physics, physical space. Though the effect of gravity is tangible, I am not sure the space-time explanation is satisfactory.

I am trying to understand why a piece of non-existentent differential geometry will accelerate me to earth. But lets say for the sake of argument, that the geometry exists. Why would it generate a force upon me.

Reality, yes, let's get back to that. Again, when are we going to see a comparison between whatever predictions you make and reality? E.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 Stories and YouTube videos and words are all meaningless. Show us that your predictions are better than relativity's. Full stop.

My experiments are not possible with the current technology. But I may think of some which may be more feasible. And yes I don't think GPS is a hoax, but there obviously must be a rational explanation of why satellites seem to age slightly less. Time-travel, the least rational explanation in my humble opinion, or at least used to be before Einstein.

Edited by quickquestion
Share on other sites

Physics is the lanquage of mathematics. No physics theory exists without the mathematics. How can any model make a prediction without the mathematics?

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

2. Here's the part I'm not getting. You say mass causes a curvature in space-time. But I see no curvature in either space, or time.

You "see" the curvature as the effect we call "gravity".

Time does not slow down as well fall to earth.

Yes it does. Which is why GPS satellites have to compensate for it.

If space time was curved, and our forward motion would cause our descent

I have no idea where you get that from. Why not try and learn, instead of making up nonsense.

Share on other sites

I thought physics, was based on physics, physical space. Though the effect of gravity is tangible, I am not sure the space-time explanation is satisfactory.

I am trying to understand why a piece of non-existentent differential geometry will accelerate me to earth. But lets say for the sake of argument, that the geometry exists. Why would it generate a force upon me..

Via the principle of least action. I could post the higher mathematics to show how it works and will do so but it won't make much sense without intensive study.

Share on other sites

Physics is the lanquage of mathematics. No physics theory exists without the mathematics. How can any model make a prediction without the mathematics?

How can any model make the precision, the precision you mean.

I can make a firearm or car using pure logic.

But to build a Buggatti Veyron, I'm gonna need to up my math game.

You "see" the curvature as the effect we call "gravity".

2.Yes it does. Which is why GPS satellites have to compensate for it.

3.I have no idea where you get that from. Why not try and learn, instead of making up nonsense.

3.I am trying to learn this theory, even though I don't believe it really, because it is interesting to me. But it is difficult because my fragile human mind needs to see it to believe it.

2. Now I thought GPS time was different solely due to their longitudal velocity (SR). But you are saying it is because of both SR and GR that their clock is different?

1. I don't see gravity as a curvation. It looks more like a straight line path.

Share on other sites

2. Now I thought GPS time was different solely due to their longitudal velocity (SR). But you are saying it is because of both SR and GR that their clock is different?

The difference is due to both relative velocity and difference in gravity. (You can think of these as SR and GR, but actually GR is a more general theory that includes both effects.)

1. I don't see gravity as a curvation. It looks more like a straight line path.

If it weren't for the curvature of space-time, then you would not fall to Earth - there would not even be a straight-line path. I tried a very simple, high-level analogy. If that doesn't work for you, I suggest you work through this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

There is a lot of math but I think you can get something from it, even if you skip that.

Share on other sites

Here is how spacetime curvature replaces Force.

In the presence of matter or when matter is not too distant physical distances between two points change. For example an approximately static distribution of matter in region D. Can be replaced by tve equivalent mass

$M=\int_Dd^3x\rho(\overrightarrow{x})$ concentrated at a point $\overrightarrow{x}_0=M^{-1}\int_Dd^3x\overrightarrow{x}\rho(\overrightarrow{x})$

Which we can choose to be at the origin

$\overrightarrow{x}=\overrightarrow{0}$

Sources outside region D the following Newton potential at $\overrightarrow{x}$

$\phi_N(\overrightarrow{x})=-G_N\frac{M}{r}$

Where $G_n=6.673*10^{-11}m^3/KG s^2$ and $r\equiv||\overrightarrow{x}||$

According to Einsteins theory the physical distance of objects in the gravitational field of this mass distribution is described by the line element.

$ds^2=c^2(1+\frac{2\phi_N}{c^2})-\frac{dr^2}{1+2\phi_N/c^2}-r^2d\Omega^2$

Where $d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+sin^2(\theta)d\varphi^2$ denotes the volume element of a 2d sphere

$\theta\in(0,\pi)$ and $\varphi\in(0,\pi)$ are the two angles fully covering the sphere.

The general relativistic form is.

$ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu x^\nu$

By comparing the last two equations we can find the static mass distribution in spherical coordinates.

$(r,\theta\varphi)$

$G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}1+2\phi_N/c^2&0&0&0\\0&-(1+2\phi_N/c^2)^{-1}&0&0\\0&0&-r^2&0\\0&0&0&-r^2sin^2(\theta)\end{pmatrix}$

Now that we have defined our static multi particle field.

Our next step is to define the geodesic to include the principle of equivalence. Followed by General Covariance.

Ok so now the Principle of Equivalence.

You can google that term for more detail

but in the same format as above

$m_i=m_g...m_i\frac{d^2\overrightarrow{x}}{dt^2}=m_g\overrightarrow{g}$

$\overrightarrow{g}-\bigtriangledown\phi_N$

Denotes the gravitational field above.

Now General Covariance. Which use the ds^2 line elements above and the Einstein tensor it follows that the line element above is invariant under general coordinate transformation(diffeomorphism)

$x\mu\rightarrow\tilde{x}^\mu(x)$

Provided ds^2 is invariant

$ds^2=d\tilde{s}^2$ an infinitesimal coordinate transformation

$d\tilde{x}^\mu=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha$

With the line element invariance

$\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g_{\alpha\beta}x$

The inverse of the metric tensor transforms as

$\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g^{\alpha\beta}x$

In GR one introduces the notion of covariant vectors $A_\mu$ and contravariant $A^\mu$ which is related as $A_\mu=G_{\mu\nu} A^\nu$ conversely the inverse is $A^\mu=G^{\mu\nu} A_\nu$ the metric tensor can be defined as

$g^{\mu\rho}g_{\rho\nu}=\delta^\mu_\mu$ where $\delta^\mu_nu$=diag(1,1,1,1) which denotes the Kronecker delta.

Finally we can start to look at geodesics.

Let us consider a free falling observer. O who erects a special coordinate system such that particles move along trajectories $\xi^\mu=\xi^\mu (t)=(\xi^0,x^i)$

Specified by a non accelerated motion. Described as

$\frac{d^2\xi^\mu}{ds^2}$

Where the line element ds=cdt such that

$ds^2=c^2dt^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}d\xi^\mu d\xi^\nu$

Now assunme that the motion of O changes in such a way that it can be described by a coordinate transformation.

$d\xi^\mu=\frac{\partial\xi^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha, x^\mu=(ct,x^0)$

This and the previous non accelerated equation imply that the observer O, will percieve an accelerated motion of particles governed by the Geodesic equation.

$\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(x)\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{dx^\beta}{ds}=0$

Where the new line element is given by

$ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu$ and $g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial\xi^\alpha}{\partial\xi x^\mu}\frac{\partial\xi^\beta}{\partial x^\nu}\eta_{\alpha\beta}$

and $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial\eta^\nu}\frac{\partial^2\xi^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta}$

Denote the metric tensor and the affine Levi-Civita connection respectively.

There I just provided all the formulas to map and describe spacetime curvature. Did you understand it? of course not it requires intensive study but it does show how Newtonian gravity is replaced.

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

My experiments are not possible with the current technology. But I may think of some which may be more feasible. And yes I don't think GPS is a hoax, but there obviously must be a rational explanation of why satellites seem to age slightly less. Time-travel, the least rational explanation in my humble opinion, or at least used to be before Einstein.

You don't have to do any experiments. They are done for you. See the paper. See the references therein. The experimental data is already out there.

At the very least, if these experiments can't discriminate between your idea and relativity, your idea should make predictions at least as good as relativity's predictions, right? If not, then your objections don't mean squat as best predictions win in science.

So show us that. Or maybe anything other than a vidya and stories. This is a science forum, after all. How about actually doing some science?

Edited by Bignose
Share on other sites

Ok enough of this. Its obvious you need a good textbook or two and ample time to properly study them.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

The first will provide a decent coverage of SR. Study it first

Share on other sites

The difference is due to both relative velocity and difference in gravity. (You can think of these as SR and GR, but actually GR is a more general theory that includes both effects.)

If it weren't for the curvature of space-time, then you would not fall to Earth - there would not even be a straight-line path. I tried a very simple, high-level analogy. If that doesn't work for you, I suggest you work through this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

There is a lot of math but I think you can get something from it, even if you skip that.

I read a bit of it, the gravitational waves sound an awful lot like aether waves to me.

But let's say, I do all of the equations, plug them into a simulation...it would just feel like I am plugging them into a simulation, creating a "reality-shell" to cover for actual reality. I wouldn't get a much deeper gaze upon reality this way.

Here is how spacetime curvature replaces Force.

In the presence of matter or when matter is not too distant physical distances between two points change. For example an approximately static distribution of matter in region D. Can be replaced by tve equivalent mass

A lot of greek I am not qualified to do. But I must ask you...if the distance between 2 physical points change...why must travel occur at all? In order to have the effect of an object traveling the path of least resistance, there must first be a resistance.

You don't have to do any experiments. They are done for you. See the paper. See the references therein. The experimental data is already out there.

At the very least, if these experiments can't discriminate between your idea and relativity, your idea should make predictions at least as good as relativity's predictions, right? If not, then your objections don't mean squat as best predictions win in science.

So show us that. Or maybe anything other than a vidya and stories. This is a science forum, after all. How about actually doing some science?

I disproved Einstein on a fundamental, logical level. If you believe my error is so obvious, then point out at what stage of the video I have made an error. For example, if you disagree with one of my sims, tell me what equation did I need to put in the sim and why. If you disagree with one of my paradoxes, then point out what part of the paradox you disagreed with.

But don't expect me to debate you using chains of complex equations I have never heard, that's no fair.

For example, if I build a Go-kart, and it uses Square Wheels, you wouldn't expect me to debate hundreds of complex Phd level equations in order to explain why my go-kart isn't working. Keep it earthly.

Share on other sites

I didn't say least resistance I stated least action

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

I read a bit of it, the gravitational waves sound an awful lot like aether waves to me.

But let's say, I do all of the equations, plug them into a simulation...it would just feel like I am plugging them into a simulation, creating a "reality-shell" to cover for actual reality. I wouldn't get a much deeper gaze upon reality this way.

So you need to understand what the equations mean, what they describe, in order to get "the big picture".

I disproved Einstein on a fundamental, logical level.

No you haven't. The "proofs" you have provided on the forum have been equivalent to "Physics says that the sky is green but when I look at it, I see it is blue therefore physics is wrong". In other words, they are straw man arguments. (I assume the others in your video are similarly inane and baseless.)

Share on other sites

I didn't say least resistance I stated least action

Hmm. Can you elaborate, but in such a way that I don't have to inject an Xmen mutation serum in order to understand (I never took calculus or lagrangians.)

Share on other sites

I read a bit of it...

And this is the other problem. You assume you know it all and science is wrong so you skim through complex material that needs hours or days of work. You pick out a phrase or two and misunderstand it completely.

For example:

I didn't say least resistance I stated least action

You don't even read what people here write. That is discourteous as well unproductive.

Share on other sites

So you need to understand what the equations mean, what they describe, in order to get "the big picture".

No you haven't. The "proofs" you have provided on the forum have been equivalent to "Physics says that the sky is green but when I look at it, I see it is blue therefore physics is wrong". In other words, they are straw man arguments. (I assume the others in your video are similarly inane and baseless.)

What part of my video made you think the "sky is green" analogy?

And this is the other problem. You assume you know it all and science is wrong so you skim through complex material that needs hours or days of work. You pick out a phrase or two and misunderstand it completely.

For example:

You don't even read what people here write. That is discourteous as well unproductive.

You did the same thing. You judged my video before even getting to my equations because my Cam wasn't HD enough.

And here's the thing. I admitted I was wrong about the action and resistance thing. I admit when I am wrong, when the proof of my wrongness is certain.

Also, I read what people write. I just remembered it incorrectly.

Edited by quickquestion
Share on other sites

What part of my video made you think the "sky is green" analogy?

I didn't watch more than a few seconds of your video (which, for me, is exceptional; I normally refuse to watch videos completely).

Also, I read what people write. I just remembered it incorrectly.

Really? But you "forgot" (instantly) the bit where I said "The "proofs" you have provided on the forum ..."

Edited by Strange