Relativity+

I have a partial theory to what gravity is. Admittedly it's not something I've picked up from a textbook, but just through observation. I'm sure some of you might be resourceful enough to find information on the "Poltergeist Laboratory", at least I believe thats the nickname J Huchison's work got while he was looking to harness a form of energy.

Using a large localised array of radiological equipment, he was able to resonate matter at particular frequencies that generated a number of effects. One effect was the levitation of matter through the matter having it's resonance frequency altered while the another effect was coined the "Hutchison Effect" where some metals looked as if they had been melted partially while no heat was emitted.

To better explain how the levitation of matter can give an idea to what gravity is, there was a program on the television the other day that explained how the creation of RADAR aided the war effort during the second world war. It wasn't so much the technical description of it's use within antenna arrays, but it's eventual evolution to being placed on the actual aircraft to aid with detecting craft during the night or submarines. The method utilised a shorter wavelength that was created through the collision of particular elements.

Gravity itself is a "Field" and it's generated by the makeup of matter, from it's oscillating atomic composites. Since atoms within mass are molecularly bonded, the overall effect is multiple fields overlaying into a matrix. These overlaying fields aren't necessarily just one wavelength in length but are "partial" wavelengths through the matrices composition (Similar to how RADAR was mentioned above). The larger the volume and greater the density of the mass, the greater the gravity.

Since the overall field isn't just one wavelength but a matrices of differing wavelengths (whole and partial) it could be the reason for the 'Hutchison effect' if the effect was created through only a particular wavelength being used.

All matter has it's own gravitational field however it's down to it's overall volume and density. i.e. Planet sizes and density have different gravitational fields.
 
Farsight said:
Nope, it was irony, but the double irony is that that's how you are.

Shrug, the penny will drop sometime. And you BenTheMan will end up teaching RELATIVITY+.
Click to expand...
I see the weakness behind the armour, the fear behind feigned confidence, the loneliness hiding behind those cold eyes. I can feel the conflict within you. Such a sad existence. So much suffering, so much hate.

But it doesn't have to end this way! Don't you see? There is a better way of life! Open yourself to Lorentz Invariance. Let His light into your heart! That invariant light provided unto all by His greatness, never wavering, the one universal constant you may always rely upon. For even in the darkest of times the Lord shall provide thee with blackbody radiation.

Even now, after all this pain, it is not too late.
 
Moderator message: The personal attacks in this thread are getting out of hand. Future posts containing personal attacks in this thread may be edited or deleted.
 
I hope you're not lumping przyk's beautiful wit in with Farisight's mindless assaults.
 
All: I was looking for gravity affecting matter half as much as it affects light, and came across this:

http://www.geocities.com/davidwtalmage/quantum2.htm

ENERGY IS EVERYTHING

Quantum Explanation of Gravity and Inertia
David W. Talmage and Richard J. Sanderson
Webb Waring Institute at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, CO 80262

This paper argues that the infinities that have plagued previous attempts to quantize gravity can be avoided by changing the causal sequence by which the quantum field produces the attractive force. Instead of acting directly on matter particles as with electromagnetism, we are proposing that in the case of gravity the quantum field acts indirectly through a change in the speed of light. This difference permits us to use the same explanation for the inverse square laws that characterize both forces, while giving unique explanations for the unique properties of the gravitational field: its relative weakness, its non-absorbability and its ability to produce a change in the clock rate of matter particles and a curvature of light path. At the same time, our proposal that the speed of light controls the energy content of matter particles creates a central role for the isotropic light speed frame. Although this frame cannot be detected, the energy content of matter particles will be affected by their motion relative to this frame. In this way the equivalence of gravity and acceleration and the requirement for energy exchange to produce the latter can be explained...

And what's this? 3. The primary effect of the quantum gravitational field is a reduction in the speed of light. Uh oh, this sounds an awful lot like RELATIVITY+. What am I doing in Pseudoscience?
 
Farsight---

Their theory is killed for the same reason yours is---a changing speed of light means that locally there is a gradient in the constants epsilon and/or mu (permitivity or permeability of free space). And there is no mechanism whereby such changes could occur---at least you (or the paper you linked to) hasn't proposed one. If you could come up with a way implement these things, then perhaps your ideas would find some more acceptance.

But everything we know about the way light moves through space says that the ideas you have and the ideas that you linked to are just not correct.

They fail to notice that local changes in the free space constants WOULD be measureable in the absorbtion and emission lines of hydrogen in intergalactic dust clouds, for example.
 
The local change in the free space constants aren't measurable directly. Just as the local change in c isn't measurable directly. Everything is "made of light" and we're immersed in a total scale change. I'll write CHARGE EXPLAINED, but you won't read it. You'll just kick yourself later when the penny drops that it's the correct model. And so will everybody else because I'll make sure I give you, and your school, ample air time.
 
I guess the problem I have with all of this is that you presume to have some intuition into the way the universe works, despite having no training.

Charge, for example, is a very abstract thing. It corresponds to the way that matter transforms in different representations of different Lie Groups. Of these maths, I am confident, you know little.
 
BenTheMan:
Their theory is killed for the same reason yours is---a changing speed of light means that locally there is a gradient in the constants epsilon and/or mu (permitivity or permeability of free space). And there is no mechanism whereby such changes could occur---at least you (or the paper you linked to) hasn't proposed one. If you could come up with a way implement these things, then perhaps your ideas would find some more acceptance.
Click to expand...
Sure there is a mechanism to explain the gradient in the permitivity and permeability of free space. A dynamical aether, an aether that varies in its permitivity and permeability according to local gravitational potential. Without a dynamical aether, or any name you wish to call it, some experimental observations cannot be explained. I've asked the following question several times before, always unanswered.

An atomic clock, or a light clock, beats according to the local gravitational potential it is located in. Two atomic clocks, both in vacuum but in different gravitational potentials, will beat at different rates. An atomic clock in atmosphere-free mid-Earth orbit beats slower than an identical clock in geostationary orbit. Light clocks will beat in synch with a local atomic clock in the same frame of reference, or the atomic clock is not keeping local 'time'. In other words, a light clock in mid-Earth orbit will beat slower than a light clock in geostationary orbit. The speed of light in vacuum is slower in increased gravitational potential. All atomic processes slow as the atom moves deeper in the gravity well. Local clocks will always measure the value of 'c' to be identical locally. It is only when one compares two different clocks in two different gravitational potentials that we can measure the difference in the local values of 'c'. This has been verified repeatedly with our modern atomic clocks and satellites.
They fail to notice that local changes in the free space constants WOULD be measureable in the absorbtion and emission lines of hydrogen in intergalactic dust clouds, for example.
Click to expand...
No, the absorbtion and emission lines of hydrogen will only reflect the local value of the gravitational potential they located within. For instance, from our vantage point, we cannot 'see' the wavelenght of light emitted by a distant source blueshift as it travels into an intervening gravity well because it redshifts the identical amount as it exits the gravity well. One method to detect the varying local value of 'c' is by the Shaprio delay. The Shapiro delay has been measured and verified. Light takes "longer than expected" to move through areas of high gravity. Large, rotating masses can also distort and slightly 'drag around' this dynamical aether. This dynamical aether is the medium through which light propagates. Distortions and changes in the aether's density affect the propagation of light. I also believe that when science aquires a true understanding of the nature of the vacuum, it will be obvious that that the wavelength of light is not 'stretched' just because 'space itself' is expanding, but because the density of the aether decreases as the universe expands to a larger volume. I would hazard a guess that this aether is repelled by gravity. It is less dense near massive objects, lowering the propagation speed of light. It is more dense in the voids of the universe, increasing the comparative value of 'c' in free space with no masses near. This aether that is repelled by mass is the mechanism that is driving the expansion of the universe. Mass 'pushes' against the aether and the aether 'pushes' against the masses on the opposite side of the void. This pushing effect is very weak however. Even the gravitational attraction of distant galaxies in local groups are able to overcome the push. The wavelength of light that travels between distant galaxies in a local group is not 'stretched' by an expanding universe, it is slightly blueshifted due to the relative velocity of the collapsing group. This aether is the 'dark matter' that surrounds and pushes (repulsion) against the mass in a galaxy to hold it together and the 'dark energy' that pushes distant groups of galaxies apart where it can overcome the attractive force of gravity. The aether is more dense outside the galaxy than within nearer the mass, creating an imbalance in the repulsive effects, more powerful from the outside of the galaxy.

Farsight, sorry to distract your thread with this little philosophical hypothesis, but this is the 'pseudoscience' section. :(
 
Sure there is a mechanism to explain the gradient in the permitivity and permeability of free space. A dynamical aether, an aether that varies in its permitivity and permeability according to local gravitational potential. Without a dynamical aether, or any name you wish to call it, some experimental observations cannot be explained.
Click to expand...

Electromagnetism and Gravity are two separate things. Light is a massless particle, so it travels along geodesics of the gravitational potential. The permittivity and permiability, which effectively define the speed of light, have nothing to do with gravity.

The speed of light in vacuum is slower in increased gravitational potential.
Click to expand...

I can interpret this statement in one of two ways. Both of them are wrong.

1.) You actually think that Special Relativity is wrong. Your statement is in direct contradiction to the second postulate.

2.) The speed of light from point A to point B, where light crosses a gravitational potential, is not c. You don't take into account that the light bends along the geodesics of the gravitational potential.

The Shapiro delay has been measured and verified. Light takes "longer than expected" to move through areas of high gravity.
Click to expand...

Because the space-time is curved. What is so hard to accept about this?

I won't bothe cutting and pasting the last bit. What evidence do you have that any of this is correct? Aside from the Shapiro effect, which is often cited as proof of GR?
 
BenTheMan,
Electromagnetism and Gravity are two separate things.
Click to expand...
Of course, gravity has an effect electromagnetism, doesn't it?
Light is a massless particle, so it travels along geodesics of the gravitational potential.
Click to expand...
The 'geodesics of the gravitational potential' is a mathematical model. There are no 'real' lines in the vacuum that light propagates along, correct?
The permittivity and permiability, which effectively define the speed of light, have nothing to do with gravity.
Click to expand...
The permittivity and permeability effectively define the speed of all electromagnetic actions, correct? Now, what defines the value of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum?
1.) You actually think that Special Relativity is wrong. Your statement is in direct contradiction to the second postulate.
Click to expand...
Well, how do you define 'wrong'? Is Newtonian Mechanics 'wrong' or just not as accurate as it could be?
2.) The speed of light from point A to point B, where light crosses a gravitational potential, is not c. You don't take into account that the light bends along the geodesics of the gravitational potential.
Click to expand...
I believe the speed of light will always measure 'c' when measured by a local atomic clock in the local permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. I believe the value of the local permittivity and permeability is affected by the gravitational potential.
Because the space-time is curved. What is so hard to accept about this?
Click to expand...
How do you define 'space-time'? Is it the same thing as the vacuum? You do remember Einstein's own words, dont you? Quote:
"According to the general theory of relativity
space is endowed with physical qualities;
in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether.
According to the general theory of relativity
space without aether is unthinkable."
A.Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, 1922, page 23.
 
2inquisitive said:
..This dynamical aether is the medium through which light propagates. Distortions and changes in the aether's density affect the propagation of light. I also believe that when science aquires a true understanding of the nature of the vacuum, it will be obvious that that the wavelength of light is not 'stretched' just because 'space itself' is expanding, but because the density of the aether decreases as the universe expands to a larger volume. I would hazard a guess that this aether is repelled by gravity. It is less dense near massive objects, lowering the propagation speed of light. It is more dense in the voids of the universe, increasing the comparative value of 'c' in free space with no masses near. This aether that is repelled by mass is the mechanism that is driving the expansion of the universe. Mass 'pushes' against the aether and the aether 'pushes' against the masses...
Click to expand...
I agree with this up to a point. However you won't see me talking about "aether" very much because it implies substance, and similarly you won't hear me saying "density". Energy density perhaps, but that takes us back to mass/energy stress and gravity as an opposing tension. See GRAVITY EXPLAINED. But note that I have no enthusiasm for continuing the "discussion" (see thread) now that my essays have been moved from Physics & Maths to Pseudoscience.
 
Farsight,
Just because your thread has landed in pseudoscience you shouldn't be too quick to quit on it. If anything I've seen threads like this in the other sub-forums pulled apart or just harassed by people because of their scientific or just mischievous viewpoints. You might be granted a better freedom of discussion here because some of the self-professed scientific minds don't want to hang in pseudoscience either.
 
Farsight said:
But note that I have no enthusiasm for continuing the "discussion" (see thread) now that my essays have been moved from Physics & Maths to Pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

No physics, no math, seems appropriate. What's the problem?
 
Stryder said:
Farsight, You might be granted a better freedom of discussion here because some of the self-professed scientific minds don't want to hang in pseudoscience either.
Click to expand...

How does that figure, farsight IS a self-professed scientific mind?
 
So, would anybody care to discuss RELATIVITY+? If so please read the essay here and follow the links to read the sub-essays. I'd be grateful for any feedback you can offer.
 
Farsight said:
But note that I have no enthusiasm for continuing the "discussion" (see thread) now that my essays have been moved from Physics & Maths to Pseudoscience.

So, would anybody care to discuss RELATIVITY+? I'd be grateful for any feedback you can offer.
Click to expand...

Just can't seem to make up your mind? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top