- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
18 years 7 months ago #14835
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Tom, your comments on my writing where immensely useful and appreciated. In return I would like to help you. I took your conclusion as you wrote it, and reversed the order, literally went from the ending backwards to the beginning which is now the ending.
Not saying that you as a scientist should write any differently than you do, just saying that a typical off the street reader likes to read it this way.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The following is the single, most important conclusion to be noted here, and would be true even if the geometric interpretation of GR could be shown to be consistent with all experimental evidence and with a gravity propagation speed of c. The mere existence of a viable alternative interpretation of the GR equations based on Lorentzian relativity, taken together with the continued experimental viability of LR, mean that the proof of the impossibility of propagation and communication in forward time at arbitrarily high speeds no longer has supportable experimental underpinnings.
Because of the belief that GR is based on the SR interpretation of the relativity of motion, which disallows the possibility of faster-than-light propagation in forward time, the most common interpretation of GR is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. This interpretation is also based on a misunderstanding of the implications of aberration and confusion between the meanings of gravitational force variations and gravitational waves. However, the consequences of a propagation speed of gravitational force variations as slow as lightspeed would be catastrophic for many astrophysical bodies, as can be tested in even elementary computer experiments with orbits; and such slow variations are strongly disallowed by physical principles and by all existing experimental evidence.
The evidence from all six experiments that bear on the question of the speed of gravity is unambiguous in excluding answers as slow as lightspeed. A similar remark applies to the propagation speed of electrodynamic forces. The strongest of these experiments sets a lower limit to the speed of gravity of 2x10^10 c. All objections and questions about this conclusion raised during the last four years have now been addressed and answered. In particular, claims (championed by Steve Carlip) that such a result is inconsistent with general relativity are now shown to be false. Moreover, no serious claim of experimental support for gravity propagating at lightspeed has been advanced in modern times. Attempts to do so have seriously confused changes in gravitational force fields with gravitational radiation (an effect of changes in potential fields), the latter of which unquestionably would propagate at speed c, assuming it exists.
When a source mass accelerates, that induces changes in its gravitational force field. The lack of detectable aberration (propagation delay) for those changes means that the distant gravitational field accelerates when the source mass accelerates, in lockstep. To avoid direct violation of the causality principle, the propagation delay must be finite, even though much smaller than the corresponding propagation delay for photons. Because special relativity (SR) forbids propagation speeds faster than lightspeed in forward time, the customary interpretation of that theory is in conflict with, and is potentially falsified by, this result. GR has always implicitly recognized these facts through its equations of motion, which use instantaneous coordinates and momenta rather than retarded ones. That and its reliance on a single frame to define “coordinate time” mean that GR is based as much on Lorentz’s interpretation of relativity (LR) as on SR. These two theories, LR and SR, both employ the relativity principle and the same math (Lorentz transformations), but LR adopts a preferred frame and lacks the reciprocity between frames postulated by SR. Interestingly, no experiment testing SR or LR confirms frame reciprocity. Therefore, because LR is consistent with all experiments, it remains just as viable as SR as a model for the relativity of motion. It follows that the falsification of the SR interpretation in favor of the LR interpretation has no immediate mathematical consequences for GR. The main physical consequence is negation of the proof that faster-than-light propagation is impossible.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not saying that you as a scientist should write any differently than you do, just saying that a typical off the street reader likes to read it this way.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The following is the single, most important conclusion to be noted here, and would be true even if the geometric interpretation of GR could be shown to be consistent with all experimental evidence and with a gravity propagation speed of c. The mere existence of a viable alternative interpretation of the GR equations based on Lorentzian relativity, taken together with the continued experimental viability of LR, mean that the proof of the impossibility of propagation and communication in forward time at arbitrarily high speeds no longer has supportable experimental underpinnings.
Because of the belief that GR is based on the SR interpretation of the relativity of motion, which disallows the possibility of faster-than-light propagation in forward time, the most common interpretation of GR is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. This interpretation is also based on a misunderstanding of the implications of aberration and confusion between the meanings of gravitational force variations and gravitational waves. However, the consequences of a propagation speed of gravitational force variations as slow as lightspeed would be catastrophic for many astrophysical bodies, as can be tested in even elementary computer experiments with orbits; and such slow variations are strongly disallowed by physical principles and by all existing experimental evidence.
The evidence from all six experiments that bear on the question of the speed of gravity is unambiguous in excluding answers as slow as lightspeed. A similar remark applies to the propagation speed of electrodynamic forces. The strongest of these experiments sets a lower limit to the speed of gravity of 2x10^10 c. All objections and questions about this conclusion raised during the last four years have now been addressed and answered. In particular, claims (championed by Steve Carlip) that such a result is inconsistent with general relativity are now shown to be false. Moreover, no serious claim of experimental support for gravity propagating at lightspeed has been advanced in modern times. Attempts to do so have seriously confused changes in gravitational force fields with gravitational radiation (an effect of changes in potential fields), the latter of which unquestionably would propagate at speed c, assuming it exists.
When a source mass accelerates, that induces changes in its gravitational force field. The lack of detectable aberration (propagation delay) for those changes means that the distant gravitational field accelerates when the source mass accelerates, in lockstep. To avoid direct violation of the causality principle, the propagation delay must be finite, even though much smaller than the corresponding propagation delay for photons. Because special relativity (SR) forbids propagation speeds faster than lightspeed in forward time, the customary interpretation of that theory is in conflict with, and is potentially falsified by, this result. GR has always implicitly recognized these facts through its equations of motion, which use instantaneous coordinates and momenta rather than retarded ones. That and its reliance on a single frame to define “coordinate time” mean that GR is based as much on Lorentz’s interpretation of relativity (LR) as on SR. These two theories, LR and SR, both employ the relativity principle and the same math (Lorentz transformations), but LR adopts a preferred frame and lacks the reciprocity between frames postulated by SR. Interestingly, no experiment testing SR or LR confirms frame reciprocity. Therefore, because LR is consistent with all experiments, it remains just as viable as SR as a model for the relativity of motion. It follows that the falsification of the SR interpretation in favor of the LR interpretation has no immediate mathematical consequences for GR. The main physical consequence is negation of the proof that faster-than-light propagation is impossible.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #14879
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
Originally posted by Tommy
I always wondered how an atom can do its thing forever without a battery pack. Enter ZPE.
More specifically, enter the energy sources for ZPE, elysium and gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Einstein theory of the emission and absorption of EM waves introduces three mechanisms:
1- induced emission
2- (induced) absorption
3- spontaneous emission
The third mechanism is now identified with the first, provided that the ZPF is taken into account. This hypothesis is well verified using the classical theory of EM fields. Using quantum electrodynamics, the ZPF appears two times stronger than other fields, this is the strongest argument against QED.
As Maxwell's equations are linear and homogenous in the vacuum (and with sources replaced by their advanced fields), the theory of modes work (a mode is a ray of the space of the solutions of Maxwell's equations). All fields in a mode depend only on a single, real parameter; the ZPF corresponds to the minimal absolute value of this parameter.
A source amplifies the fields, in particular the ZPF field; an absorber decreases the fields, possibly down to the ZPF, but not more (remember, however that the ZPF energy is not well defined : it is a mean value, so that the minimal field in a mode is not well defined).
A big, common error is thinking that the emission of a field corresponds to a loss of energy by the source: depending on the interference of the emitted field with external fields in the same mode, the source may lose, get, or not change energy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
... the Maxwell/heaviside equatins work without a source, so what? Does that mean light needs no source either? You said no magic. Light without a battery pack is magic. You should know that Maxwell originally accounted for these inner energy sources, I think they are the displacement currents.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The emission of an EM field requires a source. The propagation in the vacuum does not need any source of energy.
Application: the orbiting electron in the hydrogen atom does not lose any energy although it radiates a field (provided that the Bohr's orbits are corrected by the Lamb effect).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
I also can clearly see that the infinite energy could exist in a different dimension, let's call it the hyperdimension.
If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Pay attention to magic words such as "dimension", "quantum",...
They are often meaningless.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Having already decided that the quantum physicists who need renormalizations are talking physical nonsense,...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
This made me laugh. Very good! All I am saying is that could be that their infinities are for real. The electron, regarded as a point, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"point" is a mathematical object, not physical.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think that both are mathematical concepts useful to develop a theory. But we are unable to deduce from physics any properties (differing of support of propagation) of these concepts. There are lots of "dark" things in the BB theory too...
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
Originally posted by Tommy
I always wondered how an atom can do its thing forever without a battery pack. Enter ZPE.
More specifically, enter the energy sources for ZPE, elysium and gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Einstein theory of the emission and absorption of EM waves introduces three mechanisms:
1- induced emission
2- (induced) absorption
3- spontaneous emission
The third mechanism is now identified with the first, provided that the ZPF is taken into account. This hypothesis is well verified using the classical theory of EM fields. Using quantum electrodynamics, the ZPF appears two times stronger than other fields, this is the strongest argument against QED.
As Maxwell's equations are linear and homogenous in the vacuum (and with sources replaced by their advanced fields), the theory of modes work (a mode is a ray of the space of the solutions of Maxwell's equations). All fields in a mode depend only on a single, real parameter; the ZPF corresponds to the minimal absolute value of this parameter.
A source amplifies the fields, in particular the ZPF field; an absorber decreases the fields, possibly down to the ZPF, but not more (remember, however that the ZPF energy is not well defined : it is a mean value, so that the minimal field in a mode is not well defined).
A big, common error is thinking that the emission of a field corresponds to a loss of energy by the source: depending on the interference of the emitted field with external fields in the same mode, the source may lose, get, or not change energy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
... the Maxwell/heaviside equatins work without a source, so what? Does that mean light needs no source either? You said no magic. Light without a battery pack is magic. You should know that Maxwell originally accounted for these inner energy sources, I think they are the displacement currents.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The emission of an EM field requires a source. The propagation in the vacuum does not need any source of energy.
Application: the orbiting electron in the hydrogen atom does not lose any energy although it radiates a field (provided that the Bohr's orbits are corrected by the Lamb effect).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
I also can clearly see that the infinite energy could exist in a different dimension, let's call it the hyperdimension.
If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Pay attention to magic words such as "dimension", "quantum",...
They are often meaningless.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Having already decided that the quantum physicists who need renormalizations are talking physical nonsense,...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
This made me laugh. Very good! All I am saying is that could be that their infinities are for real. The electron, regarded as a point, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"point" is a mathematical object, not physical.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think that both are mathematical concepts useful to develop a theory. But we are unable to deduce from physics any properties (differing of support of propagation) of these concepts. There are lots of "dark" things in the BB theory too...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 7 months ago #14838
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Viewed as a pure wave, light does not require an energy source. It simply spreads as it travels, as any wave does.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, can I refute you on this one point? As I understand it, the Maxwell/heaviside equatins work without a source, so what? Does that mean light needs no source either? You said no magic. Light without a battery pack is magic. You should know that Maxwell originally accounted for these inner energy sources, I think they are the displacement currents.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Let's not mix electricity and magnetism with light, even if QM wants to do exactly that. Light carries no charge and no magnetic field.
Elysium is the modern light-carrying medium. If a particle jiggles in that medium, it sets off a wave, just like dropping a rock into a pond. That wave is light. The "jiggle" is the "battery pack". Light doesn't come from nothing, it is waves in a medium that has been disturbed.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions, there might be some justification for bringing this science fiction concept into real physics. But as things stand, the concept is not even defined.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it. Obviously you don't know very much about it. Can you point me to the paper which falsified the Aether?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Something derailed here. How does your comment relate to mine? Aether is the classical light-carrying medium, which obviously fills ordinary space and time, not some mysterious and undefined new "dimension".
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gaining a deeper understanding of reality is as much about not going down seductive dead-end paths as it is about going down good ones.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Like those push things that can move worlds without any heat?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Slabinski's paper in <i>Pushing Gravity</i> and on our "Gravity" CD develops the thermodynamics of gravitons in detail. My chapter relates it to the known excess heat flows in planets.
Why did you make your remark? Did you really think that a topic debated at length by Maxwell and Lord Thompson, among thousands of others, never address the heat issue?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium is modern aether as required by Lorentzian relativity, wherein the preferred frame is the local gravitational potential field everywhere. It is therefore partially entrained by mass, unlike classical aether. The origin of the word was its phonetic association with "LCM", the initials for "light-carrying medium"; and because elysium in Greek mythology, like elysium in modern physics, is associated with "fields". -|Tom|-
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Viewed as a pure wave, light does not require an energy source. It simply spreads as it travels, as any wave does.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, can I refute you on this one point? As I understand it, the Maxwell/heaviside equatins work without a source, so what? Does that mean light needs no source either? You said no magic. Light without a battery pack is magic. You should know that Maxwell originally accounted for these inner energy sources, I think they are the displacement currents.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Let's not mix electricity and magnetism with light, even if QM wants to do exactly that. Light carries no charge and no magnetic field.
Elysium is the modern light-carrying medium. If a particle jiggles in that medium, it sets off a wave, just like dropping a rock into a pond. That wave is light. The "jiggle" is the "battery pack". Light doesn't come from nothing, it is waves in a medium that has been disturbed.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions, there might be some justification for bringing this science fiction concept into real physics. But as things stand, the concept is not even defined.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it. Obviously you don't know very much about it. Can you point me to the paper which falsified the Aether?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Something derailed here. How does your comment relate to mine? Aether is the classical light-carrying medium, which obviously fills ordinary space and time, not some mysterious and undefined new "dimension".
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gaining a deeper understanding of reality is as much about not going down seductive dead-end paths as it is about going down good ones.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Like those push things that can move worlds without any heat?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Slabinski's paper in <i>Pushing Gravity</i> and on our "Gravity" CD develops the thermodynamics of gravitons in detail. My chapter relates it to the known excess heat flows in planets.
Why did you make your remark? Did you really think that a topic debated at length by Maxwell and Lord Thompson, among thousands of others, never address the heat issue?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium is modern aether as required by Lorentzian relativity, wherein the preferred frame is the local gravitational potential field everywhere. It is therefore partially entrained by mass, unlike classical aether. The origin of the word was its phonetic association with "LCM", the initials for "light-carrying medium"; and because elysium in Greek mythology, like elysium in modern physics, is associated with "fields". -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #14845
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
[tvf]: If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions, there might be some justification for bringing this science fiction concept into real physics. But as things stand, the concept is not even defined.
This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it. Obviously you don't know very much about it. Can you point me to the paper which falsified the Aether?
Something derailed here. How does your comment relate to mine? Aether is the classical light-carrying medium, which obviously fills ordinary space and time, not some mysterious and undefined new "dimension".
quote:
quote:
Gaining a deeper understanding of reality is as much about not going down seductive dead-end paths as it is about going down good ones.
Like those push things that can move worlds without any heat?
Slabinski's paper in Pushing Gravity and on our "Gravity" CD develops the thermodynamics of gravitons in detail. My chapter relates it to the known excess heat flows in planets.
Why did you make your remark? Did you really think that a topic debated at length by Maxwell and Lord Thompson, among thousands of others, never address the heat issue?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Tom, thousands is not scientific verification. And who among the thousands is telling the truth? Were your comments taking a shot at what I believe? It sounded like it. So I shot back. I've been thinking about pushing gravity a lot, and I have yet to come up with an explanation in my mind. I still don't know what you mean by asylium, I know you mean Light carrying medium LCM, but what is it?
And the gravitons, where are they coming from? How can they be moving in alll directions? And if they can interact with masses, wouldn't they disdapate heat as they interact? Can you imagine the heat generated by a force moving the earth? All I have concluded about pushing gravity is many questions. Like, why push? And where are these ubigitious gravitons?
Tom, instead of interacting with my premise and refute it that way, you simply dismissed the whole thing as science fiction. Sarfatti does that all the time, only he uses harsher words. Maybe you haven't read everything I posted, but I point out several times that I use the word INSIDE of empty space instead of the constrining "dimension."
And I didn't come to the conclusion of an INSIDE by following some path down an alley, I experienced it. And after determining how much of those experiences were actual, I became convinced there is something else inside of empty space.
So it is very interesting and sometimes amuzing to read the thousands who have discussed this INSIDE. They have created thousand of names for the same thing. That's not very smart.
WHEN and IF we talk about dimensions, then there is evidence of a new dimension, the next in line is the FIFTH dimension. WHEN and IF we talk about original theories, then there is evidence of the Aether. And now you come up with Esylium, whatever that is.
Are you a physicalist? I think that you are being a scientist, and what I mean is that you have to be able to touch your subject. If you can't touch it, then you can't say anything about it. You can only say nothing. It is not scientific to extrapolate that fact to the assumption that if it can't be touched it does not exist.
I am a systemist whatever that means. I believe that the Universe works as a system. A system works together, and by doing so creates a relationship. This relationship is an interaction, not a thing. When relational elements interact in a system as a whole, new properties emerge like the wetness of H2O.
It may be that the Universe also have this
capability, and even the most accurate determination of the physical properties of these relational elements will not let us touch the wetness of the Universe.
Just like there is no mathematics which will illustrate the equation
(1,0)R = 10
The big bang gang will use their name forever regardless of what sort of theory they eventually end up with. And, it seems, we will forever have a thousand names for our theory. When really our theories are notthing more than facets of a diamond.
You cannot cite maxwell's equations because they were designed to be right.
[tvf]: If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions, there might be some justification for bringing this science fiction concept into real physics. But as things stand, the concept is not even defined.
This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it. Obviously you don't know very much about it. Can you point me to the paper which falsified the Aether?
Something derailed here. How does your comment relate to mine? Aether is the classical light-carrying medium, which obviously fills ordinary space and time, not some mysterious and undefined new "dimension".
quote:
quote:
Gaining a deeper understanding of reality is as much about not going down seductive dead-end paths as it is about going down good ones.
Like those push things that can move worlds without any heat?
Slabinski's paper in Pushing Gravity and on our "Gravity" CD develops the thermodynamics of gravitons in detail. My chapter relates it to the known excess heat flows in planets.
Why did you make your remark? Did you really think that a topic debated at length by Maxwell and Lord Thompson, among thousands of others, never address the heat issue?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Tom, thousands is not scientific verification. And who among the thousands is telling the truth? Were your comments taking a shot at what I believe? It sounded like it. So I shot back. I've been thinking about pushing gravity a lot, and I have yet to come up with an explanation in my mind. I still don't know what you mean by asylium, I know you mean Light carrying medium LCM, but what is it?
And the gravitons, where are they coming from? How can they be moving in alll directions? And if they can interact with masses, wouldn't they disdapate heat as they interact? Can you imagine the heat generated by a force moving the earth? All I have concluded about pushing gravity is many questions. Like, why push? And where are these ubigitious gravitons?
Tom, instead of interacting with my premise and refute it that way, you simply dismissed the whole thing as science fiction. Sarfatti does that all the time, only he uses harsher words. Maybe you haven't read everything I posted, but I point out several times that I use the word INSIDE of empty space instead of the constrining "dimension."
And I didn't come to the conclusion of an INSIDE by following some path down an alley, I experienced it. And after determining how much of those experiences were actual, I became convinced there is something else inside of empty space.
So it is very interesting and sometimes amuzing to read the thousands who have discussed this INSIDE. They have created thousand of names for the same thing. That's not very smart.
WHEN and IF we talk about dimensions, then there is evidence of a new dimension, the next in line is the FIFTH dimension. WHEN and IF we talk about original theories, then there is evidence of the Aether. And now you come up with Esylium, whatever that is.
Are you a physicalist? I think that you are being a scientist, and what I mean is that you have to be able to touch your subject. If you can't touch it, then you can't say anything about it. You can only say nothing. It is not scientific to extrapolate that fact to the assumption that if it can't be touched it does not exist.
I am a systemist whatever that means. I believe that the Universe works as a system. A system works together, and by doing so creates a relationship. This relationship is an interaction, not a thing. When relational elements interact in a system as a whole, new properties emerge like the wetness of H2O.
It may be that the Universe also have this
capability, and even the most accurate determination of the physical properties of these relational elements will not let us touch the wetness of the Universe.
Just like there is no mathematics which will illustrate the equation
(1,0)R = 10
The big bang gang will use their name forever regardless of what sort of theory they eventually end up with. And, it seems, we will forever have a thousand names for our theory. When really our theories are notthing more than facets of a diamond.
You cannot cite maxwell's equations because they were designed to be right.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #14846
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?
Elysium is modern aether as required by Lorentzian relativity, wherein the preferred frame is the local gravitational potential field everywhere. It is therefore partially entrained by mass, unlike classical aether. The origin of the word was its phonetic association with "LCM", the initials for "light-carrying medium"; and because elysium in Greek mythology, like elysium in modern physics, is associated with "fields". -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I like this. However, how can you have a local gravitational field everywhere? Do you mean a field everywhere that in local stuations has these gravitational properties?
Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?
Elysium is modern aether as required by Lorentzian relativity, wherein the preferred frame is the local gravitational potential field everywhere. It is therefore partially entrained by mass, unlike classical aether. The origin of the word was its phonetic association with "LCM", the initials for "light-carrying medium"; and because elysium in Greek mythology, like elysium in modern physics, is associated with "fields". -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I like this. However, how can you have a local gravitational field everywhere? Do you mean a field everywhere that in local stuations has these gravitational properties?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 7 months ago #14942
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[tvf] " ... the preferred frame is the local gravitational potential field everywhere."
[Tommy] " ... how can you have a local gravitational field everywhere?"
I'm not sure how one can misunderstand this, but then if it were not possible there would probably be no such thing as "problems with communicating".
Try this re-wording: ... the preferred frame is the local gravitational potential field, wherever you do your measurement.
LB
[Tommy] " ... how can you have a local gravitational field everywhere?"
I'm not sure how one can misunderstand this, but then if it were not possible there would probably be no such thing as "problems with communicating".
Try this re-wording: ... the preferred frame is the local gravitational potential field, wherever you do your measurement.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 1.703 seconds