Thread: Hypothesis for a consistent Aether theory

Earlier i posted, regarding Gravity, the relevance of the works of Padmanabhan and others like Verlinde,
as they talk in similar ways about gravity as an emergent phenomenon of underlying functionalities, mainly focussed on entropy. I believe Padmanabhan was the first one to make such implications, 1 year before Verlinde.

An overview with very usefull sources at the end is posted on Wikipedia, as i noticed the other day :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity


Quoting Markus Hanke on this new information :

"Let us start with a simple fact which, in my mind anyway, has tremendous implications - that one can associate entropy with the event horizon of a black hole, as described by Hawking and Bekenstein in some length and detail. All an event horizon is, is in effect the boundary of a region of space-time; entropy on the other hand is a measure of how many different ways one can arrange a thermodynamic system without affecting the overall dynamics, in other words, a measure of the number of microstates a system has. The surprising fact here is that the entropy of a black hole horizon is a finite, well defined number; this tells us that the region of space-time enclosed by the horizon has a finite, well defined number of degrees of freedom, i.e. a microstructure. If space-time were smooth and continuous ( or if it contained a physical singularity ), the entropy would be infinite - but it isn't."



>> I've been urged by many on this forum to study physics more detailed before making statements of any kind.
I've wisely taken this advise (after a while ,)), and i've been very very busy upgrading my knowledge on physics in a rather obsessive way, yet still a long way to go. The internet is of course a wonderful instrument for this, if you stick to 'trustworthy sources'. Thus combining it with my abilities of creativity and professional background as a product designer.
Because once we enter the field of a ' mechanical micro-structure ', things get more material, and my background becomes more relevant in a 'discovery process' as a parallel to a design process.

Consequently i've been constructing an 'Aether-model' of gravity that i would like to see consistent with the quantum level.
I studied the problems and inconsistency of previous eather models and have tried to avoid them in my developing hypothesis.

What you argue in your post (quoted above), is perfectly consistent with my proposed model, which is a representation of the microstructure you speak of, and it's dynamics.
The model also brings 'gravity' on a macro- and microstucture together harmoniously.
It also shows consistancy with Newton's laws and Einsteins curvage of space time.That is my micro-structure model shows exactly in a conceptual drawing how classic gravity exists in curved space-time.
It also shows on a micro level how exactly 2 objects of different mass can 'fall' and 'hit' the earth surface at the same time.(image and calculation). It also suggests a parallel (to be further developed) on subatomic level where this attractive motion ought to behave in quantum steps. In other words the harmony of quantum level wave/particle motion with the 'smooth' motion above atomic level.
The model also shows very clearly how the tides work, especially the tidal effect at the moon side of the earth being stronger than at the backside of the earth.


I won't keep it at just words, i will post my model and it's details and arguments (the current state of my hypothesis) when i've made it more visually representational, no later than 3-4 weeks from now.
Mean while i've taken it to 'peer' review with a very intelligent friend scientist who was very surprised by the hypothesis and the consistency of it's implications.

Just observing that a knowledgable man like Markus is taking a course as he describes, is very supporting to my findings.

I would very much after posting it, receive comments and ideas, as well as serious critique that points out mistakes of any kind. The goal is to improve the model, because it is always incomplete.
So i don't aim to be 'the smartest', i'm not, but as i stated earlier, i fermly believe in synergy :
complementary knowledge of different people working on the same problem will give much better results than individuals working in confinement.

Healthy debate is what is needed.


>>Here's the Introduction i wrote as a preface to my work on a new hypothesis :


G-... : ...


1.Preface

To observe and understand reality, be it far away or close by, be it at subatomic level of scale or at galactic level of scale, we have developed a series of therms to describe and understand this reality.
Examples are temperature, entropy,energy, gravity,quantum, attraction, time, space-time, curvage of space-time, elasticity, pulling , pushing, mathematical derivations, symbols in mathematical equasions.
We use these therms to better understand reality and better structure it, but in doing so , we don’t really describe reality itself.
Our observations and calculations only provide us with a derivation on a certain level of scale, of what reality really encompasses .
The real question is : " What is it that which it IS. " (As the French say literally “ Qu-‘est-ce que c’est ? ”)


So when trying to describe the underlying functionality, the basal mechanisms of how reality is constructed at it’s core, the above therminology only consist of emerging phenomenons.

So when intending to clarify the underlying micro-reality, one needs to apply another therminology that is free of phenomenon vocabulary, in other words a basal kind of essential language is needed to discover the unifying underlying principles of how reality is constructed deep down.

In other words : one cannot use the descriptional therms mentioned above to explain the underlying principles and structural dynamics.

I am aiming here to provide insights in the unifying principles that clarify the above mentioned phenomenons that describe reality. In other words deconstructing the apparent synergy into it’s basic components to arrive at the essential working principles of things.



2.Goal of this paper

This paper focusses on unravelling the functional principle of one of the 4 forces of nature,
Gravity, in order to better understand the unifying principles that rule all 4 forces.
A hypothetical model of gravity-mechanics will be developed, which also must lead to consistency with the other 3 forces



3.Operational framework

The following ‘a priori modus operandi’ is applied to reach this aim :

*There is a unifiying functional system at work that explains the 4 forces of nature
(Electro-magnetical, weak binding, strong binding and gravitational force.)

*Phenomenon-vocabulary (see start of preface) must be avoided in clarifications of any kind, but must be used for assessments of their credibility.

*To zoom in on reality itself at it’s deepest level, one must leave the relativistic point of observation and clarify on a micro-level the inert situation of reality.

*There is no such thing as the smallest particle.

*Continuously deconstruct the apparent synergy (phenomenons) into it’s basic components.

*Continuous alternate between helicopter vision and micro-vision.

*Continuous alternatation between creative and logic idea-formation and assessment based on observations.



4.Build-up towards the hypothesis

The approach of Newton and Einstein to explain gravity has lead us to a certain ‘status quo’ of understanding.
Newton explains gravity as a phenomenon in which masses attract each other proportional to their masses product and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. And here gravity exists instantly.
Einstein explains gravity as a phenomenon where space-time is curved. And here gravity exists at the speed of light.

It is however unclear how this ‘gravity’ does it’s work between for instance 2 masses.

-Is there a magician at work in the earth with supernatural hand-technique to pull the moon towards earth ?
>No, one should rather interprete gravitational pull as a metaphore, an apparent phenomenon, that veils the underlying system of movement of the particles as being propagated in a medium, in this case apparently being pulled towards each other.

-Is space-time really being curved ?
>No, one should rather interprete the space-time curvage as a metaphore, an apparent phenomenon,
that veils the system of movement as the possible paths to be taken by the attracted particles, in this case apparently following the curvage in space-time.

We establish here the assumption that particles in a gravitational condition are propagated in a certain medium.

This is also what Einstein and Newton believed, besides the developement of their laws and theories, yet without further specifying what the medium was or the mechanisms encompassed.
Quantum physics is moving into these explanatory directions, attempting to refine the work of Newton and Einstein on a micro-level.
Of course this 'new model of movement', this system of behavior of particles of any size,
must comply to the established laws and theories of Newton and Einstein,
as well as to the observations made in this area of science.

This is the frame of reference in which one should asses the credibility of any new gravitational model.


5.Hypothesis

...

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Because once we enter the field of a ' mechanical micro-structure '

Feel free to quote me from the other thread, but bear in mind please that I said nothing about the micro-structure being mechanical in nature. I was actually thinking more along the lines of a quantum fluid of pre-geometric simplices, somewhat akin to the ideas of CDT.

Consequently i've been constructing an 'Aether-model' of gravity that i would like to see consistent with the quantum level.

I don't think aether needs to come into this at all. If you mention "aether" here or anywhere, you will pretty quickly be placed into the crank corner.

That is my micro-structure model shows exactly in a conceptual drawing how classic gravity exists in curved space-time.

That is not what we observe in nature; classical gravity is essentially incorrect, except as a weak-field approximation. Gravity is a geometric property of space-time itself, not something that exists "in" space-time.

It also shows on a micro level how exactly 2 objects of different mass can 'fall' and 'hit' the earth surface at the same time

The model also shows very clearly how the tides work

We already know the reasons and explanations for these, both in GR and in Newtonian gravity.

A hypothetical model of gravity-mechanics will be developed

That's not needed, GR works just fine so far as the geometrodynamics is concerned, and I doubt very much that you will be able to reformulate this in any meaningful way, unless you are some kind of genius in the same league as Elie Cartan. What we are looking for is rather a model of the geometrogenesis. Make sure you understand the distinction.

It is however unclear how this ‘gravity’ does it’s work between for instance 2 masses.

I don't know what you mean by this - it is perfectly clear, at least in GR.

No, one should rather interprete gravitational pull as a metaphore, an apparent phenomenon, that veils the underlying system of movement of the particles as being propagated in a medium, in this case apparently being pulled towards each other.

Ok, I am not sure what you are trying to do, but it sounds like the "reverse" of mechanical gravity models such as LeSage. We know already that these don't work.

-Is space-time really being curved ?
> No, one should rather interprete the space-time curvage as a metaphore, an apparent phenomenon,
that veils the system of movement as the possible paths to be taken by the attracted particles, in this case apparently following the curvage in space-time.

Space-time curvature is not just a metaphore, as experiments such as Pound-Rebka and Shapiro quite clearly and directly demonstrate.

We establish here the assumption that particles in a gravitational condition are propagated in a certain medium.

There is no reason for such an assumption; it is not needed to explain gravity.

This is also what Einstein and Newton believed

I don't know about Newton, but Einstein believed no such thing. GR is purely geometrical, so there is no propagation of particles through a medium.

must comply to the established laws and theories of Newton and Einstein

You will find this difficult to do, since even your basic premises are already in violation of relativity.

Feel free to quote me from the other thread

Just FYI, I moved this post here from that thread.

To Markus

*Einstein did support the idea of 'ether' , as he explained at a lecture in 1920 at Leiden University:

Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

(Many authors have also quoted from this lecture in their books or papers,check google)


This is the conclusion he makes at the end of his lecture , and is in my oppinion open to interpretation into many directions:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."


*Le Sage's aether and the aether systems of others like him are obviously inconsistent, my model contains no comparable dynamics.


*I point out that the concept of space-time needs to be demystified, this is the 21st century.
However giving an underyling clarification of space-time does not have to mean one must contradict the consequenses of particle behaviour according to the space-time theory.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Einstein did support the idea of 'ether' , as he explained at a lecture in 1920 at Leiden University

Yes, this is a common misconception and a source of never-ending confusion; if you read the Leyden address in its entirety and its German original, you will realise that Einstein uses the term "aether" as a synonym for "space-time manifold". Without such a manifold it would not be possible to endow the universe with a connection and a metric, making it impossible to define a geometry on it. Take special note of the last two sentences :

But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

So this has nothing to do with the classical notion of a "luminiferous aether", or with particles moving in a medium. While Einstein's choice of terminology in this regard is sometimes confusing, the mathematics of his field equations are clear and unambiguous - they have nothing to do with "aether", but everything to do with curvature tensors.

*I hope that we will some time soon realise that we speak of the same phenomenon, be it with a different language.


*As for your reply on my statement :




must comply to the established laws and theories of Newton and Einstein


"You will find this difficult to do, since even your basic premises are already in violation of relativity."


>>>My basic premises may be in violation of our understanding of relativity.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I hope that we will some time soon realise that we speak of the same phenomenon, be it with a different language.

One thing your "aether" will have to satisfy is that it can't serve as an absolute frame of reference. In other words, it would be meaningless to talk about something moving relative to it.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I hope that we will some time soon realise that we speak of the same phenomenon, be it with a different language.

Yes, that's what I am saying. Space-time and "aether" are one and the same thing; the problem is just that for historical reasons the term "aether" has a rather negative connotation, so it is perhaps best not to use it, also in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion with the completely unrelated concept of "luminiferous aether".

Most correct observation Markus.

Do you have a suggestion for a better, more neutral word or therm ? 'Propagative medium' ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Do you have a suggestion for a better, more neutral word or therm ? 'Propagative medium' ?

Space-time is just that : space-time. It is not a medium, nor does it have anything to do with propagation, as Einstein himself clearly pointed out in the bit which I quoted. In fact, space-time is an entirely static topological construct.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Do you have a suggestion for a better, more neutral word or therm ? 'Propagative medium' ?

Space-time is just that : space-time. It is not a medium, nor does it have anything to do with propagation, as Einstein himself clearly pointed out in the bit which I quoted. In fact, space-time is an entirely static topological construct.

I understand the concept : as space -time is curved, the fabric of space-time itself is distorted, causing a changed apparent movement (distortion) of the object, and the time frame it is situated in. Thus the object needs no propagation, and no medium. Perfect reasoning.

> Except i don't agree with it.
But note that i do agree with the assumed and proven behaviour of the object as described by the space-time concept.
In my model i will describe this 'distortion' as a dynamic of interaction, that's my whole point.

As for time dilatation, i will fermly keep stating that we only have 'a steady pace of the succession of events', not time itself going slower or faster. Time is a concept of the human mind, materialised sometimes in clocks.

The atomic clocks did go slower and faster (1971 Hafele-Keating experiment), but that's the atomic clocks'
mechanism (not the rate of succession of the events themselves) : the oscillation rate of atoms or molecules ; One second corresponds to the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine states of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom ; orientation of magnetic moments.)

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I understand the concept : as space -time is curved, the fabric of space-time itself is distorted, causing a changed apparent movement (distortion) of the object, and the time frame it is situated in. Thus the object needs no propagation, and no medium. Perfect reasoning.

I'm afraid you are getting this wrong. Take for example a satellite around the earth - in Newtonian physics that is a dynamic object moving in a more or less circular orbit. In GR, the satellite is actually a static helix in 4-dimensional space-time; we cease to look at objects as dynamically moving, and consider their entire static world line and its geometry instead. And the helix has a different geometry closer to the earth than it does further away, hence the time dilation.

In my model i will describe this 'distortion' as a dynamic of interaction, that's my whole point.

That is not needed. The world line of an object is already determined by the geometry of space-time as well as its own acceleration profile.

As for time dilatation, i will fermly keep stating that we only have 'a steady pace of the succession of events', not time itself going slower or faster. Time is a concept of the human mind, materialised sometimes in clocks.

Not in GR. Here time is a geometric aspect of space-time, just like space, and its geometry is intrinsically linked to sources of energy-momentum. Again, no "dynamics" and "interactions" needed.

The atomic clocks did go slower and faster (1971 Hafele-Keating experiment), but that's the atomic clocks' mechanism (not the rate of succession of the events themselves)

Time dilation is independent of the clock's exact mechanism; an atomic clock gets dilated by the same amount as a mechanical clock; an elementary particle's lifetime dilates the exact same way as a quartz watch. Note that this is again intrinsically linked to gravitational red-shift, i.e. the Pound-Rebka experiment. All of this is the result of space-time geometry, so yes, it is the distance between events themselves that changes, so it is obvious that no dependency on the details of the observer exists. That is why all the various phenomena, such as time dilation, redshift, frame-dragging etc etc can be described by just one geometrodynamic law, without reference to any specifics of the observer/mechanism, of which it is entirely independent. That's the whole point and beauty of GR.

If you disagree, perhaps you can demonstrate or at least reference for us that different types of clocks get dilated differently at the same position within the gravitational field.

Dear Mr. Noa ,I wish that I could concurr on your particle within a medium aether theory, but is does seem to me to be not nessessarily correct in that I as a personel beleif do not entirly believe in the exestance of particles whatsoever per say. Yoer theory would seem to me to be correctable if you could gain an understanding that in physics is measured from within the system or medium standing upon it as it were. Quantum study indicates this. My personal view of this is still cocidered an aether theory.

This sir actually was meant to be a peer review.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

I as a personel beleif

Could you please explain how you managed the transformation from (presumably) a human being into a "personal belief"?

I see you are now down to name calling. Anything else?

@Markus

I understand that you counter my views from the point of view of a system of space-time, GR.

As i said i do not oppose to the consequences for the behaviour of objects as a result of the that theory.
But i do oppose to holding on to an explanation that refers to distortions of space, time, space-time,
because for any logical state of mind, such a distortion is unacceptable.

You concur with the status quo that says (sorry for simplifying this a bit):
'Dark matter', whatever it may be , is invisible and as yet undetectable concerningit's components,
so therefore the emptyness of space probably does not involve an aether-like medium,
and therefore no propagation in a medium exists,
and therefore we adopt the GR-space-time system to be the most probable one, accompanied by the prove of observations made.


But that makes no sense at all in a simple 3-dimensional universe accompanied by the simple succession of events.
(I do of course understand relativity of the point of observation, but that holds just as well in a simple 3d-environment.)

Then you might explain to me that the universe just happens not to be as simple as that,and that that causes the gap in my reasoning.
That would be where we disagree, because i believe that if we understood things as they really are, we would observe it to function just fine in 3 spacial dimensions x,y,z.
It is my belief that the lack of deeper understanding, leads to over-complication of the representation of reality.

That is why i said that demystification is in order.
Demystification has been going on with science for ages, and will continu to do so in the future.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Dear Mr. Noa ,I wish that I could concurr on your particle within a medium aether theory, but is does seem to me to be not nessessarily correct in that I as a personel beleif do not entirly believe in the exestance of particles whatsoever per say. Yoer theory would seem to me to be correctable if you could gain an understanding that in physics is measured from within the system or medium standing upon it as it were. Quantum study indicates this. My personal view of this is still cocidered an aether theory.

HBH: Please stop posting personal opinions in other people's threads. If you have an idea of your own, please open your own thread in this section. Further posts will be removed. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

because for any logical state of mind, such a distortion is unacceptable.

This is invalid and seems to be the underlying motivation of just about every armchair physicist ever. There is nothing anywhere that says the universe must fit our intuition.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

because for any logical state of mind, such a distortion is unacceptable.

This is invalid and seems to be the underlying motivation of just about every armchair physicist ever. There is nothing anywhere that says the universe must fit our intuition.

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't really understand quantum mechanics.

I thought the existence of Planck units such as length implied that spacetime was "digital" rather than analogue, or "grainy" to use another word. Not to say that we live in a computer simulation or a hologram (that's a whole 'nother area of theories and hypotheses) but that because space and time are made of discrete units (I hope I used the right spelling) is why the entropy of a black hole is finite and not infinite as it would be if spacetime were a continuous continuum.

So saying that this is an "aether" would be like saying pixels are the "aether" of the picture on a TV screen or computer monitor, wouldn't it?

@MagimasterThen how do you explain that throughout the course of history, so many apparently illogical, nonsentical or contradictive phenomenons, later turned out to have a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, given by science ?Adding to that, i have no intention of staying in my armchair at all.

Coincidence. That the universe appears to be understandable is somewhat amazing. Unfortunately, with QM it seems that may be an illusion after all. But we know QM isn't the final answer, so maybe the next theory will be something more intuitively pleasing, but I won't bet on it. Every test anyone has come up with says that at a fundamental level, nature is random. It's something not many people like, but that doesn't make it any less real.

When you say you're not planning on staying in the armchair, does that mean you intend to go get a degree in physics, or do you mean you intend to self publish your ideas? (Hint, the latter will not succeed the way you might hope.)

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

-Is space-time really being curved ?
> No, one should rather interprete the space-time curvage as a metaphore, an apparent phenomenon, that veils the system of movement as the possible paths to be taken by the attracted particles, in this case apparently following the curvage in space-time.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

As i said i do not oppose to the consequences for the behaviour of objects as a result of the that theory. But i do oppose to holding on to an explanation that refers to distortions of space, time, space-time, because for any logical state of mind, such a distortion is unacceptable.

Spacetime curvature isn't just a theoretical model of gravitation. It is a physically measurable quantity. Therefore, spacetime curvature is a matter of fact, not a matter of interpretation.

A problem with entropic gravity is that it predicts a loss of coherence for the quantum wavefunction of a particle in a gravitational potential. Experiments done with ultra-cold neutrons have not resulted in such loss of coherence. The experiments were sensitive enough to detect the tidal effect, and so were able to look beyond the equivalence principle to the effects of genuine gravitation.

aether Wind is said to be the old concept most probably a failed concept ,
aimed to say that aether wind would be surely affecting the speed of light .

But , experiment turned it down , making a new significant exposure .......
..... Light travels in same speed from ALL DIRECTIONS .

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I understand that you counter my views from the point of view of a system of space-time, GR.

You are right, I am pretty firmly rooted in mainstream science, simply because the mainstream is the best model we currently have. I think we all understand that current mainstream will not be the final word; it will likely turn out to be just an approximation to a more accurate model, in the same way that Newton turned out to be a special case of the more accurate GR.

As i said i do not oppose to the consequences for the behaviour of objects as a result of the that theory.
But i do oppose to holding on to an explanation that refers to distortions of space, time, space-time,

While this may be an acceptable point in view in some cases, it is a logical contradiction when it comes to General Relativity. GR is all about geometrodynamics on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds; the entire model is built around this, and all the predictions which distinguish it from Newton are a direct result of space-time curvature. Without curvature, GR would be the exact same as Newton, i.e. intrinsically wrong. Luckily, it isn't.

because for any logical state of mind, such a distortion is unacceptable.

The general Pseudo-Riemannian manifold possesses intrinsic curvature, torsion or both. This has been understood and studied since the 1800s, and is made mathematically rigorous in the discipline of differential geometry. There is nothing here that is illogical in any way, shape or form; it is perfectly natural. Your argument that it is "unacceptable" is entirely meaningless; you might as well state that the curvature of the earth's surface is "illogical and unacceptable", which is exactly what a lot of folks in the past did, and, sadly, continue to do ( see this ). What you are doing here is merely stating a personal belief and opinion, which isn't rooted in any science. There is no physical or mathematical reason for the geometry of the universe to be perfectly flat at all; in fact, if space-time was flat everywhere, one would have to ask very serious questions as to why that is so, quite apart from the fact that gravity could not work the way it evidently does.

'Dark matter', whatever it may be , is invisible and as yet undetectable concerningit's components,
so therefore the emptyness of space probably does not involve an aether-like medium,
and therefore no propagation in a medium exists,
and therefore we adopt the GR-space-time system to be the most probable one, accompanied by the prove of observations made.

These are all non-sequiturs. I currently accept only that Dark Matter is a possible explanation ( among others ) for galaxy rotation curves and gravitational lensing in the absence of visible masses; I base this on the fact that :

1. GR geometrodynamics are very well verified locally by experiment ( solar system )
2. The law of geometrodynamics is a general one, so there is no obvious reason why it should not be applicable any scale that doesn't involve quantum effects, since the manifold is both smooth and continuous.
3. Dark matter is then required to make the connection between the model and observational data

Aether, on the other hand, is neither required nor based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. It is simply an unsupported hypothesis.

But that makes no sense at all in a simple 3-dimensional universe accompanied by the simple succession of events.

Except that the universe is neither 3-dimensional nor simple.

because i believe that if we understood things as they really are

The universe really is a 4-dimension pseudo-Riemannian manifold; you need a time coordinate to uniquely specify an event in the universe. You can tell me to meet you at place (x,y,z), but if you don't tell me when to meet you, the meeting will likely never happen. It could be tomorrow, it could be in 2025. But if you expect me to wait around for 12 years, then that means you have failed to uniquely specify the event. Hence time is real, and is needed as a geometric coordinate on a space-time manifold.

It is my belief that the lack of deeper understanding, leads to over-complication of the representation of reality.

The deeper understanding is the geometrodynamic law of General Relativity, and, in its tensor form, is the simplest possible form of an equation that someone can possibly write down.

That is why i said that demystification is in order.

There is nothing mystical about GR. It is straightforward differential geometry, made rigorous by Bernard Riemann and Elie Cartan long ago. I understand that this might appear "mystical" to someone who has never studied the subject - but again, not attempting a deeper study is a personal choice.

Demystification has been going on with science for ages, and will continu to do so in the future.

Yes - that is why aether was abandoned. It is purely mystical, without any theoretical or experimental support.

Originally Posted by KJW

Spacetime curvature isn't just a theoretical model of gravitation. It is a physically measurable quantity. Therefore, spacetime curvature is a matter of fact, not a matter of interpretation.

Yes, precisely. It is beyond me why so many people keep denying the empirical nature of space-time curvature, based on the premise that "it is illogical and doesn't make sense to me". After all, it can be shown that the very notion of gravitational red-shift is incompatible with a flat space-time; Misner/Thorne/Wheeler dedicate an entire chapter to this in their textbook Gravitation ( §7.3 ). Measuring gravitational redshift is exactly equivalent to measuring space-time curvature.

Many people appear to think that a curved space-time is somehow a special case of flat space-time, whereas it is really the other way around. It is flat space-time which is the special case of general Riemann manifolds. There simply is no requirement or reason for a general manifold to be exactly flat, unless there is some form of mechanism or reason just why that must be so. That is often overlooked.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Then how do you explain that throughout the course of history, so many apparently illogical, nonsentical or contradictive phenomenons, later turned out to have a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, given by science ?

Because people realised that these phenomena are not actually illogical or nonsensical through deeper study and understanding, just as we know now that a curved space-time is really not an illogical or nonsensical concept, but provides an evidently valid model of the universe.

That is all probably true and with proofs and support of well known scientists. But even with that, I still sometimes prefer a good aether theory. The reason is simply that it all seems too incomprehendsable .It seems to me that if you held your version in your hand, the hand would fly off into spacetime in the direction of a black hole on wings of the gods while spitting out advanced calculus all the way. It is just too theoretical and not real enough for me to accept. I'm just too stupid I suppose.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

There is no physical or mathematical reason for the geometry of the universe to be perfectly flat at all; in fact, if space-time was flat everywhere, one would have to ask very serious questions as to why that is so

Another problem with a reality based on flat spacetime is that there is nothing about flat spacetime that would distinguish an object from empty space. In other words, in order to be able to say that one has something, one has to at the very least distinguish this from having nothing.

Thank you that was reasuring and supportive for me.

Further comment from my part will not clarify rhings, i will leave the debate to others at this time, until i post my model.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

The reason is simply that it all seems too incomprehendsable

"Imcomprehensibility" is not a property of a physical theory, but rather a sign that the person looking at that theory is lacking knowledge and understanding. Please don't take that the wrong way, I do not intend any disrespect by that statement, rather, it is a simple fact - and if you think about it carefully, you will realise just how true it is.

For example : some years ago the notion of "tensor" was still utterly incomprehensible to me; I knew how to "blindly" manipulate them, but I really had no notion of the underlying meaning. Then I self-studied the concept in more depth, and nowadays it is fairly clear and straightforward to me. What this means is that the "incomprehensibility" of tensors wasn't a feature of the theory itself, but rather of my failure to understand it properly.

Remember - there is no requirement for the universe to be "simple" in human terms; assuming this is a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

The reason is simply that it all seems too incomprehendsable .

The best answer to that is to study and learn more, not make stuff up.

Imagine someone explaining how an internal combustion engine works and you say, "Oh that's far too complicated. I'm just going to put water in it. My theory is that that will work just as well." How successful do you think your "theory" would be.

Or, to put it another way, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Originally Posted by KJW

Another problem with a reality based on flat spacetime is that there is nothing about flat spacetime that would distinguish an object from empty space.

Absolutely true, given that the Cartan moment of rotation in any elementary 4-volume of space-time can be identified with the energy-momentum contained therein. Which is pretty much exactly what the EFEs are saying to us. If that weren't so, then there would be no physical difference between vacuum and matter-energy.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

It is just too theoretical and not real enough for me to accept. I'm just too stupid I suppose.

What makes you think you are too stupid ? Have you actually attempted to study the theory and the maths ? Sure, if you have spent years over differential geometry and GR textbooks and still have no notion of any of it, then perhaps you need to re-think whether this is really the area you want to get into. Otherwise, perhaps you should just give it a try and see how you get on.

I spent a few years studing Einstien exclusivly. I still do not know. I will have to study further.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

I spent a few years studing Einstien exclusivly. I still do not know. I will have to study further.

I think it is important that you study from proper textbooks, not just popular press articles and YouTube. Much of what you find in the popular press is misleading at best, grossly wrong at worst.

I usually read everything I can on a subject and try to apply anything else that I can to it, but for now I have changed interests. I now focus mostly on biologicals, they are very complex and entirely fasinating. Even the biologicals have their basic roots in chemistry and physics. Everywhere that the study of the biologicals leaves off ,seem to be either an area of chemistry or physics. The chemistry and physics areas need to be exact. Biologicals seem to me to be much more complex than Einstien mechanics, therfore that much more interesting.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

The chemistry and physics areas need to be exact. Biologicals seem to me to be much more complex than Einstien mechanics, therfore that much more interesting.

I can't comment, since I know nothing about biochemistry...

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Einstein did support the idea of 'ether' , as he explained at a lecture in 1920 at Leiden University

Yes, this is a common misconception and a source of never-ending confusion; if you read the Leyden address in its entirety and its German original, you will realise that Einstein uses the term "aether" as a synonym for "space-time manifold". Without such a manifold it would not be possible to endow the universe with a connection and a metric, making it impossible to define a geometry on it. Take special note of the last two sentences :

But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

So this has nothing to do with the classical notion of a "luminiferous aether", or with particles moving in a medium. While Einstein's choice of terminology in this regard is sometimes confusing, the mathematics of his field equations are clear and unambiguous - they have nothing to do with "aether", but everything to do with curvature tensors.

I would submit an opinion as to the tenor of this Thread which has taken the tack that implies aether theories only include the luminiferous aether of Michelson and Morley or an aether in which aether "particles" move along in a medium. I have proposed an aether model in which elemental aetheric energic units link instantaneously and transmit force that way. -I just don;t want people to get a slanted opinion of aetherists despite what the GR/QM empirircists think about aether theories.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

I have proposed an aether model

No you haven't, don't lie. You have spouted meaningless sentence with made-up words (which you refuse to explain). How is that a "model"?

I just don;t want people to get a slanted opinion of aetherists

You confirm the fact that "aetherists" are cranks every time you post.

MODERATOR NOTE : Michael Anteski, you have been warned before not to post or refer to your personal theories within other peoples' threads. If you wish to present your own model, please do so in a separate thread. "Thread highjacking" is at best impolite, at worst considered trolling.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

The chemistry and physics areas need to be exact. Biologicals seem to me to be much more complex than Einstien mechanics, therfore that much more interesting.

I can't comment, since I know nothing about biochemistry...

I do. And I can assure you that we do not call ourselves "biologicals".

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I do. And I can assure you that we do not call ourselves "biologicals".

You damned evolutionists are all the same! Equivocating about the meaning of words.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

MODERATOR NOTE : Michael Anteski, you have been warned before not to post or refer to your personal theories within other peoples' threads. If you wish to present your own model, please do so in a separate thread. "Thread highjacking" is at best impolite, at worst considered trolling.

I would like to register a protest of this characterization of my post as being intended to further my personal (ether) theory within someone else's thread. If you re -read my post, it should be evident that I was trying to categorically clear away possible misinterpretation of this Moderator's assertions about ether theory, which I considered to have been restrictive in terms of describing ether theories in general. I wanted to insert a mention that his description of " ether theories" over generalized and that readers shouldn't assume that that was a defintive guide to how ether theory is to be regarded. Not an exposition of "my personal ether model," rather as giving an example, generally, since this thread was about "the ether."

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

I would like to register a protest of this characterization of my post as being intended to further my personal (ether) theory within someone else's thread.

Hm, let's see :

I have proposed an aether model in which elemental aetheric energic units link instantaneously and transmit force that way.

The situation looks pretty clear to me; all you do here is reference your own ideas instead of discussing the OP's hypothesis.

----

MOD NOTE : The warning stands; do not reply on this thread. If you wish to discuss your own theory, please open your own thread. That is hardly too much to ask !

Which theory is it that connects newton with higgs?

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Which theory is it that connects newton with higgs?

There is no direct connection. The Higgs mechanism is a way for elementary particles to obtain their rest masses, and this is described within an area of physics called quantum field theory.

Science hates aether. Yet again I am going to deduce that people were given sense a common sense of sorts ,and all common sense points that the resistance of matter to accelerate is its connection to a universal aether or something of that nature. I also guess as in guessing that there goes common sense.

Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes

Yet again I am going to deduce that people were given sense a common sense of sorts ,and all common sense points that the resistance of matter to accelerate is its connection to a universal aether or something of that nature

That is not common sense at all, it is just a personal belief.

Does GR explain how, or by means of what principle, concept or dynamic,
the curvage of space-time caused by a mass, comes into existence ?

So a question on the origin, the coming into existence of space-time by a mass, not the derived consequences.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Does GR explain how, or by means of what principle, concept or dynamic,
the curvage of space-time caused by a mass, comes into existence ?
So a question on the origin, the coming into existence of space-time by a mass, not the derived consequences.

No. GR explains the "how", but not the "why". This is true also for pretty much all models in physics - consider for example :

- Newton explains how forces act over a distance, but not why
- deBroglie explains how mass/momentum is connected to matter waves, but not why
- Electromagnetism explains to us how electric and magnetic fields are related, but not why

And so on. The reason why energy-momentum leads to space-time curvature is because the Cartan moment of rotation within an elementary 4-volume of space-time is associated with the amount of energy-momentum enclosed therein. This directly leads to curvature by elementary considerations. You can of course continue asking "why" questions, but that's true for any model in physics.

Thank you for a clear answer Markus.


Something else :

i'm trying to provide a context , a larger frame of reference for my model of gravity dynamics,
imagine the following line of reasoning :


-We have 'the universe' : everything there is to be found : matter , energy, galaxies, atoms, subatomic particles , black matter, unknown emptyness, simply everything in the largest sense.

GR says space-time, curvage is an intrinsical property of 'the universe minus the matter', or be it the coöperation between the two that brings it about.

-Now consider :

A fly sits on my arm and moves in a straight line relative to lenght direction of my arm for example.
I move my arm circularly > the fly no longer moves in a straight line relative to a person standing next to me.
Now i'm walking straight lined forward, and i'm in a strain on a circular track, and the track sits on the earth surface, and the earth moves around in a circular orbit around the sun, while also axle-spinning, etc etc.


For instance relatively to an observer on a nearby planet, the fly no longer moves in a straight line, it makes a very complicated trajectory, which constitutes of all the vectors implied by the separate relative motions.

> Relativeness within relativeness within relativess etc. > I am missing an absolute point of reference here.

>Now imagine that all of this takes place in a simple area with an x, y and z axis, accompanied by a time factor which can connect a location to a moment in time.

This could be called the Absolute Arena in which the Universe exists.

Because any motion ,giving a new location of any object or particle , could always be presented by a printout of all the coördinates the object has been in : (x,y,z,t). Where x,y,z and t axis are all endless in positive and negative way.

My point is that this Absolute Arena is the only real absolute point of reference, and it has simple 3+1 dimensional characteristics.

The whole of the Universe is lying within this Absolute Arena, so also the curvage of the so called space-time.

So the Arena itself cannot be curved, distorted, because it actually consists of 'nothingness' in the deepest sense, a vacuum of the ultimate quality if you will.

Hence a curvage of space-time takes place within the coördinates of the Absolute Arena, but at the same time upon the needed points of the Universe.




Also any points within extra dimensions one may try to make up, like a micro-level donut shape with 2 circular axises and and one radial, say x',y',z' and t', would still be describable by locations of the nature of (x,y,z,t) of the Absolute Arena.


And that is why i believe in a fysical system that explains the curvages and distortions,
because they are NOT an intrinsical part of the 'fabric' of the Absolute Arena, they 'happen' in the Universe as an area.

Make sense ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

GR says space-time, curvage is an intrinsical property of 'the universe minus the matter', or be it the coöperation between the two that brings it about

It is energy-momentum ( not just matter ) that leads to curvature; the curvature itself then is geometric property of space-time.

For instance relatively to an observer on a nearby planet, the fly no longer moves in a straight line, it makes a very complicated trajectory, which constitutes of all the vectors implied by the separate relative motions.

Yes, that would get very complicated very quickly.

I am missing an absolute point of reference here.

That is because no absolute reference frame exists.

This could be called the Absolute Arena in which the Universe exists.

This is not absolute in any sense, because you are free to decide where the point of origin of this coordinate system is. All you do is arbitrarily choose a system of coordinates, but that isn't "absolute".

My point is that this Absolute Arena is the only real absolute point of reference

It is not the only one; you could decide to use polar coordinates instead. Or spherical coordinates. Or cylindrical coordinates. Or Minkowski coordinates. Or any other system of coordinates. They are all equally valid.

and it has simple 3+1 dimensional characteristics

That is true only if the underlying space-time is flat. However, in the vicinity of mass-energy you will find that all the ones listed above are suitable only locally; it is in fact impossible to cover the entire region of space-time around a massive object with a single flat coordinate chart, just as it is impossible to cover the surface of the earth with a single, flat coordinate chart. Attempting to do so will lead you only to an inverse square law model ( i.e. Newtonian gravity ), which we know to be inaccurate.

So the Arena itself cannot be curved, distorted, because it actually consists of 'nothingness' in the deepest sense, a vacuum of the ultimate quality if you will.

I think you are too fixated on the idea of extrinsic curvature, but that is not what happens; the curvature is intrinsic to the geometry of the underlying space-time, not the vacuum itself.

The whole of the Universe is lying within this Absolute Arena, so also the curvage of the so called space-time.

The curvature in GR is intrinsic, there is no embedding into any higher-dimensional manifolds.

And that is why i believe in a fysical system that explains the curvages and distortions,

We already already have such a system - General Relativity. It links the curvature to the presence of energy-momentum through the Cartan moment of rotation.

*You say there is no absolute frame of reference , and you speak of my Arena to represent a flat coordinate chart.
Also space-time being flat as a consequence of that, does not make sense to me.

Can you clarify that ?



*(In my model the inverse square law works indeed 'locally', but within a larger context of curvages.)





*"The curvature in GR is intrinsic, there is no embedding into any higher-dimensional manifolds."

Is that a theory or something accompanied be proof ?




*


This could be called the Absolute Arena in which the Universe exists.


Markus says : This is not absolute in any sense, because you are free to decide where the point of origin of this coordinate system is. All you do is arbitrarily choose a system of coordinates, but that isn't "absolute".


>> But using a different coordinate system does not make the Absolute Arena less absolute. No ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

You say there is no absolute frame of reference

Although Markus Hanke is referring to the principle of general covariance, I would like to make the point that one can't determine one's velocity relative to the vacuum. The vacuum looks the same regardless of one's velocity relative to some reference frame. This is because the vacuum is Lorentz-invariant. The notion of an absolute frame of reference implies that one would be able to determine their velocity relative to the vacuum because it would have to be the vacuum that defines an absolute frame of reference, and in doing so, distinguish that frame of reference from other frames of reference.

Originally Posted by KJW

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

You say there is no absolute frame of reference

Although Markus Hanke is referring to the principle of general covariance, I would like to make the point that one can't determine one's velocity relative to the vacuum. The vacuum looks the same regardless of one's velocity relative to some reference frame. This is because the vacuum is Lorentz-invariant. The notion of an absolute frame of reference implies that one would be able to determine their velocity relative to the vacuum because it would have to be the vacuum that defines an absolute frame of reference, and in doing so, distinguish that frame of reference from other frames of reference.

Ok, hence we could provide this vacuum with a coördinate system. No ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

You say there is no absolute frame of reference , and you speak of my Arena to represent a flat coordinate chart.
Also space-time being flat as a consequence of that, does not make sense to me.
Can you clarify that ?

Is that not what you are proposing - getting rid of curvature and doing everything in Cartesian coordinates ? This is how I understood your proposal.

"The curvature in GR is intrinsic, there is no embedding into any higher-dimensional manifolds."
Is that a theory or something accompanied be proof ?

The notion of intrinsic curvature is elementary to the mathematics of differential geometry :

Curvature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Curvature of Riemannian manifolds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The mathematics of this are of course rigorous, as you can see. As for the whether or not the universe in embedded into a higher dimensional manifold - there is no evidence either way. All I was trying to point out is that such an embedding is not required to make GR work, and it is also not predicted by it. Intrinsic curvature works just fine.
You could even get rid of curvature altogether by choosing a different connection on your manifold, for example the Weizenboek connection; gravity is then modelled through the presence of torsion in a completely flat space-time. That model is called teleparallelism; this just as a side note.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Ok, hence we could provide this vacuum with a coordinate system. No ?

Yes you can, but the issue is that the same coordinate system isn't valid everywhere. For example, it is empirical fact that clocks closer to an energy-momentum source such as a mass tick at different rates as compared to clocks far away ( gravitational time dilation, which can be directly measured ); hence, you cannot use the same system of time coordinates close to the mass than you do far away unless your system of coordinates accounts for these changes. This "accounting" is precisely what curvature does.

Imagine for example a system of coordinates that is represented by nested spheres around the Earth - in Newtonian gravity these spheres would be evenly spaced out along the radial axis; in GR, the spheres would be "denser" ( closer together ) closer to the earth than they are far away. This just to give an idea about what curvature is about here.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Ok, hence we could provide this vacuum with a coordinate system. No ?

Yes you can, but the issue is that the same coordinate system isn't valid everywhere. For example, it is empirical fact that clocks closer to an energy-momentum source such as a mass tick at different rates as compared to clocks far away ( gravitational time dilation, which can be directly measured ); hence, you cannot use the same system of time coordinates close to the mass than you do far away unless your system of coordinates accounts for these changes. This "accounting" is precisely what curvature does.

Imagine for example a system of coordinates that is represented by nested spheres around the Earth - in Newtonian gravity these spheres would be evenly spaced out along the radial axis; in GR, the spheres would be "denser" ( closer together ) closer to the earth than they are far away. This just to give an idea about what curvature is about here.

My model makes an effort to brings both together : steady distances of for example spherical coordinates around the earth (earth as centre), and sphericals for a gravity-system lying closer together towards the earth.

I'll be enjoying the rest of my sunday now, until later.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Ok, hence we could provide this vacuum with a coördinate system. No ?

We can apply a coordinate system to the vacuum, but that does not make this coordinate system an absolute frame of reference because we are free to choose what coordinate system to apply. An absolute frame of reference would have to be determined by physical reality itself. And it can't be determined by ordinary objects, either. Otherwise, I could set myself up as the centre of the universe. Even the cosmic microwave background radiation is not an absolute frame of reference. It would have to be the vacuum, but the vacuum is too symmetric to actually be an absolute frame of reference.

I'm trying to understand.

What substantial causal counterpoint could be made against this line of reasoning :

"The Absolute Arena (the endless and perfectly empty vacuum as a stage for the universe) can have any coördinate system,
and any location could be taken as the centre, the 'null' point (x=0,y=0,z=0,t=0)
Because the Absolute Arena is infinite along all 4 dimensions, and once you pin a null point,
it becomes a usefull absolute frame of reference for all relative rotating systems within it."

(Say you pinpointed the null a 1000 billion miles more 'to the right side', endlesness would still be endlesness in all directions, and so it would still actually be in the centre.)

This does not mean that the Universe could not expand, because the medium for gravity (as i will describe it in my model) can still expand along with all the rest out there, both are intertwined.

More over, the notion of an absolute frame of reference is fundamental to attempt explaining how (by means of what principle, or dynamic) the space-time curvage due to mass, comes into existence.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I'm trying to understand.

What substantial causal counterpoint could be made against this line of reasoning :

"The Absolute Arena (the endless and perfectly empty vacuum as a stage for the universe) can have any coördinate system,
and any location could be taken as the centre, the 'null' point (x=0,y=0,z=0,t=0)
Because the Absolute Arena is infinite along all 4 dimensions, and once you pin a null point,
it becomes a usefull absolute frame of reference for all relative rotating systems within it."

(Say you pinpointed the null a 1000 billion miles more 'to the right side', endlesness would still be endlesness in all directions, and so it would still actually be in the centre.)

Easy. In your description, any point is as good as any other point in your coordinate system, so any point can be the center. Since the entire notion of an absolute frame embeds within it the important concept of uniqueness, the very lack of same in your description implies the lack of a center. Therefore, there is no absolute frame.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

The Absolute Arena (the endless and perfectly empty vacuum as a stage for the universe) can have any coördinate system,
and any location could be taken as the centre, the 'null' point (x=0,y=0,z=0,t=0)

Several points to note here :

1. The vacuum is not perfectly empty
2. We don't know whether nor not the universe is infinite in extent
3. Because you are free to choose the origin and units of the coordinate system without affecting the physical content, it cannot be "absolute" in any sense of the word

Because the Absolute Arena is infinite along all 4 dimensions

We don't know whether or not that is the case.

This does not mean that the Universe could not expand, because the medium for gravity (as i will describe it in my model) can still expand along with all the rest out there, both are intertwined.

If I may ask - why introduce a medium where no medium is needed ? You are only adding an additional, unnecessary level of complexity, which adds nothing to the physical content of gravity, but likely creates a whole lot of conceptual issues.

More over, the notion of an absolute frame of reference is fundamental to attempt explaining how (by means of what principle, or dynamic) the space-time curvage due to mass, comes into existence.

I mentioned before that the underlying axiom is the identification of momentum-energy with the Cartan moment of rotation in an elementary 4-volume. If you want I can give you some references for this, but you need to have a serious grasp on differential geometry and tensor calculus to be able to understand them.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I'm trying to understand.

What substantial causal counterpoint could be made against this line of reasoning :

"The Absolute Arena (the endless and perfectly empty vacuum as a stage for the universe) can have any coördinate system,
and any location could be taken as the centre, the 'null' point (x=0,y=0,z=0,t=0)
Because the Absolute Arena is infinite along all 4 dimensions, and once you pin a null point,
it becomes a usefull absolute frame of reference for all relative rotating systems within it."

(Say you pinpointed the null a 1000 billion miles more 'to the right side', endlesness would still be endlesness in all directions, and so it would still actually be in the centre.)

Easy. In your description, any point is as good as any other point in your coordinate system, so any point can be the center. Since the entire notion of an absolute frame embeds within it the important concept of uniqueness, the very lack of same in your description implies the lack of a center. Therefore, there is no absolute frame.

I did not say that, i said :

...and once you pin a null point,
it becomes a usefull absolute frame of reference for all relative rotating systems within it

Markus quote on my post

Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The Absolute Arena (the endless and perfectly empty vacuum as a stage for the universe) can have any coördinate system,
and any location could be taken as the centre, the 'null' point (x=0,y=0,z=0,t=0)



Several points to note here :

1. The vacuum is not perfectly empty
2. We don't know whether nor not the universe is infinite in extent
3. Because you are free to choose the origin and units of the coordinate system without affecting the physical content, it cannot be "absolute" in any sense of the word

>>>

1: I separate the total emptyness from the rest, so my supposed vacuum is completely empty
2 : That is true, that's an assumption, i can't devise a theory without making any new assumptions.
3 : It is not affecting the content, it is accurately situating it from a non-distortable point of view

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

...and once you pin a null point,
it becomes a usefull absolute frame of reference for all relative rotating systems within it

That makes it a coordinate system relative to your chosen origin; it is not an absolute frame, because the origin is arbitrarily chosen.

1: I separate the total emptyness from the rest, so my supposed vacuum is completely empty

I'm afraid that makes no physical sense.

3 : It is not affecting the content, it is accurately situating it from a non-distortable point of view

It is still completely arbitrary, and hence not absolute. It does not matter how hard you try to find it, such a thing as an "absolute" frame simply does not exist.

It seems difficult for us to see this the same way, no problem.


The coördinate system is obviously relative to the chosen origin, any coordinate system is relative to it's own origin,
still this coördinate system remains the chosen absolute point of reference for the rotating systems within it, giving each point of a trajectory an absolute location, relative to this coordinate system.


I'll make an effort to posting the hypothesis sooner, with some simple scetches sometime next week.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

The coördinate system is obviously relative to the chosen origin, any coordinate system is relative to it's own origin,

Yes, precisely. And that origin is chosen arbitrarily, so there are no absolute frames.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

The coördinate system is obviously relative to the chosen origin, any coordinate system is relative to it's own origin,

Yes, precisely. And that origin is chosen arbitrarily, so there are no absolute frames.

If i asked you to measure a piece of wood of 50cm in lenght, would it be necessary to put the origin of your measure stick at the 0cm ?
> No, you could just as well put 170cm at the beginning of the stick, and conclude that 220-170 equals 50cm of length. With it's position lying at 170cm from the origin.

That's oversimplification but that's what it comes down to.

The coördinate system is exclusively relative to my choice of origin, apart from that it is absolute.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

The coördinate system is exclusively relative to my choice of origin, apart from that it is absolute.

So in what sense is it absolute? You seem to be using the word "absolute" to describe something that is arbitrarily defined relative to some arbitrary point.

Can you explain what you mean by the word "absolute"?

Markus quote :

If I may ask - why introduce a medium where no medium is needed ? You are only adding an additional, unnecessary level of complexity, which adds nothing to the physical content of gravity, but likely creates a whole lot of conceptual issues.


>> The unaccounted matter we are looking for in the universe, supposedly to be the black matter (or ideas in that direction as they exist) ,
could be a good reason to introduce a medium for gravity, because that would be the stuff that keeps it all together. This medium would make up the needed extra matter.
My model also shows why this medium, present in the area where we expect black matter to be (in fact not only there), would be invisible and difficult to detect.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

My model also shows why this medium, present in the area where we expect black matter to be (in fact not only there), would be invisible and difficult to detect.
[/COLOR]

Can you compare the distribution of "this medium" with the observed distribution of dark matter?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

No, you could just as well put 170cm at the beginning of the stick, and conclude that 220-170 equals 50cm of length. With it's position lying at 170cm from the origin.

Yes, that's precisely why the coordinate system is not absolute. You can place the origin wherever you like, which makes it an arbitrarily chosen reference point against which to measure things.

The unaccounted matter we are looking for in the universe, supposedly to be the black matter (or ideas in that direction as they exist) ,
could be a good reason to introduce a medium for gravity,

How do you figure that ? Gravity works just fine without dark matter ( for example in our solar system ); it is only certain areas where we observe gravitational effects without the presence of visible matter.

How could we claim there is nothing more to be discovered about gravity if we cannot even explain how gravity comes about,remember the how versus the why we talked about ? I don'ct have stats at hand, but the alledged missing amount of matter is vastly larger then the visible matter we have devised a gravity system for. Ascribing mass to this apparent invisble blackness all around planets, and proposing this mass consist of a certain dynamic that makes for instance curved spacetime come about, is a valid soundly debatable option in my oppinion.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

My model also shows why this medium, present in the area where we expect black matter to be (in fact not only there), would be invisible and difficult to detect.[/COLOR]

Can you compare the distribution of "this medium" with the observed stribution of dark matter?

Do you mean temperature distribution?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

My model also shows why this medium, present in the area where we expect black matter to be (in fact not only there), would be invisible and difficult to detect.[/COLOR]

Can you compare the distribution of "this medium" with the observed stribution of dark matter?

Do you mean temperature distribution?

No, the amount: the distribution of the density. Why would your medium be denser in the center of galaxies?
Space in Images - 2007 - 01 - 3D distribution of dark matter in the Universe
Galaxy Clusters Reveal Distribution of Dark Matter

I haven't studied what you speak of, but i did just find on google good support for my medium distribution, google on Chandra x-ray Abell 2029. It is a Nasa method to visualise a gas near galaxy clusters that is supposed to be kept together, the gas i mean, by the gravitational effects of dark matter.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

How could we claim there is nothing more to be discovered about gravity

No one is claiming that at all. The crucial missing bit is the quantisation of it, i.e. to develop a fully self-consistent model of quantum gravity. This is currently an area of active and ongoing research.

if we cannot even explain how gravity comes about

We can. General Relativity gives the answer.

Ascribing mass to this apparent invisble blackness all around planets, and proposing this mass consist of a certain dynamic that makes for instance curved spacetime come about, is a valid soundly debatable option in my oppinion.

In my opinion anything to do with aether is a complete waste of time. People have been playing around with every conceivable form of aether theories over the last 300 years or so, and no one has been able to come up with a self-consistent model of it, let alone experimental evidence that such a thing exists. To me, we might as well go hunting invisible pink unicorns.

But in any case, I am not trying to stop you - please go ahead and work out your model. Once you have the field equations written down, we will take a look and compare its predictions against available data, and against the covariant tensor equations of GR. At the end of the day, it is always the universe which is the final arbitrator.

Please check your reoly on the answers given or not given by GR in your post #54

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Please check your reoly on the answers given or not given by GR in your post #54

#54 is your own post, and I replied to it already in post #55.

My mistake, it is post 53.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Originally Posted by tk

Easy. In your description, any point is as good as any other point in your coordinate system, so any point can be the center. Since the entire notion of an absolute frame embeds within it the important concept of uniqueness, the very lack of same in your description implies the lack of a center. Therefore, there is no absolute frame.

I did not say that, i said :

...and once you pin a null point,
it becomes a usefull absolute frame of reference for all relative rotating systems within it

I know exactly what you said. The problem is that you don't understand the logical implications of what you said. However, I do.

You have not stated that there is a particular null point that is uniquely the null point. Thus, in your description, any point is as good as any other point in your coordinate system, so any point can be the center. Since the entire notion of an absolute frame embeds within it the important concept of uniqueness, the very lack of same in your description implies the lack of a center. Therefore, there is no absolute frame.

Reread this as many times as it takes for you to understand it.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

My mistake, it is post 53.

So what is your specific question or point about post 53 ?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Originally Posted by tk

Easy. In your description, any point is as good as any other point in your coordinate system, so any point can be the center. Since the entire notion of an absolute frame embeds within it the important concept of uniqueness, the very lack of same in your description implies the lack of a center. Therefore, there is no absolute frame.

I did not say that, i said :

...and once you pin a null point,
it becomes a usefull absolute frame of reference for all relative rotating systems within it

I know exactly what you said. The problem is that you don't understand the logical implications of what you said. However, I do.

You have not stated that there is a particular null point that is uniquely the null point. Thus, in your description, any point is as good as any other point in your coordinate system, so any point can be the center. Since the entire notion of an absolute frame embeds within it the important concept of uniqueness, the very lack of same in your description implies the lack of a center. Therefore, there is no absolute frame.

Reread this as many times as it takes for you to understand it.

Once you pin the origin it becomes an absolute frame of reference.
That is chrystal clear, no need to assume things.


We disagree, no problem.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Once you pin the origin it becomes an absolute frame of reference.
That is chrystal clear, no need to assume things.


We disagree, no problem.

Well, it is a problem if you expect to be taken seriously by the science-minded. You have chosen to redefine the very clear word "absolute" to mean "arbitrary." They are not the same word, nor the same concept. That much is crystal clear. Maybe even chrystal clear.

"Relevancy will show Your Honour." ,)

Seriously, i understand your point, the fact that i would chose the origin
means that it was not there 'a priori' and therefore cannot be called absolute.
In that respect i concur.


It is difficult sometimes to use the right vocabulary to convey a concept, so i notice.
I'll try again :

I wanted to provide a context for my gravity model.
I invoked an Absolute Arena (spaciously 3-dimensional, endless and in itself static) that i provide of a coördinate system with an origin.
So that later on , when i provide it with a medium for gravity (and every made trajectory of particles in it),
i will be able to trace every event to a location in simple (x,y,z,time)-coördinates.
This is because my model tries to display the origin of space-time curvage, which will show that 'the fabric of space-time' is not being curved,
but rather an underlying dynamic in a medium will result in the same particle behaviour (as y said at the beginning no dispute on the empyrical assessments).
Leaving the (x,y,z,time) coördinates perfecly usable, instead of stretching and lenghtening of space , and shortening or lengthening of time.

-GR has trouble clarifying the quanta-behaviour, it has 'smoothness' of curved space-time.
-QM seems to have no links to classic gravity where the sinusoidal behaviour does not exist.
-And Newton also has problems that GR is solving, yet Newton seems to work fine for the apple falling.

> My model wants to bring that together in an underlying principle of functionality.



And for those who still believe that i will have aetherparticles flying around at hypergalactic speeds, i promise you it will be more elaborate than that.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

but rather an underlying dynamic in a medium will result in the same particle behaviour (as y said at the beginning no dispute on the empyrical assessments).
Leaving the (x,y,z,time) coördinates perfecly usable, instead of stretching and lenghtening of space , and shortening or lengthening of time.

What's the point in that ? You are just adding an additional layer without gaining anything. You will just get a box full of new questions, such as - what is this medium ? Why does it have the properties it does ? Where does it come from ? Why does that medium exist ? Why is the underlying space-time flat ? And so on. You gain nothing, except new problems.

Once everything is said and done, GR relies on only two assumptions - that the Cartan moment of rotation in an elementary volume can be associated with energy-momentum, and the topological principle that "the boundary of a boundary is zero". Everything else follows from there by mathematical reasoning, particularly the fact that such a volume differs from flat space. Aether models on the other hand usually rely on a whole list of assumptions and prerequisits, so by Occam's razor GR will always win out here. It is the simplest possible model for gravity.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I invoked an Absolute Arena (spaciously 3-dimensional, endless and in itself static) that i provide of a coördinate system with an origin.
So that later on , when i provide it with a medium for gravity (and every made trajectory of particles in it),
i will be able to trace every event to a location in simple (x,y,z,time)-coördinates.

That is OK as long as you model provides exactly the same results when that coordinate system is translated, rotated or is moving at constant velocity.

Making your model meet those requirements should turn it into LET and you will have, therefore, derived SR. Which is nothing to be ashamed of.

Btw Noa Drake, are you aware that it can be shown mathematically that the very existence of gravity is actually fundamentally incompatible with flat space-time ? Misner/Thorne/Wheeler have given a very nice proof in the classic textbook Gravitation.

Mathematics is one of many ways to learn more about reality, all these different ways are equally important,
but none of them, in my oppinion, is superior. Ideally they should work together.
New models almost never arise from textbooks, they arise amongst others from new interpretation and combination of textbooks,
which is not the same thing as contradicting textbooks.

My attitude is to be respectfull of any proof provided by science, but in the same time to stay investigative and open minded to new interpretations.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Mathematics is one of many ways to learn more about reality, all these different ways are equally important,
but none of them, in my oppinion, is superior. Ideally they should work together.
New models almost never arise from textbooks, they arise amongst others from new interpretation and combination of textbooks,
which is not the same thing as contradicting textbooks.

My attitude is to be respectfull of any proof provided by science, but in the same time to stay investigative and open minded to new interpretations.

That's a fair enough attitude

This is an interesting background paper, that does not present solutions, but presents preliminary conditions :

Quantum Gravity - Quantum Properties for Spacetime ?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0902/0902.0190.pdf

The Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrates the existence of gravitational redshift for earth's gravity. If it can be shown that this gravitational redshift is also a time dilation, then the spacetime surrounding the earth is unequivocally curved. If the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all frequencies, and the gravitational redshift is directly proportional to the frequency, then the gravitational redshift must be a time dilation, for it can be shown that if these conditions are true, then even a mechanical clock will appear to tick slower.

That is a solid line of reasoning.
But concluding from the observation of clocks running slower or faster,
that time has also been going slower or faster (point of view from the earth in the 1971 experiment),
is a rather overconfident extrapolation, in my oppinion.
(There are whole Papers devoted to the dangers of extrapolation, pointing out the pro's and con's of that technique.)
Distortion of a small objekt does not automatically imply a distortion of the larger context it is present in.
That is only an assumption concluded from extrapolation, no ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

That is only an assumption concluded from extrapolation, no ?

No, it is an empirical fact which can be directly tested and measured, not an extrapolation.

@Strange,Markus,


Lorentz ether theory on wikipedia gives the history of the acceptancy/non-acceptancy of this, and the arguments en consequences.

Lorentz ether theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is in fact the core of the whole issue.
I make no claims, i let anyone interpret it for themelves,
but it seems that his ether theory was trying to concur with the accepted empyrically established behaviour of objekts in gravitation,
but was overruled on account of experiments that could not find the ether medium.

This led to solutions like the concepts of contractions , stresses etc, and the solution by Einstein,
but in fact an ether model could establish exactly that effect.
Such a model would have to be consistent all over obviously.

To be honest, i had not been reading about LET, there is a lot out there to be learned.
(Lorentz to me was synonimous to his own later conclusions, towards contraction etc)

But my hypothetical model seems to be a lot like that, except it also provides a quantum link,
and visualizes the micro-dynamics of the gravitational system.
As for time and matter distortion, i refer to the molecular consequences of the ether medium, rather than invoque a distortion of the fabric of space-time of the universe because it is just to 'sci-fi' for me to accept such a thing, i prefer a 'down to earth' explanation of everything. As a said in my preface, the deconstruction of the apparent synergy.



And further we see that the stress energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field, that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. (Wikipedia)

That to me can also reflect to a medium doing just that.

So my model is really about materialising the spacetime curvage-gravity system,
it cannot contradict it's consequences because it shows the source of it.
That is why it could have a chance of being consistent, in contrast to other ether models.

The space-time curvage metaphor becomes emergent from it, and this metaphor is incomplete, inconsistent,
as my multiple-planet-in-orbit-issue tried to show in the other thread,
for the simple reason that it does not reveal any source mechanism for it to come about.
(The Rieman tensor is simply claimed to be there, and it's behaviour explained, not what it really consists of outside theoretics, or how it came into existence.)



Correction > I make an attempt to provide a model for such a dynamic,
staying modest about the correctness of it,
i stated it would always be incomplete,
that's what a review by the forumers is all about.


When i came to this forum i had no idea that there was something of a rivalry gong on for a very long time between GR-Einstein-anti-aether and let's say Tesla-ether-gravity.
Personally i don' care about that at all, i simply construct a model according to objective findings.




Something to change our perception of space (as a bit of an illustrative joke):

Say we lived in space, in the area of the 'dark matter', and had evolved out there as a species.
We would have developed a visional system that would be perceptive to radiation in that area, we would see the black environment as uplighted material, with the same evidence as we do matter today.
Instead of our current vision system which is sensitive to 'seeing' our environment (matter as we know it).

Living out there we would look at the sky and see strange unidentified black circular spots seemingly moving around in orbits.
We would say perhaps that nothing much could be going on there...

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

To be honest, i had not been reading about LET, there is a lot out there to be learned.
(Lorentz to me was synonimous to his own later conclusions, towards contraction etc)

The two are in fact indistinguishable, since the "ether" used there is not physically detectable. Since it isn't detectable, and completely equivalent to SR, the ether is just "extra baggage" that is not needed, and was hence discarded. Remember Occam's razor...

because it is just to 'sci-fi' for me to accept such a thing

A really bad reason, if you ask me. The universe doesn't really care whether or not we choose to "accept" something, it works just the way it does.

As for time and matter distortion, i refer to the molecular consequences of the ether medium

I can tell you straight away that this will not work.

(The Rieman tensor is simply claimed to be there, and it's behaviour explained, not what it really consists of outside theoretics, or how it came into existence.)

That to me can also reflect to a medium doing just that

A tensor isn't a physical "thing" any more than the sinus function is. Tensors are simply multilinear maps, they are mathematical entities, not physical.