It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by chr0naut
My sympathies for the word-salad. Probably it helps you, personally, remember it. I think mine do. Not every time.
Maybe gravity is interdimentional inertia. Our whole universe is moving in one direction, that is to say along a dimention supersetted and "perpendicular " to the normal three spacial dimentions.edit on 5-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)edit on 5-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)edit on 5-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Amagnon
Incorrect - the effect of gravity is almost instantaneous - you need to read your link more carefully. As I said - this isn't something advertised.
Its nothing new to me. It is not exactly advertised, but it is also not hidden. The effect is not instantaneous, it travels at the speed of light. It just points to a position where the gravitating body would be if it continues with constant speed.
This is simply theoretical acrobatics designed to try and maintain a theory which is patently false - ie Special, and General relativity. This idea that 'this only applies between gravity wells moving at constant velocity' is a fabrication purely on inspection.
Id like to see some evidence of this bold claim.edit on 10/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Amagnon
Incorrect - the effect of gravity is almost instantaneous - you need to read your link more carefully. As I said - this isn't something advertised.
Its nothing new to me. It is not exactly advertised, but it is also not hidden. The effect is not instantaneous, it travels at the speed of light. It just points to a position where the gravitating body would be if it continues with constant speed.
This is simply theoretical acrobatics designed to try and maintain a theory which is patently false - ie Special, and General relativity. This idea that 'this only applies between gravity wells moving at constant velocity' is a fabrication purely on inspection.
Id like to see some evidence of this bold claim.edit on 10/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
The idea of a force which acts at the speed of light but anticipates an objects future position sounds less plausible then a force which acts directly on an object instantaneously.
There is of course experimental evidence, and while I won't include links, these experiments shouldn't be hard to find and confirm with a quick search. The following two experiments demonstrate that the force of gravity is not attraction, but rather it is a force that radiates from the vacuum - and that its effects are instantaneous.
The first is use of a torsion pendulum during a solar eclipse.
The pendulum registers fluctuations and increase of gravity before the shadow of the moon crosses, in fact it registers the fluctuation in gravity at the instant that the actual moons position intersects the actual position of the sun. This experiment has been conducted by Harvard University for many years, and perhaps you can find the data there - though many others have also seen this result.
The result indicates that the change of gravity occurs ahead of the shadow and is therefore not a light speed interaction, instead it occurs instantly.
The second experiment has been conducted several times over the years, I believe the most famous would be by the French - but it was repeated by several groups over time, with the same result.
Two plumb lines are dropped into mine shafts, very long lines - and then the distance between the plumb bobs is measured. The idea is to determine the center of gravity - though the experiment was also devised to try and calculate the earths curvature.
The bobs should converge, pointing down to the center of gravity - however, in this type of experiment the plumb bobs always diverge. The divergent bobs point to a center of gravity that is above the surface of the earth. This could never be explained by the attractive gravity theory, although it is easily explained by a radiant pressure model.
In a radiant pressure model, the force of gravity comes from above, because it is a reaction to an imbalance in the force. The particles of the earth absorb the gravity vector coming through, thus there is more force coming from above than from the other side of the earth - this forces the bobs apart.
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Amagnon
The work of Lorentz (which preceded Einstein's theories) are foundational to Relativity to the extent that I'm not sure how you could determine a separate "Lorentzian Relativity" to Relativity (with the exception of Lorentz's earlier and provably erroneous work).
edit on 11/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Amagnon
The work of Lorentz (which preceded Einstein's theories) are foundational to Relativity to the extent that I'm not sure how you could determine a separate "Lorentzian Relativity" to Relativity (with the exception of Lorentz's earlier and provably erroneous work).
edit on 11/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
The theory I am referring to by Lorentz is regarding the preferred frame of reference. He postulated a relativity theory regarding light speed, that it had a preferred frame of reference - that of the dominant source of local gravity.
...
The idea of a force which acts at the speed of light but anticipates an objects future position sounds less plausible then a force which acts directly on an object instantaneously.
It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations.
Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.
The first is use of a torsion pendulum during a solar eclipse.
This experiment has been conducted by Harvard University for many years, and perhaps you can find the data there - though many others have also seen this result.
The second experiment has been conducted several times over the years, I believe the most famou
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Amagnon
The work of Lorentz (which preceded Einstein's theories) are foundational to Relativity to the extent that I'm not sure how you could determine a separate "Lorentzian Relativity" to Relativity (with the exception of Lorentz's earlier and provably erroneous work).
...
The radiant pressure model therefore agree with Lorentz, that there is a preferred frame of reference. For example, light reflected by Mars has a constant velocity with respect to Mars, but as it nears the earth it adjusts to become relative to the earth - due to the field of secondary radiation emitted by the earth.
That light speed is not relative to all observers is obvious. There are numerous examples that prove it false - its false by observation.
...
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Amagnon
The work of Lorentz (which preceded Einstein's theories) are foundational to Relativity to the extent that I'm not sure how you could determine a separate "Lorentzian Relativity" to Relativity (with the exception of Lorentz's earlier and provably erroneous work).
...
The radiant pressure model therefore agree with Lorentz, that there is a preferred frame of reference. For example, light reflected by Mars has a constant velocity with respect to Mars, but as it nears the earth it adjusts to become relative to the earth - due to the field of secondary radiation emitted by the earth.
That light speed is not relative to all observers is obvious. There are numerous examples that prove it false - its false by observation.
...
The very point of Lorentz contraction is so that the speed of light could remain a constant regardless of the reference frame.
The difference between Einsteins view and Lorentz initial ones was that there was no longer a need for anyone to consider one reference frame any better than any other. The answers (to the observer) came out the same regardless of the reference frame from which they were observed. This dispensed (mathematically) with the need to have an aether or some absolute reference frame at all.
It is surprising that, with Lorentz doing the sums, he didn't see the implications. The paradigm of the aether and absolute references must have been, at the time, an incredibly difficult one to break. It took an Einstein to see the obviousness of it all.
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Amagnon
The work of Lorentz (which preceded Einstein's theories) are foundational to Relativity to the extent that I'm not sure how you could determine a separate "Lorentzian Relativity" to Relativity (with the exception of Lorentz's earlier and provably erroneous work).
...
The radiant pressure model therefore agree with Lorentz, that there is a preferred frame of reference. For example, light reflected by Mars has a constant velocity with respect to Mars, but as it nears the earth it adjusts to become relative to the earth - due to the field of secondary radiation emitted by the earth.
That light speed is not relative to all observers is obvious. There are numerous examples that prove it false - its false by observation.
...
The very point of Lorentz contraction is so that the speed of light could remain a constant regardless of the reference frame.
The difference between Einsteins view and Lorentz initial ones was that there was no longer a need for anyone to consider one reference frame any better than any other. The answers (to the observer) came out the same regardless of the reference frame from which they were observed. This dispensed (mathematically) with the need to have an aether or some absolute reference frame at all.
It is surprising that, with Lorentz doing the sums, he didn't see the implications. The paradigm of the aether and absolute references must have been, at the time, an incredibly difficult one to break. It took an Einstein to see the obviousness of it all.
I'm not referring to initial theories - I'm referring to LET.
Wiki excerpt follows;
"The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference (which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether), leads to the complete Lorentz transformation. Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET. Another important reason for preferring SR is that the new understanding of space and time was also fundamental for the development of general relativity."
You can see from the excerpt that SR is preferred only by convention - because it assumed that GR works. I don't believe either GR or SR to be valid.
The theory is that the radiant energy of massive bodies provides an analogy to 'aether' - for purposes of application of Lorentz relativity. Because the theorized radiation is of a quantum nature, then so long as it is not an accelerating frame - then it is not distorted and provides a frame of reference.
I do not dispute experimental data, I simply dispute the interpretation - and where appropriate I dispute the way that significant problems with both SR and GR are fudged over with makeshift explanations.
Also, if you read my example of the period change of Io's eclipse time - it is flat out irrefutable that SR is wrong. It is only valid if you can't understand the example, or simply refuse to believe the evidence. There IS some kind of 'aether' - though it is proven experimentally that it is not composed of matter or energy. The sticking point is, that to accept this, is to assume the existence of something that is not matter or energy - which purveyors of dark matter, and dark energy seem to go to any lengths of ludicrous fictions to avoid.edit on 11-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by chr0naut
OK, not totally agreeing on Radiant pressure model, yet, but could the Higgs field, then be analogous to an aether and provide an absolute reference frame and which would also tie it all back to a quantum model?
What's your take on this?
edit on 11/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by chr0naut
OK, not totally agreeing on Radiant pressure model, yet, but could the Higgs field, then be analogous to an aether and provide an absolute reference frame and which would also tie it all back to a quantum model?
What's your take on this?
edit on 11/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)