Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Medium entrainment considered as flow
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Medium entrainment considered as flow
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2012 :  08:19:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "On the topic of "planetary displacement angle" and "stellar displacement angle".
Using the word 'drift' to explain the effect suggests that light would bend along with the direction of increased medium velocity.

But the observed effect is the opposite: light bends towards the direction where the medium velocity is higher.


Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems that you have said the same thing twice.


[Bart]"... the light appears ahead of the direction the observer (and surrounding medium) is moving towards. It would be the same as hearing the sound as it came from the left most hill top ..."

Again I'm not following you. It seems like you would expect the sound waves to drift up-wind as they move across the valley toward you. Or, perhaps you are saying that you think I am saying they drift up-wind?


  • Waves propagating in a medium drift down-wind.

  • If down-wind is perpendicular to the line between you and the source, the source will appear to be down-wind of where it actually is.

  • If down-wind is parallel to the line between you and the source, the source will appear to be either closer or farther away than it actually is.


Note that if the source is also moving, that motion can be, and in general is, independent of any motion of the medium.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2012 :  10:22:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Some additional thoughts.

If we look at a star or a planet or a moon, and we see it to the left of where we expect to see it, after correcting for things like propagation delay and our own motion (aberration), then we can infer that there is a medium between us and that this medium is drifting to the left.

There is more medium between us and a star than between us and a planet or moon. So the amount and direction of any medium drift for the star can be different than for the planet/moon. Even if they are visually right next to each other.

Without an accurate mental picure of how things like drift, drag and aberration can alter what we see, it would be very hard to look at an observational anomaly and understand what it means.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2012 :  10:51:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart]"... the light appears ahead of the direction the observer (and surrounding medium) is moving towards. It would be the same as hearing the sound as it came from the left most hill top ..."

One more possible source of misunderstanding. You talk of "observer motion" here. In my analogy, only the medium has motion. All four hill tops are stationary.

Note in particular that since neither the source nor the observer are moving,

edit*****
(more precisely, since they all have the same velocity)
/edit****

the aberation angle MUST be zero. All of the observed displacement angle must have some other cause or causes. In the modified analogy, where the wind is blowing past both of our hill tops, we will both suspect medium drift as that cause.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2012 :  13:24:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart]"
Medium particles (light carrying / gravition):
- I assume they are much, much smaller then the known particles"


That is our assumption as well.

- I assume the known particles are (at least partially) build of medium particles

Hmmm. It is not an unreasonable assumption, but there is no data to support or refute it now. Since "stuff" is infinitely divisible, we feel fairly jusified in assuming that both normal sized mater and these medium particles are made of the same (much smaller than both) stuff.

- Therefore, I assume that the medium particles are very close to each other

Another reasonable assumption. Again, no data either way. Consider, however, that "close to" is entirely relative.

  • Stars in a galaxy are "close to" each other, compared to the separation between galaxies.

  • Atoms in a glass of water are "close to" each other relative to stars in a galaxy.


The atoms (molecules, actually) in the glass are closER than the stars in the galaxy, simply because atoms are smaller than stars.

But they are also closER if you compare particle size with same-particle separation.

Using this as my standard for judging closeness, and some other things I have not yet shared, I predict that the average particle separation in the light carying medium will turn out to be very large compared to the average particle diameter. As I mentioned earlier I believe they repel each other (rather strongly).

Of course, from our human sized perspective my "not close" description seems to be wrong. Turns out it is and it isn't.

The particles might be separated by a million particle diameters, but if the diameter of a particle is 10^-12 meters, the particle to particle separation is only a micrometer.

To us this is a tight crowd. To them it is lonely isolation.

- A photon is not a particle a such but the combined momentum contained in many medium particles."

This is a decent physical description of a wave. Thanks.


Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 30 Jan 2012 :  17:34:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bart,

I've been re-reading the posts of our recent discussion, and I think I have found a detail ommission on my part that led you astray.

When I set up my analogy and mentioned that there was a wind blowing through the valley (that you did not know about), I failed to mention which direction it was blowing.

You have probably figured this out by now, but just in case, I meant to say that it was blowing from left to right, from the perspective of your hill top. (I'm pretty sure astronomers are used to thinking in terms of right to left motion. Since I did not say, it would have been a natural assumption for you to make.)

The sound of my firecracker would have difted to your right as it crossed the valley, and you would have been sure it originated on the right most hill top since you could not detect the medium flow.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Michiel

Netherlands
85 Posts

Posted - 30 Jan 2012 :  21:59:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Larry (and everyone else of course),

In my original idea, that what flows into mass is "the fabric of space". Since we tend to measure distances in terms of traveling lightbeams, I assumed that this "fabric of space" is equivalent to the light-carrying medium.
Once again, you raise a crucial point. But let's take a step back, and look at the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX).

___

The interpretation of the result of the original MMX makes a rather bold leap:

The earth's velocity in its orbit around the sun is 30 km/s.
The measured drift is "only" 8 km/s.
8 km/s is significantly smaller than 30 km/s , so the result must be ... null.

Mighty strange! First of all, it places the sun at the centre of the universe. And secondly, it concludes that if one theory is proven incorrect, "the other" theory must be true.

___

An important question is: was the model used to interpret the data from MMX correct? If MMX had been done in a vacuum, would the up-wind drift have cancelled out the down-wind drift? In other words: Is the measured drift actually caused by an asymmetry, introduced by the refractive index of the medium (air, in the case of MMX)? If so, the result of 8 km/s would have to be multiplied by a large factor.

That question keeps burning, trying to digest the links (among others) over at http://www.orgonelab.org/energyinspace.htm
Ultimately, only experimentation will give us meaningful answers.

___

Possible setup for an experiment:

- Create a device with two perpendicular arms (using mirrors, glass fibre or coax).
- Let the device rotate relatively fast, around the axis perpendicular to both arms.
- Try to detect harmonics of the rotation-frequency, in the interference of both arms.
- If a signal is detected, try to change the axis of rotation, until no signal is detected.

Now the axis of rotation will point to the direction of the drift (if any), but it won't say anything about the magnitude.

- Do this continuously for a couple of years, at various locations simultaneously.

By then, it's time to do some serious number-crunching.
To get a good reading on the magnitude, this experimental setup clearly needs refining. :)
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 31 Jan 2012 :  14:33:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Let's introduce another analogy: the balloon/airplane encounter

A helium balloon is travelling in the midst of the jet stream.
An airplane is approaching the jet stream in a direction that is perpendicular to the flow of the jet stream.

Before entering the jet stream, the pilot was convinced that he would pass right behind the balloon.
But while entering the jet stream, the airplane changed direction thereby going in a straight path towards the balloon. Ultimately the airplane hit the balloon from a direction slightly behind the initial perpendicular perspective.

What can we tell from this analogy:
- the path of the airplane changed direction when entering the jet stream to continue a straight path thereafter.
- the angle between the initial direction and the new direction of the airplane is proportional to the speed of the airplane and the speed of the jetstream.
- a passenger in the balloon observes the airplane approaching the balloon from slightly behind the perpendicator direction of relative to the motion of the balloon (although the airplane had been travelling perpendicular to the path of the balloon before entering the jetstream).
- if velocity of the wind in the jetstream would gradually build up from the side to the middle, then we would observe the direction of the airplane to adjust gradually as well. But the ultimate direction at the moment of reaching the center (and hitting the balloon) is only determined by the strength of the wind in the center.

If we observe a star that is opposite to the position of the Sun, we observe this star with 20.5 arcsec away from the true direction. This 20.5 arcsec is only determined by the speed of the light relative to the speed of the Earth (and the surrounding medium). Similar to the balloon analogy, the magnitude and direction of this deflection as observed on Earth does not depend on the length of the path and how velocity of the medium in between the border of the Solar System and the Earth has been evolving.

But ... there is 1 big difference between the Balloon/Airplane analogy and the observed star.
We observe the star 20.5 arcsec AHEAD of the direction the Earth is moving towards.
The airplane was observed to be BEHIND of the direction the balloon was moving towards.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 01 Feb 2012 :  14:56:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The two examples are different enough that they are not apples to apples (also, in the star example there is at least one major unknown; in the balloon example there are none). But a few minutes reflecion seems to resolve them.

[Bart] "We observe the star 20.5 arcsec AHEAD of the direction the Earth is moving towards."

As you know, aberation as a result of our motion ought to displace the star ahead of us.

The light might also have (but we cannot know this for sure) passed through a drifting medium, causing the light to be displaced still more.

In this case aberration seems to be the primary contributor to the observed "course change".

[Bart] "The airplane was observed to be BEHIND of the direction the balloon was moving towards."

Because the balloon was difting with the medium and the plane was not, the plane was going to miss it. As soon as the plane entered the medium it also began drifting (in the same direcion as the medium and the balloon), causing it to no longer miss the balloon.

In this case the "course change" is clearly caused by (a change in) meduim drift.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 01 Feb 2012 :  15:15:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Michiel,

We suspect that there are two particle fields that are the physical embodiment of the fabric of space, or the space-time continum,.or space-time. One of them is (most of the time) more or less stationary (locally) with respect to each mass, and the other one is always flowing into and out of and between each mass.

The observed properties of EM waves suggest that they are associated with the first, mostly stationary field of particles.

The observed properties of gravitational force suggest that it is associated with the second, always flowing field of particles.

Also, the hypothesized properties of gravitational waves suggest that they are also associated with the first, mostly stationary field. They will most likely turn out to be very long wavelength EM waves.

==

So, you are partly correct. The light carrying medium is one part of the fabric of space.

Are there more than two physical parts? Probably not. At least, not in terms of things that will be important to us. But the future is fairly dim from here. Stay tuned.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 01 Feb 2012 :  15:26:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Through observation of stars over the course of a year, we know that the displacement can be calculated as exactly 20.5 arcsec
times the adjustment for the angle relative to the perpendicular direction. This excludes an 'extra significant' drift component ...

The 20.5 arcsec displacement = the speed of the Earth / the speed of light

On the other hand, when we can observe a star for which we know:
- the observed displacement to be 20.5 arcsec (because direction is perpendicular to the motion of the Earth)
- the actual direction is behind the border of the Moon (in other words: would have been invisible without the 20.5 displacement)

Then we can logically deduct:
- the observed displacement of 20.5 arcsec cannot have occured near the observer
- the observed displacement must be occuring in a medium
- this medium must have the same speed as the Earth

The similarity between the balloon/plane analogy and light is that the "course change" is the result of a change in medium drift.

The fact that the 20.5 arcsec displacement is 'naturally' attributed to our own motion is derived from the fact that it can be nicely calculated by just taking into account the speed of the Earth and the speed of light.

On the other hand, the course changes that are the consequence of changes in medium drift result into exactly the same 20.5 arcsec.

The observation of the Jupiter occultation in 2004 (referenced before) whereby the displacement of Jupiter exceeds the displacement as observed for a star showing in the same direction provides evidence for this. The displacement as observed for Jupiter (from the Earth) can be calculated as the "vector substraction" of the displacement for the star as seen from the Earth minus the displacement for the same star as observed from Jupiter.

As a last note on MMX :
Taking the balloon analogy: the expirement failed because it attempted to measure the speed of the balloon by measuring the speed of the wind as felt in the balloon.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2012 :  11:58:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart]
"On the other hand, when we can observe a star for which we know:
- the observed displacement to be 20.5 arcsec (because direction is perpendicular to the motion of the Earth)
- the actual direction is behind the border of the Moon (in other words: would have been invisible without the 20.5 displacement)"


Luna is almost, but not quite, stationary with respect to Earth. So Luna is moving relative to the background objects. The light carrying medium entrained by Earth is stationary. (I presume that this entrained volume of medium extends out to at least the orbit of Luna, but I do not know for sure.)

These factors will impact the observation details of the occulatation of a background star/planet/moon. The LCM between here and a background planet/moon will be different from the LCM between here and a background star.

So the amount of drift a light beam experiences from any of these background objects can be different from the drift experienced by the others.

The amount of aberration for observations of Luna ought to be different than the aberration for observations of background stars.

Some combination of these phenomena ought to allow for an explanation of the observed occultation.


[Bart]
"Then we can logically deduct:
- the observed displacement of 20.5 arcsec cannot have occured near the observer
- the observed displacement must be occuring in a medium
- this medium must have the same speed as the Earth"


Hmmm. The only part of the medium that can have the same speed as the Earth (observer) is the part that is near the observer. I suppose that there could be some LCM between here and a star that was in fact moving at the same speed and in the same direction as Earth (briefly since these numbers for Earth are always changing), but it would really have to be just coincidence. Wouldn't it?

===

Trying to analyze an anomaly is not easy. But it is fun.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 07 Mar 2012 :  15:05:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

Another way to reflect on aberration:
"The effect of planetary aberration on Venus transit observations "
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/4044

Interesting enough, this effect was already described back in 1770:
A Letter from Richard Price to Benjamin Franklin on the Effect of the Aberration of Light on the Time of a Transit of Venus Over the Sun: http://www.jstor.org/stable/105919?seq=1

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2012 :  14:55:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK Bart - you are the astronomer. You are seeing anomalies in transit observation times that other astronomers cannot explain. Mostly, they seem not to care - but you do. You suspect there is a medium of some sort out there that causes light beams moving within it to shift, so that when we observe those shifted light beams they are not where they "ought" to be. The occultation happens at the wrong time.

I'm the physicist. I am working on a theory that postulates a light carrying medium. It has specific physical properties, such as entrainment by large masses, that allow it to shift light beams in specific ways.

If I can produce a picture of my medium in your mind's eye that resembles the picture in my mind's eye, it seems likely that you could process your timing anomalies with my specific medium in mind, and determine whether or not my medium has a chance of accounting for your anomalies.

If it actually did, it would probably be a big deal.

Are you interested?
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2012 :  16:30:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If light goes in a curve, then this implies that there must be a light carrying medium. At the same time, the postulate of a light carrying medium is what keeps scientists/astronomers walk away from the 'problem statement' as it looks to be disapproving proven theories. I would be reluctant to believe that scientists wouldn't care.

I follow the reasoning that the light carrying medium interacts with masses (as the light carrying medium must have a mass itself). This interaction is what was being measured with Gravity Probe B.

To picture what I have in mind:

The way I envision the light carrying medium is that the Solar System is a sort of 'cyclone' of light carrying medium with the Sun (almost) at the center. Within this cyclone, the planets are rotating with about the same speed as the surrounding light carrying medium. So from the perspective of the planets, the light carrying medium looks to be somewhat 'static' which was the topic of investigation of the Michelson Morley experiment.

This MMX experiment included 2 postulates:
a.- there is a light carrying medium
b.- the light carrying medium is either static or moves in a linear direction
The expected outcome was to measure a velocity of the light carrying medium of at least 30km/s.

Since the outcome of the experiment did not meet the expectations, postulate (a) was rejected;
In my opinion, postulate (b) should have been rejected instead.

At the same time, the light-carrying medium is the basis of 'magnetism'.
If you hold a magnet, then image the light-carrying medium to rotate around the magnet in the same direction as the electrons. If you hold another magnet next to it with the magnetic poles pointing in the same direction:
the light-carrying medium between the two magnets will rotate faster because the rotations of both magnets add up to each other. The 'bernouilli effect' will make the two magnets to attract each other thereby providing a 'causal effect' that explains the magnetic force.

If a rotating light carrying medium is what constitutes a magnetic field, then the solar system must be one giant magnet of which the magnetic field is getting stronger when getting closer to the Sun.
As a consequence: the Sun must be surrounded with a strong magnetic field.

The position of the Sun changes all the time dependent on the position of the planets that pull on it.
As a consequence the Sun is accelerating/decelarating periodically.
In the paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3647 I indicate that the acceleration/decelaration of the Sun correlates with Sun magnetic field.

This would mean that the magnetic field of the Sun is caused by magnetic induction (a Sun as a conductor moving in a strong magnetic field).

Going back to the 'cyclone model' of the solar system. If a planet would find itself 'above' the plane of the cyclone of light-carrying medium, then the light carrying medium below would be faster then light-carrying medium above. As a consequence of the Bernouilli effect, the planet will be pulled back into the plane of the cyclone. This in turn would explain why the plane of the planets are largely aligned with each other.

Interested to interact on the topic although I am doing this in my free time and out of intellectual curiosity (calling it hobbyphysics...).
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2012 :  18:03:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Although this is more than a hobby for me, I understand the problem of limited time. It applies to me also. Happily, there is no deadline for this enterprise.

[Bart] "The way I envision the light carrying medium is that the Solar System is a sort of 'cyclone' of light carrying medium with the Sun (almost) at the center."

Suppose we use a different solar system as our example for a while? This system has a single star with about the same mass as Sol. But it has no planets, no moons, no asteroids or comets. And, the star is not rotating. Never has rotated since it formed almost 4 billion years ago.

Now, what does the entrained LCM bubble for this solar system look like?
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2012 :  06:13:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If the star has not been rotating for 4 billion years, then would indicate that there is no rotating LCM bubble around it. Otherwise the star would have been forced to rotate through entrainment.

On the other hand, if such a star would be put into the plane of the galaxy (which itself is a rotating LCM bubble in the form of a cyclone), then this 'static' star would be forced to rotate and form a rotating LCM bubble around it (entrained through the Coriolis effect acting on the LCM).

At the level of the planets, I would assume the disks of Saturn and Jupiter to be contained in an LCM bubble rotating around these planets. This bubble enforces a flat disk-like structure (through the Bernouilli effect), similar to the structure of the Solar System.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2012 :  10:32:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart]".. no rotating LCM bubble ..."

I agree. The LCM bubble that has become statically entrained by this star is not rotating.

    Some additional assumptions/deductions. It has the shape of a modified sphere, rather than a sphere as one might first expect. This is beacuse of its interaction with both the dynamically entrained LCM and the background LCM.

    I need to define these concepts, so I will go back to first principles and "build a universe from scratch". Reasoning forward from my initial assumptions (decuctive logic), I end up with a universe that resembles the one we live in. (If I did not I would have to start over with different assmptions. Or recognize failure, and try something different.)

    • Background LCM (initial assumptions and deductions)


      • Visualualize a universe with the graviton medium and with the light carrying medium but without normal sized matter.

      • The universe is (much) larger than the total volume of LCM.

      • The total volume of LCM might be divided into two or more non-contiguous volumes.

      • All the particles within each volume repel each other, but gravitational force contains the overall mass of LCM particles within each volume.

      • All the particles are stationary with respect to all of their neighbors.

      • They form a lattice-like structure.

      • The balance between gravitational compression and elyson repulsion keeps them some constant distance from each other.

        • It may be possible to estimate this separation distance, but we have not yet done so.

        • Intuition suggests a minimum of several thousand particle diameters. But it could be/probably is millions or more.

      • The 'pressure' (higher pressure means smaller particle separation) within a volume of LCM ought to be higher at its core than at its edge.

      • For now we will stay away from the edges. All we can say for sure about them is that a light wave cannot propagate past an edge. It would be the literal, physical edge of the visible universe. Note however that a physical particle could pass beyond the edge.



    • Dynamically Entrained LCM (what happens when we add some normal sized matter?)


      • Now visualize a mass moving through the LCM with some velocity.

      • Within and close to this (or any) mass, gravitational interactions between normal sized matter and the particles of the LCM create what we call dynamic entrainment.

      • As you approach any mass (or as it approaches you), the gravitational force field becomes stronger

      • This will increase the compression of the near by LCM.

      • Particle separation will go down.

      • 'Pressure' will go up.

      • As you move away from the mass (or it moves away from you), the gravitational force field becomes weaker

      • Particle separation will go up.

      • 'Pressure' will go down.

      • ***

      • We call such a compression process 'dynamic' entrainment.

      • ***

      • Any light beams that happened to be in the path of this mass will be bent as it moves by.

      • But none of the LCM particles leaves its position in the background 'lattice'.



    • Statically Entrained LCM (what happens when LCM and normal sized matter have a long time to interact?)


      • The larger the normal sized matter mass is, and the closer an individual elyson is to the center of this mass, the stronger they will interact.

      • Eventually, individual elysons will become detached from the background 'lattice' and begin moving with the mass of normal sized matter.

      • Over time, more and more elysons are captured by a particular mass.

      • In addition to gravitational force interactions, electrical force, magnetic force, electromagnetic force and mechanical force interactions become more and more significant as the relative speed between the normal sized matter and the particles of the LCM becomes lower.

      • The captured elysons form themselves into a separate lattice structure centered on and moving with the mass.

      • ***

      • We call such a capture process 'static' entrainment.

      • ***





(This is a summary. Some details have not been included, so I expect there will be questions. And of course, it is a work in progress.)

Think about the difference in behavior of a light beam passing through dynamically entrained LCM versus a light beam passing through statically entrained LCM. An MMX performed under the two different conditions would produce different results. (One would detect an aether wind, one would not.)

===

If the LCM bubble were rotatiing, would that have forced the star to rotate? Not sure. The total mass of the statically entrained LCM is probably orders of magnitude less than the total mass of the star. And the interaction between normal sized matter and the particles of the LCM is very low.

On the other hand, even a tiny interaction allowed to continue for long enough can have a large impact.

Since it can be argued either way, lets say (for the sake of argument) that this time it did not make the star rotate. Such variations are part of physics. Chaos rules, in the physical world.

===

So in our example we have a non rotating star surrounded by a non rotating elysium bubble. The part of that bubble that is statically entrained extends out for perhaps a few dozen AU. The part that is dynamically entrained extends beyond that to perhaps a light year or two.

The star and its statically entrained LCM share a common velocity.

The background LCM (actually the LCM that has become statically entrained by the galaxy, but from the star's perspecive it qualifies as 'background') and the LCM that is dynamically entrained by the star share a common velocity.

The relative motion between these two masses of LCM are what keeps the static LCM bubble of the star from being a sphere. It is similar to the interaction between Earth's magnetic field and the solar wind. Without the wind, the magnetic field would be approximately spherical. With it, the field has a tear drop shape. There are some drawings on the net that can help visualize this.

That is probably enough for now.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2012 :  07:26:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LCM: "All the particles are stationary with respect to all of their neighbors"

When I compare with the description provided through Tom Van Flandern in "21st Century Gravity"
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume2/Issue3/21stCenturyGravity1.pdf
In the elysium model, each elyson has a vibration or oscillation speed that must be slightly faster than the wave speed of that medium. Specifically, if elysium were an ideal gas, average elyson speed would be 3c/sqrt(5).

As per The Shapiro Experiment (as predicted per theory of relativity) the speed of light is lower in the gravitational field
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/

Combining the two references: elysons are slower in a gravitational field (and have a smaller particle separation).
This causes the curvature of light and 'Shapiro delay'.

"The 'pressure' (higher pressure means smaller particle separation) within a volume of LCM ought to be higher at its core than at its edge"
>> Pressure is the combination of the speed of the constituent particles and their density.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2012 :  18:17:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart]"... if elysium were an ideal gas, average elyson speed would be 3c/sqrt(5)."

If the ideal gas model applied, this formula would apply.

More than anything I wish I could have had Tom as a physics professor when I was at college. His ability to explain things in physical terms first, with the mathematical stuff tacked on the end almost as an after thought, was amazing. But that was not the way my life worked out. It was not until later in life that I became aware of him.

Once my awe of Tom's vision and ability to convey that vision to others faded a little, I was able to see him as another human being. And that was when we really started to share our thinking. He was of course more knowledgeable than me in many ways, but less in others. I was dismayed to learn how little he understood of certain basic areas of physcs. Such as wave mechanics. And of course he was dismayed to learn how little I understood of certain basic areas of astronomy. But we both understood that such things are inevitable in an age of specialization, and we worked around it.

Tom and I spent a lot of time talking about the right physical model for elysium. When we began our discussions, he was favoring an ideal gas model. It is an obvious first choice, and he had written about it in his book and in several papers.

But there is a fundamental problem that he had missed. I was so busy absorbing all I could from him that I did not think about it at first. But then one day I remembered. No fluid (and all gasses, including ideal gasses, are fluids) can support the propagation of a transverse mode wave. Liquids and plasmas are also fluids, and they are also unable to propagate transverse waves.

Only solids have the necessary properties to support the propagation of transverse mode waves. And EM energy such as light is known to be a transverse wave phenomenon.

We scratched our heads and wondered how the elysium could be a million times more tenuous than a vacuum, and a million times stiffer than steel, at the same time.

He passed away with that possible show stopper haunting him.

And it really sucks that I did that to him.

===
I believe I have solved this problem, using some of his last ideas about the physical nature of sub atomic particles. (I also like to think that he can see this, and is smiling down at me now. But I know better ... sigh)
===

Anyway, did you notice that he spoke of "... each elyson [having] a vibration or oscillation speed ..."? These are not terms usually used to describe the particles of a gas. Or a liquid. But they are quite commonly used when describing the particles in a solid.

    This misuse of terminology alerted me to the possibility that he was not expert in everthing. It was one of the things that finally allowed me take him off of the pedistal I had him on, and really start learning from him. Believe me, when you challenge someone like Tom, you better have done your homework. He can be mercyless. And you can't object, because you know you deserve it. But if are right, he is one of the most magnanimous souls you could ever meet.

Particles in a fluid move linearly until they hit another particle. Momentum is traded, and each particle moves off in a different direction with a different speed. Before long, two particles that recently collided are so far apart they will probably never meet again. The mean free path in a fluid is a measure of this linear movement between collisions. For gasses and plasmas it can be large compared to a particle diameter. For liquids it is typically much less than a particle diameter. Liquid particles can be in physical contact for most of their lives. But they still are not normally spoken of as vibrating or oscillating.

Vibrating/oscillaing are the only motions available to particles in a solid.

[Bart]"Pressure is the combination of the speed of the constituent particles and their density."

True in the context of a solid as well, but other factors are also involved. The pressure at Earth's core is higher than at the surface. But it is so hot down there that everything has melted, so look at Luna instead. Its core is solid. But its core will still be pressurized by the weight of all the material above, pressing down. Even if the particles are only able to vibrate, they do so with less separation between each other.

In a volume of space filled with LCM, the particles at the core of that volume will be under more pressure than the particles away from the core. Even if there is no normal sized matter in this volume of space. Elysons are influenced by the graviton medium in ways that are, for the most part, similar to the way normal sized particles are influenced by it.

In an LCM bubble (I'll call it a local bubble to differentiate it from the really big 'visible universe' bubble I have also talked about) around a star or a planet, the particles at the core of the local bubble (also the core of the star or planet) will be under more pressure than the particles anywhere else in the local bubble. But in this case the pressure comes mostly from the gravitational force field created by the normal sized matter, not from the gravitational force field created by the local LCM. As a result, pressures in the LCM at the core of a star or planet, a local bubble, can be higher than pressures at the core of the very much larger 'visible universe' LCM bubble.

[Bart]"Combining the two references: elysons are slower in a gravitational field (and have a smaller particle separation). This causes the curvature of light and 'Shapiro delay'."

almost ...

... LIGHT IS [not 'elysons are'] slower in a gravitational field (and ELYSONS have a smaller particle separation) ...

and this is why light bends and Shapiro is always late ... ;-)


===

I'm trying to build a picture in your mind's eye of a specific model of the light carying medium. Since you already have a picture of a different (but related) model, my task will be doubly difficult.

Please ask questions, until I think you understand. You have one advantage, here. I do not have Tom's reputation, so I do not intimidate you. Challenge away, and I will do my best to satisfy you.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2080 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2012 :  21:38:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I want to emphasize the following:


I'm trying to build a picture in your mind's eye of a specific model of the light carying medium. Since you already have a picture of a different (but related) model, my task will be doubly difficult.

Please ask questions, until I think you understand. You have one advantage, here. I do not have Tom's reputation, so I do not intimidate you. Challenge away, and I will do my best to satisfy you.

LB
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.62 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03