Jump to content
Olorin

Time, Space & the Aether

Recommended Posts

  •  
  17 hours ago, Olorin said:

C. Sagan said:

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition".

Just as the timing of a pendulum and its orbit is determined by Gravity, and differs on the moon, so is the timing and orbit of an electron determined by c, and differs in another frame. What is hidden is the aether frame of light itself, and every frame has its own time and space which creates its c. We do not know of what an electric field is composed, except that it is by the charged particles of which all matter and antimatter is created when the field is disturbed by accelerating charged particles in simple harmonic or circular motion at the necessary frequency.

I guess you do horoscopes. How much do you charge?

Like

Phi for All

  • Chief Executive Offworlder
  • Phi for All
  • Moderators
  • team_staff.png
  •  5862
  • 20399 posts
  • Location: CO, USA
!

Moderator Note

Olorin, it's against our rules for you to assume your unevidenced, non-mainstream aether concept is a valid argument in the mainstream sections. Either open up a thread defending your idea in Speculations, or stop posting about it. You can't use these ideas in discussion until they're supported.

 
Like

 

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken

"One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don't go into government." -- Donald Trump

Now you really do have my attention. What part of this post is not Mainstream? I am defining the Aether frame as the electric field that remains unmanifest until a potential difference is applied. That potential difference is caused by charged particles, when these are brought into manifestation by pair production, always in perfect balance and with zero sum charge creation. The pair production requires E = 2mc^2 = hf frequency gamma ray and a second mass for conservation likewise. The gamma ray may result from a charged particle oscillating at f, or in another inertial frame frame, moving in circular motion. In either case, acceleration of the moving charge is involved. Without acceleration, only relative velocity, only a magnetic field is created, the result of flux imbalance due to Special Relativistic considerations. With acceleration, General Relativistic considerations are involved again producing a resultant force which, were it likewise analysed, would have the properties of Gravitation rather than Magnetism. This we see gravitational lensing and other such phenomena, like stars around an eclipsed sun displaced. The Aether frame so defined remains unmanifest until disturbed, one way or another, by the mechanics of charged particles, creating the very properties of time and space to cause c = x/t to appear constant in every frame by accordingly causing the phenomena which we measure all things by, x & t, and even (dare I say it) m, which is defined by Newton's Third Law plus a standard, in terms of the individual time and space as created by the aether frame rate of propagation of electric field disturbances relative to the frame in question. In other words, George Lucas' "The Force" is none other than the electric field, which can only be detected by its effect on a charged particle placed in that field. Other than using the word "Aether" to illustrate this concept of space-time, it is fully defined in Mainstream terms, by any other name. I have simply tried to provide an intuitive concept of the nature of time and space as a thing created by electric forces acting on charged particles and otherwise non-existent. But if so, then we do have an anomaly in the case of uncharged particles unless they are either a form of the energy itself, or composed of balanced charged particles, or both. Otherwise the forces creating time and space (always relative to an observer) as outlined would have no effect on them. This is plainly true of the neutron, with its 10.3 minute half-life as essentially, like it or not, an unstable nucleus isotope that cannot hold an electron shell. As far as po' li'l me can see, this is nothing but Mainstream + logic. Would you consider that you might be playing a little rough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olorin said:

I have simply tried to provide an intuitive concept of the nature of time and space as a thing created by electric forces acting on charged particles and otherwise non-existent.

This, and almost everything else in that post, is most certainly not mainstream, whatever you might think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Olorin said:
  • As far as po' li'l me can see, this is nothing but Mainstream + logic. Would you consider that you might be playing a little rough?
!

Moderator Note

But you're not using logic (which is for maths and philosophy, not physics), you're using "This makes more sense to me because I don't understand the mainstream explanation". You need to support your ideas without using your ideas if you're going to do science. You need to remove your own subjective biases as much as possible.

How about you ask some questions about what you're unsure of instead of claiming science is wrong? We have some excellent members willing to help if you just take advantage of their expertise. Perhaps you can start by addressing Markus Hanke's observations regarding electric forces and the spacetime continuum?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Olorin said:

I am defining the Aether frame as the electric field that remains unmanifest until a potential difference is applied.

In order to have an electric field you always need a potential difference. In fact, you can have a potential difference without an electric field, but not the other way around. This is because, for a small change in the \( x \) direction, the potential changes according to:

\[\Delta V=-E_{x}\Delta x\]

But this is small potatoes. You can always say your constant \( V \) with no \( \boldsymbol{E} \) is just an artifice. This constant \( V \) is very much a convention: You can always redefine it to be zero everywhere. But not so with the magnetic vector potential. We actually know fermions are sensitive to the vector potential --the equivalent of the potential difference for magnetostatic fields-- even when the magnetic field is zero everywhere, as long as the vector potential has a source line --a thin line of current generating it--. This is called the Aharonov-Bohm effect. In simple terms, it means electrons "know" there is some field there even though there are no electric or magnetic fields.

OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space. There are also electroweak fields, strong-force fields, Higgs fields... So, why would the electric field be the ultimate substance of everything else physical that has spatial extension?

Edited by joigus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olorin said:

I am defining the Aether frame as the electric field that remains unmanifest until a potential difference is applied.

I too would like further explanation of this statement.
At the moment I am not at all sure what you mean.

Note the English appears very very old fashioned (by at least a century) to me.
This is not a criticism but an offer to help recast your words into modern English so that nobody misunderstands them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, studiot said:

Note the English appears very very old fashioned (by at least a century) to me.

It was the "unmanifest" bit, wasn't it?

Maybe they mean non-observable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joigus said:

"OTOH(?), electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space."

Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0):

u0 = 1/(e0c^2) which I render u0 = 1/e0.c^2 attributing higher precedence to . than  to /, to be clear.

To establish common premises, do you understand the derivation of this relation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2021 at 2:51 AM, joigus said:

In order to have an electric field you always need a potential difference. In fact, you can have a potential difference without an electric field, but not the other way around. This is because, for a small change in the x direction, the potential changes according to:

 

ΔV=ExΔx

 

But this is small potatoes. You can always say your constant V with no E is just an artifice. This constant V is very much a convention: You can always redefine it to be zero everywhere. But not so with the magnetic vector potential. We actually know fermions are sensitive to the vector potential --the equivalent of the potential difference for magnetostatic fields-- even when the magnetic field is zero everywhere, as long as the vector potential has a source line --a thin line of current generating it--. This is called the Aharonov-Bohm effect. In simple terms, it means electrons "know" there is some field there even though there are no electric or magnetic fields.

OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space. There are also electroweak fields, strong-force fields, Higgs fields... So, why would the electric field be the ultimate substance of everything else physical that has spatial extension?

OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space.

This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". Since no reply seems forthcoming, I will reply to the question posed:

"Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0):

u0 = 1/e0.c^2.........................................................................................(i)

e0 is the constant used in the force law relating to electric charges:

F = 4.pi. e0.q1.q2/r^2

which bears a striking similarity to"

F = G.m1.m2/r^2

and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder.

We have done worse since to the nth degree.

Maxwell recognised that the speed of light was a factor in much of his work. You will note that it is a part of equation (i) above. The mathematics for this relation is staggering. But to attempt to find a similar relation for G:

G = f(c, e0)..................................................................................................(ii)

would, by comparison, turn a "Theoretical Scientist" into a basket case, if it were only based in the General Relativistic  effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well. If the derivation were achieved none the less, it would quantitatively resolve this issue with current Mainstream thought. I will submit an excerpt deriving and explaining relation (i) from my pre-matriculation textbook unedited for consideration here.

We will thereby also evaluate the possibility that everything from the most miniscule meson to the bigest boson are entirely unnecessary to explain a great deal of phenomena. If so we can give the Nobel Prize to George Lucas and begin to wonder how One Force can create time, space and what will doubtless become perceived as a Universal status quo.

I do not have the mathematical skill to do the derivations, nor the funding to test the implications for consistency with observed phenomena. But since the year 1969, when I read the attached text, I have been following evolving scientific thought and also evolving my own ideas on the Universe.

Magnetism.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Olorin said:

and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder.

 

That's not exactly what seems to have happened. Einstein came up with a cosmological constant in order to account for a static universe, which was his, shall we call it, theoretical prejudice. Einstein's field equations do allow for a term which is proportional to the metric tensor, which has so-called covariant derivative (identically) equal to zero. So Einstein realised that adding such a term did not change the auxiliary condition that was the main drive for his conjecture. Namely: A gravitational tensor which had identically vanishing covariant derivative. Einstein knew the right-hand side of his equation had to be conserved, so he guess a left-hand side that was identically conserved so that his equations were some kind of curved-space analogue of Maxwell's equations. was identically conserved --had identically zero covariant derivative.

Having identically zero covariant derivative are technical words for expressing a local conservation law in a curved space-time (what disappears inside a volume must do it by crossing its surface.) You can always add this term without changing this property. The problem with Einstein's solution was that it produced an unstable solution, so it didn't make much sense. But also, had he guessed that introducing a positive cosmological constant would require an expanding universe, he would have anticipated an experimental discovery that only came decades later by Penzias and Wilson. He regretted that predicting an expanding universe had been within his reach but he fell short because of this theoretical prejudice that the universe must be static.

That's more or less the story. Maybe I can provide some better explanation or bibliography later. Or other users can further clarify. 

Edited by joigus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's not exactly what seems to have happened. Einstein came up with a cosmological constant in order to account for a static universe, which was his, shall we call it, theoretical prejudice. Einstein's field equations do allow for a term which is proportional to the metric tensor, which has so-called covariant derivative (identically) equal to zero. So Einstein realised that adding such a term did not change the auxiliary condition that was the main drive for his conjecture. Namely: A gravitational tensor which had identically vanishing covariant derivative. Einstein knew the right-hand side of his equation had to be conserved, so he guess a left-hand side that was identically conserved so that his equations were some kind of curved-space analogue of Maxwell's equations. was identically conserved --had identically zero covariant derivative.

Having identically zero covariant derivative are technical words for expressing a local conservation law in a curved space-time (what disappears inside a volume must do it by crossing its surface.) You can always add this term without changing this property. The problem with Einstein's solution was that it produced an unstable solution, so it didn't make much sense. But also, had he guessed that introducing a positive cosmological constant would require an expanding universe, he would have anticipated an experimental discovery that only came decades later by Penzias and Wilson. He regretted that predicting an expanding universe had been within his reach but he fell short because of this theoretical prejudice that the universe must be static.

That's more or less the story. Maybe I can provide some better explanation or bibliography later. Or other users can further clarify. 

This "static universe" may well be the Universal Status Quo idea called a SteadyState Theory at the time.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.0132v1.pdf

This does not discount an expanding universe. Firstly, his Special Relativity Hypothesis is stated in "Ideas and Opinions" as "The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source." (which is foul of Newtonian Mechanics) may have been inspired by the universal recession velocities. Otherwise, some "photons" would pass us at the speed of butterflies. He informed Hubble that the universe was expanding. But the antiproton, required to induce the possible existence of antimatter galactic clusters was not discovered until the year of or after his death (depending on sources). Lastly, he considered the universe finite unless its mass density become arbitrarily close to zero with distance. All these facts do not support his belief in a static universe. A universe that is recycling matter somehow and finite (a straight line is only the largest circle - hence Euclid's parallel postulate so stated), and thus fundamentally continuing eternally seems more consistent with his ideas and his failed quest. The Unified Field Theory left him frustrated, but may also have been a part of this quest. To be fair, ad hoc hypotheses creating designer materials and forces to make anomalies evaporate would not have blown his lab coat up, judging from his other contributions.

Edited by Olorin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Firstly, his Special Relativity Hypothesis is stated in "Ideas and Opinions" as "The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source." which is foul of Newtonian Mechanics.

But wholly consistent with Electrodynamics, which is what prompted his investigation, and gave rise to new physics 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, swansont said:

But wholly consistent with Electrodynamics, which is what prompted his investigation, and gave rise to new physics 

 

 

 

Sorry, I hadn't finished the thought, and have edited the post to correct this as you will see above. I was trying to explain what seems to have been the inspiration for Special Relativity (of which Newtonian mechanics is actually a special case or sufficient approximation with v << c) as taken from "the horses mouth", so to speak. It makes his insights more visible than the "relative to the observer" version usually cited.

Edited by Olorin
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Sorry, I hadn't finished the thought, and have edited the post to correct this as you will see above. I was trying to explain what seems to have been the inspiration for Special Relativity (of which Newtonian mechanics is actually a special case or sufficient approximation with v << c) as taken from "the horses mouth", so to speak. It makes his insights more visible than the "relative to the observer" version usually cited.

“may have been inspired by the universal recession velocities” doesn’t fit the timeline

“In 1912, Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (the obsolete term for spiral galaxies) and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Olorin said:

This "static universe" may well be the Universal Status Quo idea called a SteadyState Theory at the time.

I don't think they're the same. The static universe is one model; the steady state is a different one. It's explained in the reference you provided. The steady state is better known as an idea by Bondi, Hoyle, and Gold. I didn't know that Einstein had anticipated a steady-state model. He apparently didn't publicize it much.

56 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Firstly, his Special Relativity Hypothesis is stated in "Ideas and Opinions" as "The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source." (which is foul of Newtonian Mechanics) may have been inspired by the universal recession velocities.

Einstein's hypothesis of the constancy of the speed of light dates back to 1905, while redshift of the galaxies was discovered in 1929. So, no.

Edit: Even if you consider Slipher''s observations, as Swansont says, it doesn't fit the timeline.

OTOH, so-called recession velocities are actually due related to an expansion factor in the FLRW solution to the Einstein equations, which are quite different from local velocities. So, again, no.

Edited by joigus
minor addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

“may have been inspired by the universal recession velocities” doesn’t fit the timeline

“In 1912, Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (the obsolete term for spiral galaxies) and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

I did read it somewhere that Einstein informed Hubble about the Universal expansion, when I first investigated Hubble and his Theory on the net. As a controversial matter however, like a chess player considering all moves, it may yet have occurred to him as a possibility leading to his conjecture. I guess we will never know. The Michelson-Morley experiment is often cited as the prompt. It may have gone even deeper, into the mystical considerations that he was not adverse to by all accounts. It is interesting to ask how "inspired" conjectures arise in the minds of Science's founding fathers, again like trying to see how a chess master has discovered a startling combination in a position long known. To learn to  emulate these people must advance any fraternity. I will take your correction on board.

Edited by Olorin
additional text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olorin said:

I did read it somewhere that Einstein informed Hubble about the Universal expansion, when I first investigated Hubble and his Theory on the net

That's not what happened. Einstein's GR predicted a dynamic universe which went against the general consensus of the time that the Universe was static. He then fudged his equations somewhat with a fabricated  cosmological constant that installed the static concept, aligning with the beliefs of the day. Hubble showed in 1925? [verifying George LaMaitre's hypothesis] that the Universe was actually expanding, and the fact that a galaxy's distance was in line with its expansion rate.

Einstein then exclaimed the cosmological constant as his greatest blunder.

Einstein's Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang | Discover  Magazine

https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+and+hubble&sxsrf=ALeKk032FXo_6b6d5Q5r15PA9T8Yd_cDpQ:1610268911308&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=hGdIvNAXHioD5M%2CryUo-uAKpjXA4M%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQYA9wY4JHKvf468UBadBjA28xGhw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG5s2T_5DuAhUawzgGHbp6BN4Q_h0wAXoECAgQBA&biw=1163&bih=525#imgrc=hGdIvNAXHioD5M

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Olorin said:

I did read it somewhere that Einstein informed Hubble about the Universal expansion, when I first investigated Hubble and his Theory on the net. As a controversial matter however, like a chess player considering all moves, it may yet have occurred to him as a possibility leading to his conjecture. I guess we will never know. The Michelson-Morley experiment is often cited as the prompt. It may have gone even deeper, into the mystical considerations that he was not adverse to by all accounts. It is interesting to ask how "inspired" conjectures arise in the minds of Science's founding fathers, again like trying to see how a chess master has discovered a startling combination in a position long known. To learn to  emulate these people must advance any fraternity. I will take your correction on board.

Never know? No, not really. SR preceded GR. Expansion of the universe wasn’t involved and there was no evidence of it. We have a timeline of events. Making up an alternate history doesn’t fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, swansont said:

Never know? No, not really. SR preceded GR. Expansion of the universe wasn’t involved and there was no evidence of it. We have a timeline of events. Making up an alternate history doesn’t fly. P.S. I have said that a source concerning the timeline was, according to your timeline, inaccurate. Neither did it seem unreasonable to accept as fact. I didn't "make it up". That is inaccurate.

So what do you suppose tweaked Einstein's curiosity concerning the non-Euclidean, non-Newtonian, etc. properties of light (or more generally, the propagation of disturbances in the electric field (aether for want of a more appropriate term)?

Edited by Olorin
fluffed up over the slur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olorin said:

So what do you suppose tweaked Einstein's curiosity concerning the non-Euclidean, non-Newtonian, etc. properties of light (or more generally, the propagation of disturbances in the electric field (aether for want of a more appropriate term)?

You could take him at his word on his reasoning. He explained how he thought about what an observer on one beam of light would see if looking at another, and how to reconcile the thought with Maxwell’s equations 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, swansont said:

You could take him at his word on his reasoning. He explained how he thought about what an observer on one beam of light would see if looking at another, and how to reconcile the thought with Maxwell’s equations 

 

Yet Einstein spent 8 year in Bern, Switzerland on long walks discussing Special Relativity with Emanuel Lasker, never to see eye to eye on the matter. Emanuel saw, and dodged the implication that space and time are relative to the observer (hence all phenomena, which are not derived therefrom?) by claiming that no vacuum exists in the universe in which light would have infinite speed (zero delay at a distance).

https://www.chessmaniac.com/albert-einstein-and-chess/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definitive Einstein biography is 'Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein'.
It is written by Abraham Pais, a Physicist, and friend of A Einstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtle_is_the_Lord

As A Pais was a Physicist, before becoming a Science Historian, so the book does get quite mathematical at times.
It is, however, very interesting, one of the best books I've ever read on the life and times of A Einstein, and it should convince you that E Hubble had no influence on the decision by Einstein to incorporate the Cosmological Constant into GR. ( maybe E Mach did; a little ).

Beecee's account is more accurate. G Lemaitre proposed his Big Bang hypothesis after solving Einstein's non-static equations ( no CC ), after A Friedman solved them for an expanding universe.  E Hubble had measured galactic ( actually nebulae, at the time ) recession speeds of 24 near galaxies in 1929, which turned out to be wrong by a factor of 7, because the zero-point calibration of the 'standard candle' used at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MigL said:

The definitive Einstein biography is 'Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein'.
It is written by Abraham Pais, a Physicist, and friend of A Einstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtle_is_the_Lord

As A Pais was a Physicist, before becoming a Science Historian, so the book does get quite mathematical at times.
It is, however, very interesting, one of the best books I've ever read on the life and times of A Einstein, and it should convince you that E Hubble had no influence on the decision by Einstein to incorporate the Cosmological Constant into GR. ( maybe E Mach did; a little ).

Beecee's account is more accurate. G Lemaitre proposed his Big Bang hypothesis after solving Einstein's non-static equations ( no CC ), after A Friedman solved them for an expanding universe.  E Hubble had measured galactic ( actually nebulae, at the time ) recession speeds of 24 near galaxies in 1929, which turned out to be wrong by a factor of 7, because the zero-point calibration of the 'standard candle' used at the time.

No science fascinates me more than Special and General Relativity and the mind that produced them. Thanks for the reference. On this score I have posed a question critical to my views:

"OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space.

This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". Since no reply seems forthcoming, I will reply to the question posed:

"Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0):

u0 = 1/e0.c^2.........................................................................................(i)

e0 is the constant used in the force law relating to electric charges:

F = 4.pi. e0.q1.q2/r^2

which bears a striking similarity to"

F = G.m1.m2/r^2

and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder.

We have done worse since to the nth degree.

Maxwell recognised that the speed of light was a factor in much of his work. You will note that it is a part of equation (i) above. The mathematics for this relation is staggering. But to attempt to find a similar relation for G:

G = f(c, e0)..................................................................................................(ii)

would, by comparison, turn a "Theoretical Scientist" into a basket case, if it were only based in the General Relativistic  effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well. If the derivation were achieved none the less, it would quantitatively resolve this issue with current Mainstream thought. I will submit an excerpt deriving and explaining relation (i) from my pre-matriculation textbook unedited for consideration here.

We will thereby also evaluate the possibility that everything from the most miniscule meson to the bigest boson are entirely unnecessary to explain a great deal of phenomena. If so we can give the Nobel Prize to George Lucas and begin to wonder how One Force can create time, space and what will doubtless become perceived as a Universal status quo.

I do not have the mathematical skill to do the derivations, nor the funding to test the implications for consistency with observed phenomena. But since the year 1969, when I read the attached text, I have been following evolving scientific thought and also evolving my own ideas on the Universe."

The request has been ignored but is critical to the understanding of gravity as a force not dissimilar to magnetism but from General, not Special Relativity considerations. The explanation of Magnetic forces and the derivation of relation (i) above is in the PDF. Can anyone produce the analogous derivation for relation (ii) likewise. A hoard of physics postulates will receive an acid test with its implications. Refer to the attached PDF for relation (i).

Magnetism.pdf

Edited by Olorin
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olorin said:

and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe

This makes no sense, because gravity in General Relativity is not a force, and does not obey any kind of simple inverse square law.

1 hour ago, Olorin said:

if it were only based in the General Relativistic  effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well

General Relativity is a model of gravity, it has nothing to say about the dynamics of electrons within atoms.

1 hour ago, Olorin said:

The request has been ignored but is critical to the understanding of gravity as a force not dissimilar to magnetism but from General, not Special Relativity considerations

Again, gravity is not a force - even though its description can be approximated by Newtonian mechanics in the weak-field, low velocity regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This makes no sense, because gravity in General Relativity is not a force, and does not obey any kind of simple inverse square law.

A very important property of pseudo-forces is that they are always proportional to the masses; the same is true for gravity. There is therefore a possibility that gravity is also a pseudo-force. Could it be that gravity is caused by the lack of a proper coordinate system? After all, we can always get a force proportional to the mass, just imagine that the body is accelerating. For example, a person placed in a box that is standing on the ground finds that something is pressing him to the floor with a force proportional to his mass. If there were no earth at all, and the box was still at rest, then a person would be floating in space. On the other hand, if again there was no earth, and someone was dragging the box up with an acceleration of g, then the person in the box, analyzing the physics of this phenomenon, would find a pseudo-force pressing it to the floor in the same way as gravity does.

Einstein put forward the famous hypothesis that acceleration causes an imitation (similarity) of gravity, that the acceleration forces (pseudo — forces) cannot be distinguished from the forces of gravity; it is impossible to say which part of a given force is gravity and which is pseudo — force.

It would seem that nothing prevents us from considering gravity as a pseudo-force, to say that we are pressed down because we are accelerated up; but what about the inhabitants of New Zealand, on the other side of the Earth — where does it accelerate them? Einstein realized that gravity can be considered a pseudo-force at only one point at a time; his reasoning led to the assumption that the geometry of the world is more complex than the usual geometry of Euclid. Our discussion of the issue is purely qualitative and does not pretend to anything other than a general idea.

To explain in general terms how gravity can be the result of the action of pseudo-forces, we will give a purely geometric example that has nothing to do with the true state of things. Let's assume that we live in a two-dimensional world and do not know anything about the third dimension. We would think that we were living on a plane, but in fact, suppose we were living on a ball; let us now throw an object along our surface, without acting on it by any other forces. How would it move? It would seem to us that it moves in a straight line, but since there is no third dimension and it would have to remain on the surface of the ball, it would move along the shortest distance on the sphere, i.e., along the circumference of a large circle. We will throw another object in the same way, but in a different direction; it will also go along the arc of a large circle. We think that we are on a plane, and therefore hope that the distance between two objects will grow linearly over time. But careful observations will suddenly find that at a sufficiently large distance, objects will again begin to approach each other, as if they were attracting each other. But they are not attracted to each other; it is all about geometry, it is something "wonderful"that happens to it. Although this picture does not concern the geometry of Euclid (it does not show us what is "wonderful" in it), it shows that by noticeably distorting the geometry, all gravity can be attributed to pseudo-force. This is the general idea of Einstein's theory of gravity (Feynman Lectures on Physics Chapter 12 Pseudo-forces)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olorin said:

 

This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". 

Mainstream, basically, means you can find it in a textbook that is used in accredited universities. The aether only show up in an historical context of a disproven model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.