Question about gravity.

page: 29
6
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Gravitation is a deformation of space-time in most modern theories. Its effects may appear to be instantaneous only because the sub-structure (space time) is already existent (i.e, the gravitational moment of the Earth in orbit around the Sun does not "lag" by eight seconds and this is because the deformation in space-time caused by the mass of the Sun is centered on the center of that mass).

Because space-time is deformed by mass and mass cannot be made to move at light velocity or faster, gravitational changes are similarly constrained by the speed of light.

The correlation between mass and gravitation is established by a significant amount of experimentation and observation, for over one hundred years.

Neither the standard model or various relativity theories are complete and this is best exemplified by the absence of overlap especially in regard to gravitation and dark matter/dark energy.

While I'd love to be able to discard erroneous theories for new ones, currently relativity and the standard model are the best and most complete and do deliver answers that match observation, provided you do not misapply those theories to the areas where we know they don't work.

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)




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

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)


I think you are quite correct that my migraines have the effect that I think most clearly about abstractions when they are occurring.

Similarly, the idea that there are other dimensions providing paths for action, specifically for gravitation, outside of current physical models, is quite sound. Gravitation is the weakest of the four forces (actually i believe there is a fifth, even weaker force that gives rise to the cosmological constant) and there is no explanation of why it is so weak, except that it might be acting more strongly via other dimensions than it does in the first four.

This idea of forces acting in higher dimensions is fundamental to string theory and is currently being investigated.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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.


The Tamarack mines experiments were probably mythical, as were the proposed French observations that preceded them. The two sources of information regarding these experiments were Ulysses S Morrow and Ray Palmer.

Ulysses S Morrow included his recollection of the experiments in the first publication of The Cellular Cosmology (The Guiding Star Publishing House, 1898, 1905) [on pages 97-201] a book that suggested a particular hollow earth theory favored by a cult called Koreshian Unity. It is interesting that in all later revisions of the book, the account was completely removed.

Ray Palmer was an editor & science fiction writer who published his account in the November 1960 edition of the magazine "Flying Saucers". Palmer was renowned for 'bending the truth' to produce more sensationalist articles for his magazine.

It is also interesting to note that these two accounts are in disagreement with each other in regard to many pertinent facts.

edit on 11/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

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 theoretical reason for this, according to the radiant pressure model, is because if massive bodies are absorbing gravity radiation, then they must also emit another source of radiation (not electromagnetic) to remain in equilibrium.

While I generally agree with this theory, I also theorize that not all the absorbed energy is re-emitted. I think some of the absorbed energy is captured by the planet, and it is the source of new matter - explaining the growth of the planet.

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 author of the definitive work on the radiant pressure model, uses the example of the eclipse of Io across Jupiter. If light speed were relative to the earth, then the eclipse of Io would be visible at the same time regardless of whether the earth was in its closest orbital position or furthest away. Of course, the Io eclipse event is delayed by observation, by an amount of time that it takes light to cross the earths orbital path.

No amount of moving away should adjust the time taken to see the event. Obviously our movement away from Jupiter and its moons increases the time it takes for the light to reach the earth, proving special relativity false - the absolute velocity of the light is reduced by a value equal to the velocity of the earth moving away from Jupiter.

However, once in the earths secondary radiation field, we measure it is exactly c - it conforms due to the presence of the earth.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

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.

...

Prior to the 1905 publication of special relativity, Lorentz initially assumed his reference frame was an absolute one for all observers (relative to the luminiferous aether). After the Michelson–Morley experiments, from 1892 onwards, Lorentz tried to explain space-time contractions but still with reference to an absolute reference frame. It was during this period when he began speaking of local time frames, but even then did not give up the idea of an absolute reference frame until 5 years after GR had been published and despite agreeing in principle with Einstein.

edit on 11/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 





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.


What "sounds" plausible is not how science is done. Instantaneous action does not sound plausible to me at all. On the other hand, this anticipation of a future position is very plausible if it comes out of equations, as this link claims:


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.


math.ucr.edu...

This sounds plausible to me, because it looks like some relativistic analog of good old optical abberation effects. Also, it is supposedly not perfect, the anticipation fails for accelerating objects, which makes a lot of sense and we have evidence that this is the case due to decaying orbits of pulsars.


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.


According to what I have found, there is not even a consensus that this effect actually exists. Not even talking about being an evidence for your model of gravity.

en.wikipedia.org...




The second experiment has been conducted several times over the years, I believe the most famou


The second experiment also appears to be very questionable according to this link:

www.lhup.edu...
edit on 11/11/12 by Maslo because: link



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

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 obvious SR is wrong. 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)
edit on 11-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

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)

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)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

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)



In a word yes. The difference between the two theories is that quantum mechanics postulates fields, where radiant pressure postulates actual vectors of varying frequency (quantum radiation). Particles are associated with the different frequencies, but they don't 'mediate' anything. They simply emit and absorb certain frequencies.

The radiant pressure model does not require fields, because the vacuum is jam packed with extremely powerful vectors in equilibrium - and they are infinitely elastic. From a standard quantum mechanics point of view, each frequency range would be interpreted as a field. However, there is no need for a field if you have a vector equilibrium - the so called fields arise when the vector equilibrium is disturbed.

So what standard theory might call a field, radiant pressure recognizes as a region that is not in equilibrium (due to particles redirecting vectors, and also altering their frequency).

Particles absorb a certain frequency of the quantum vectors, through a whirlpool like effect (phi ratio) that remains isotropic until the incoming waves are separated by wave collapse, and re-emitted at normals to the plane of incidence. Exactly what is the geometry, and what induces the wave collapse, and what is the relationship between incident and emitted frequency - I don't really have any concrete theories at this time.

At this stage I am assuming an open topography for particles, and an 'aperture' that allows them to trap certain frequencies. The aperture is maintained by incoming and emitted radiation, and this is the only thing that differentiates particles - because it controls what is collected, and what is emitted. With an increase in wave amplitude, this aperture may step change to a new level.

The frequencies that particles absorb, and the frequencies that they emit determine the characteristics of the particle - its geometry does not vary. Charge is one of the frequencies, with electrons being emitters and protons being collectors of this frequency - when the background equilibrium is disturbed, the electrostatic vector applies a force to all particles interacting with this frequency (anything charged).

The ratio phi is associated with the geometry of convergence, in the same way that pi is associated with divergence.

edit on 11-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

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)


I should clarify somewhat here, because I diverged a bit from the original question.

The Higgs field would not in itself be analogous to an 'aether' - but that frequency of the quantum radiation (the Higgs frequency) would definitely be part of the background isotropic vector equilibrium. So, yes - it would be part of the 'aether' - but that 'aether' would also comprise an infinite, or near infinite range of frequencies - each frequency would likely interact with a different radiant particle. So the quantum radiation of the Higgs field would likely act as aether only to certain types of radiant particles, those whose frequency interacted with it.

I guess the main point I would make is that standard theory is looking at the problem from a very difficult and complicated view - it is theorizing the existence of fields, instead of seeing that the fields are an effect of quantum radiation, not a root cause.

Of course, particles will exist that represent (interact) every any 'field' we can discern - and there will be an infinite array of such particles, because the fields are simply vectors (of quantum radiation of specific frequencies) that are not in equilibrium.

The significance of the particles is only that they absorb and emit a certain range of frequencies - they do not 'mediate' forces.
edit on 12-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join