Ask any question you want about Physics

How is it that I can lean close to a mirror, look down, and see my legs?

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur - Thanks again on your help on the absolute theory. But I was wondering - did you carefully go through the math on the derivation of the Lorentz Equations? Further, it would be great if you could also go through the math on the derivation of Maxwell's Equations. It is really within the math that everything becomes clear, but I don't believe the math has been looked at by many people. Probably less than ten.

While I am asking you, Arbitrageur, about this, note that I would appreciate comments from anyone who would take the time to carefully go through the derivations. It is there that these ideas might start to gain some credence.

Thanks to all who help!

In other news - The Wikipedia article has now survived three days without comment. That is a plus. And an editor at InfoGalactic has made some edits to the Two Component Aether page, so I suspect that one might stick.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: joelr
Photon is not affected by gravity in a way you think. It is affected only in a way of following space-time geometry. In other words, photon cannot be a made to free fall or become being 'captured' by gravity field.
Coz it has no dimensions to become 'captured'.

Yes it can. In close enough to a black hole a geodesic for a photon can be a closed orbit. That counts enough as captured. Dimensions are irrelevant.

a reply to: mbkennel

I was replying to this statement:
"..Unless you are talking about General Relativity then even light and massless particles are considered mass because they are bent by gravity.."

That statement seemed needing correction on my part...

Can photon fall into BH? My whole point was that photon is not affected by gravity as of tidal gravity..it is only following space geodesics. You did not have to bring BH argument into what I was trying to reply.

I am not going to argue with you on this thread. You are welcome to visit 'How gravity really works' thread. There I'd like to hear out you theory bout how dimensions are irrelevant.

)

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: joelr
Photon is not affected by gravity in a way you think. It is affected only in a way of following space-time geometry. In other words, photon cannot be a made to free fall or become being 'captured' by gravity field.
Coz it has no dimensions to become 'captured'.

Yes it can. In close enough to a black hole a geodesic for a photon can be a closed orbit. That counts enough as captured. Dimensions are irrelevant.

there are no bloomin closed orbits for a photon. photon cannot propagate in the bh event horizon as time t is infinity not zero

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are there other explanations for entanglement other than the digital universe/simulation one?

If someone can answ er this, that would be great.

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are there other explanations for entanglement other than the digital universe/simulation one?

If someone can answ er this, that would be great.

mbkennel, Arbitrageur and I discussed quantum philosophy for several pages on this thread starting on page 287. I assert that what is called quantum entanglement is just another instance of quantum collapse, albeit at a rather large distance and with detectors that vary over time in such a way as to make the collapse issue clearer. I also assert that there is no mystery to this if we return to an absolute theory of space and time, such as that of Lorentz or my modification.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


You had assisted my learning by referring me to the works of Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti. I have read two of their papers. (I have a subscription to Physics Essays, to open the links below a subscription may be required; for those with means it would be a contribution to a good cause to subscribe.)

In this paper the authors allude to a system with no length contraction, but one that includes a time dilation. So that has similarity to my work. However, they then go on to propose a Galilean relativity and an absolute simultaneity. Now that too is OK in a sense, as my work explains. (If you correct your clocks and metersticks, that is what you will get.) But the authors do not explain how it is OK. If we assume time dilation, but no length contraction, and we use light signals to arrive at our transformations, then we end up with the Lorentz equations, not the Galilean transformations, and we get a mis-synchronization of clocks (which is part of the Lorentz transformations). My work clearly shows that, and in the linked paper (which is quite short) I can't really tell how they are arriving at their conclusions.

In this paper the authors state that "time as humans perceive it does not exist as an absolute quantity, that time does not flow on its own, and thus it does not exist as a primary physical reality." This of course is quite different from my or Lorentz's absolute view. From what I gather, the authors are proposing that time is essentially quantized to the Planck time, corresponding to a photon going past a series of Planck lengths. This is also quite different from my view, as I believe time is a continuity.

The authors then summarize work from Prati, who showed that "the complex system S can be separated in many ways in a part that constitutes the clock and the rest." and from there they conclude that "one can say that each clock subsystem provides only a measuring reference system for the dynamics of the other subsystem and that this reference system is not absolute; one can say that each subsystem that acts as a clock provides only the numerical order of the dynamics of the other subsystem." This "numerical order" being a replacement for time is similar in concept between the two linked papers.

Further on in the paper they go into the emergent time hypotheses, which is extremely far from my thoughts on time, as it brings in considerable complexity and relegates to secondary status that which I believe is simple and primary.

For me, time is what people commonly think it is when we first become aware of our surroundings - it is the parameter that orders events. That's all. Very simple. A primary quantity, which along with the primary quantities x, y and z, we build physics upon. Classical time. So my thoughts are quite different from the authors.

I am glad that you pointed me to this work. Had it been submitted more than ten years ago I might have reviewed it, and had I done so I would have asked them to take a look at my earlier paper as well, since my work is relevant to theirs. We have some things in common, such as the lack of a length contraction, although as stated above, we diverge on many things.

originally posted by: delbertlarson

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are there other explanations for entanglement other than the digital universe/simulation one?

If someone can answ er this, that would be great.

mbkennel, Arbitrageur and I discussed quantum philosophy for several pages on this thread starting on page 287. I assert that what is called quantum entanglement is just another instance of quantum collapse, albeit at a rather large distance and with detectors that vary over time in such a way as to make the collapse issue clearer. I also assert that there is no mystery to this if we return to an absolute theory of space and time, such as that of Lorentz or my modification.

Thanks. I will munch for now just on your idea of it being also quantum collapse. I for one think reality indeed workshop like what we call a simulation.

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are there other explanations for entanglement other than the digital universe/simulation one?

If someone can answ er this, that would be great.

Some individuals do possess quantum communication devices technology. make of that what you will according to the limitations of your education

a reply to: Hyperboles

What???

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are there other explanations for entanglement other than the digital universe/simulation one?

If someone can answ er this, that would be great.

Some individuals do possess quantum communication devices technology. make of that what you will according to the limitations of your education

It should not be hard for you to help me past the limits of my education and provide some specifics about what you mean when you say:

"Some individuals do possess quantum communication devices technology"

Hopefully I -- with my limited education -- can keep up.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: mbkennel

I was replying to this statement:
"..Unless you are talking about General Relativity then even light and massless particles are considered mass because they are bent by gravity.."

Agree, that statement is incorrect.

That statement seemed needing correction on my part...

Can photon fall into BH?

Yes. That effect is why it is black. If photons bounced off or were re-emitted, it would look like an object, not black and not a hole.

In General Relativity, it is immaterial whether or not a particle has mass or not to be affected by warped space time metric. Everything is so affected: all fields, particles, whatever.

I am not going to argue with you on this thread. You are welcome to visit 'How gravity really works' thread.

I hope the thread is authored by Albert Einstein or somebody who knows what he said.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are there other explanations for entanglement other than the digital universe/simulation one?

If someone can answ er this, that would be great.

Some individuals do possess quantum communication devices technology. make of that what you will according to the limitations of your education

It should not be hard for you to help me past the limits of my education and provide some specifics about what you mean when you say:

"Some individuals do possess quantum communication devices technology"

Hopefully I -- with my limited education -- can keep up.

Lol, to come out with specifics is trifle dangerous there, hombre

originally posted by: mbkennel
it is immaterial whether or not a particle has mass or not to be affected by warped space time metric. Everything is so affected: all fields, particles, whatever.

Doesn't this get you to wondering what the space time metric might be made of, what type of material it might be (be composed of) that it demands this response? That *it* can be warped, and that everything (even that which is considered massless, and considered to have some funky fieldy mode of propagation) 'follows' this warped path of 'particular *itness*'.

That 'everywhere (how literal?)', there exists this warpable stuff that where warping is present alters any possible things straight a to b?

Also gets me to thinking about what areas of absence of warping might be like?

Its not as if every planck length of the space time metric can all at once (not to mention, continuously after that once) is all to some degree >0 warped? Or is that exactly what is suggested? That likely, the warpable space time metric would have no point of pure stability? Always in flux (unfair, because that must be said for all, but this is asking in a different way, considering there is one planet earth body, and it is considered to be right locally here, and there is '1'(?) space time metric and its considered to be everywhere, but as there are many planets all over the place, there are many different warps all over the place (go figure, they are related to some degree), but as I was saying then, it is desirable to consider and know if one is interested how might the entire space time metric appear, its topographical warpage lay out.


If it is altered/warped at point a, how might that effect point b, etc.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
Arbitrageur - Thanks again on your help on the absolute theory. But I was wondering - did you carefully go through the math on the derivation of the Lorentz Equations? Further, it would be great if you could also go through the math on the derivation of Maxwell's Equations. It is really within the math that everything becomes clear, but I don't believe the math has been looked at by many people. Probably less than ten.

While I am asking you, Arbitrageur, about this, note that I would appreciate comments from anyone who would take the time to carefully go through the derivations. It is there that these ideas might start to gain some credence.

I don't know why you singled me out at the beginning but at least you opened it up to others at the end. No I haven't looked at the math yet, I'm not sure if I will. I'm not sure your model addresses what I consider to be the bigger problems with mainstream models and I'll feel more satisfaction if I can solve any of those.

originally posted by: mbkennel
I hope the thread is authored by Albert Einstein or somebody who knows what he said.

I looked up that thread and tried mentioning Einstein's model but the thread author didn't seem too impressed with it, saying this in his reply (see link for full context):

www.abovetopsecret.com...
"I get that this is the currently accepted mainstream model, but if you think about it, it's not much more than just mental gymnastics and throught experiments." So apparently the author does have some idea what Albert Einstein said.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, to come out with specifics is trifle dangerous there, hombre

If you think that's dangerous, just think of what that guy Savvy/Angelic Resurrection/Noch Zwei has posted about, an anti-gravity device that would allow North Korea to loft nukes at the US using anti-gravity, without any rocket launch, essentially rendering all the infrared-detection rocket launch technology obsolete, that is if he can get his device to work without all the heaters (light bulbs) inside. So either the TPTB is gonna make that guy and his worrisome tech disappear, or he's just confused a bending piece of sheet metal with "anti-gravity" and TPTB knows it and doesn't see his tech as any threat. My guess is the latter.

As for the secrets of the universe that only you know but you can't even talk about, I have a circular bin where I file those claims. Considering your demonstrated misunderstanding of pendulum clocks as refuting General Relativity, it's hard to take what you say seriously.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Doesn't this get you to wondering what the space time metric might be made of, what type of material it might be (be composed of) that it demands this response?

I think anybody who is curious wonders how "action at a distance" works, but I don't assume there is a "material" involved since that word has implications which may or may not apply. All I really know for sure is what experiments and observations tell me. We have some models that make good predictions to consider.

it is desirable to consider and know if one is interested how might the entire space time metric appear, its topographical warpage lay out.

I look at cosmic imagery like this:

Hubble Maps the Cosmic Web of 'Clumpy' Dark Matter in 3-D

The image on the right is probably a better representation of "warpage". The black areas probably show space where warpage is lower or negligible, and the brighter the blue the greater the warpage.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I think anybody who is curious wonders how "action at a distance" works, but I don't assume there is a "material" involved since that word has implications which may or may not apply.

Define "material".

Is your definition baryonic matter?

If so electrons would be not "material" to you?

My definition of material is 'that which exists', 'that which is not nothing'.

In between Earth and the Sun, there exists 'that which is not nothing' of a certain type and characteristic,

of which in the presence of certain types of 'that which is not nothing' (planets, stars) the 'that which is not nothing' in between the planets and stars, and surrounding them, and in them, 'is warped'.

Why are you so dense, the space you occupy must really be warped.

If 'not nothing' exists between the sun and earth and in and around the solar system and between galaxies, and planets and stars and asteroids warp the not nothing, but you have a problem calling that not nothing 'matter' or 'substance'(do you problem with that word?) what is a word I can use to refer to 'that which is warped in the presence of mass'? To refer to the fact 'something' exists there, that is warped.

The substance of gravity field? The gravity medium? The gravity aether?

I used the term material colloquially, to refer to the 'stuffness' of that which warps in the presence of mass. You deflected and distracted from the actual content of my inquiries to say something extremely base and inconsequential, obvious and not very meaningful. Ok if the word matter, if the word material, only refers to baryonic matter, or even if you want to say leptons are material too, ok fine. This has nothing to do with the fact that 'a large amount of something', 'a large amount of not nothing', exists between the sun and the earth, in it and all surrounding, which is able to be warped, and 'material' is a word colloquial used to refer to the concept of 'something existing'. Presence, of substance.

Using that term colloquial, the table is material, it exists, the lamp, the chair, things exist, it is composed of substance, of parts, of pieces, of stuffness, of thingness, of somethingness, of thereness, of presence,

The substance field of gravity, the gravity medium, the gravity aether, that which exists throughout space which warps in the presence of mass, exists, it may or may not be composed of parts, if it is not composed of parts what can that mean, where is there evidence of it being possible for something to not be composed of parts, if it is composed of parts its parts must have qualities, and quantities, and physical relationships between each other and all other possible substance.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Define "material".

Is your definition baryonic matter?

If so electrons would be not "material" to you?

My definition of material is 'that which exists', 'that which is not nothing'.

In between Earth and the Sun, there exists 'that which is not nothing' of a certain type and characteristic,

Webster defined material, I don't argue with it or re-define it like you did.

Material

relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter

But since you bring up Baryonic matter yes that's one type of matter. The NASA graphic I posted also shows dark matter.

But this wouldn't include say photons or light which I don't consider to be matter, but rather a form of energy. Since the light exists, and it is not nothing, then it would be material according to your definition but not Webster's or mine.

I used the term material colloquially, to refer to the 'stuffness' of that which warps in the presence of mass. You deflected and distracted from the actual content of my inquiries to say something extremely base and inconsequential, obvious and not very meaningful.

We have an obvious disagreement then. I say meaningful communication is difficult if we can't agree on what words mean. You seem to think otherwise. I've already said repeatedly that Einstein called it a "new aether", but outside the context of direct quotes from Einstein, that terminology never made it into our vocabulary, and we refer instead to "space-time".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Since the light exists, and it is not nothing, then it would be material according to your definition but not Webster's or mine.

I didn't say matter, I said material. And as I further said, to evoke the thought of substance, of quantity and quality. As this table and that table may be made of different materials, there is an understanding of the idea that the 'table' is made of, composed of 'not nothing'. If I were to say, what is the nature of what the EM field is made of, composed of, I may do so (potentially incorrectly, but this incorrectness is not as important as obviously understandably what is attempted to be gotten at) by saying what is the material of the EM field, what is it like, the material of this table is like this and this, the material of the EM field, the composition, is like this and this, the composition of the gravity field is like this and this.

You did not quote any of the interesting MATERIAL of my questions, you did not quote and discuss the substance of my inquiries, are my inquires baryonic? You completely ignored the points I was pointing to, to get hung up on a simple semantic close to not being a metaphor, metaphorical distinction.

So although I asked other things you ignored, I will ask this again; What is an appropriate word if not substance, or material, or aether, or medium, that I can use to evoke and refer to 'that which exists in between, in, and surrounding planets and stars, which warps in their presence'?

To refer to such a 'thing', to ask what might the way in which this 'thing' is composed, parts, how are its parts, how do they relate, how strongly are they bound (atoms are bound, a knit rug is bound, a shirt is bound, the ocean has parts that are bound, a car has parts that are bound, and all these parts have varying relationships of boundness that are also related to not only their own fundamentality but potentially the nature of that which surrounds them, and the momentous physical circumstances they find themselves in)?

Space-time you may say. So I can ask what is space time made of, that it can warp? Fabric warps, wood warps, a dented car is warped, what is the nature of that which space time is composed of, that it can warp? What is the nature of this warpable (whats the word???) stuff/substance/medium, what is the nature of the parts that compose it, how tightly are they bound, how small are they, on average how many exist in a square mile?

Now were getting somewhere baby.

a reply to: DanielKoenig
I already did answer all of that. You just didn't understand or didn't like the answer.

Space-time you may say.

I already did say that.

So I can ask what is space time made of, that it can warp?

I gave you my answer:

All I really know for sure is what experiments and observations tell me. We have some models that make good predictions to consider.

Experiments and observations are consistent with Einstein's model that space has properties. Beyond that I've never seen any experiments or observations to tell me what space-time is made of, if it's made of anything, and I don't know that it is. All I really know for sure is that Einstein was apparently right when he said that space has properties which are especially noticeable around large masses. Have you read the Encyclopedia Britannica article Einstein wrote on about Space-Time? It may not answer all your questions but it may have the best answers we've got so far. Here is an excerpt but click the link to read the full article.

Nothing certain is known of what the properties of the space-time-continuum may be as a whole. Through the general theory of relativity, however, the view that the continuum is infinite in its time-like extent but finite in its space-like extent has gained in probability.

We know what we know and we don't know what we don't know. If you're demanding an answer to what we don't know, good luck with that. I'm sure you can coerce somebody somewhere into giving you one, but it's probably not correct. Most theoretical physicists will tell you that most of their guesses turn out to be wrong when experiments finally test them. If there's only one right explanation and many possible wrong explanations for a given phenomenon, I suppose that makes sense.