# Thread: wave characteristic of light : speed question

1. Observing the electric and magnetic wave components ,it appears as if such a wave must move faster than c, since the curved distance is longer than the linear propagation distance.If it were half a circle, it would be about 1.57 times longer (pi / 2), hence 1.57 times c as the speed of the wave.
Why is this incorrect ? Or an incorrect way of thinking about it ?

2.

3. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Observing the electric and magnetic wave components ,it appears as if such a wave must move faster than c, since the curved distance is longer than the linear propagation distance.If it were half a circle, it would be about 1.57 times longer (pi / 2), hence 1.57 times c as the speed of the wave.
Why is this incorrect ? Or an incorrect way of thinking about it ?
It's incorrect because you are thinking that the distance traveled is the integrated arc length of a sinusoid. The wave is propagating along a straight line path, not along a sinusoid.

4. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Observing the electric and magnetic wave components ,it appears as if such a wave must move faster than c, since the curved distance is longer than the linear propagation distance.If it were half a circle, it would be about 1.57 times longer (pi / 2), hence 1.57 times c as the speed of the wave.
Why is this incorrect ? Or an incorrect way of thinking about it ?
Basic theory of electromagnetic waves proves your claim false. See here.

5. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Observing the electric and magnetic wave components ,it appears as if such a wave must move faster than c, since the curved distance is longer than the linear propagation distance.If it were half a circle, it would be about 1.57 times longer (pi / 2), hence 1.57 times c as the speed of the wave.
Why is this incorrect ? Or an incorrect way of thinking about it ?
This is one of those cases where the simplest way to think about it is in terms of the mathematics. Electromagnetic radiation propagates according to the wave equation

and likewise for the E field. If you compare this to the general wave equation, and remember that

it is immediately apparent that the propagation velocity is exactly the speed of light c. It can't in fact be anything else without violating Maxwell's equations.

6. Indeed, the linear propagation velocity is exacly that of c, i did not contest that, but little or nothing is known about the fysical meaning of the sinusoid, no ?
It stands for something yet to be found out, and the idea that the resultant of that sinusoid behaviour is the linear propagation we know, is not so stupid i believe.

7. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Indeed, the linear propagation velocity is exacly that of c, i did not contest that, but little or nothing is known about the fysical meaning of the sinusoid, no ?
It stands for something yet to be found out, and the idea that the resultant of that sinusoid behaviour is the linear propagation we know, is not so stupid i believe.
I don't know what you mean by that. A sinusoid is just a plot of harmonic motion, in this case the oscillations of the E and B fields. In what way is the physical meaning of this not known ?

8. The oscillations of the E and B field cannot come into existence out of 'nothingness' i believe, they should have a source.

Either something is oscillating, or it is not, and if it is oscillating then it has a source for that, a source that we know nothing about as yet, no ?

I am just appying basic logic to get to the origin of something observed or measured here.

9. The sine waves just indicates the changing strength of the fields over time. Nothing moves along that line (that line doesn't even exist outside of attempts to represent the mathematics graphically).

10. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The oscillations of the E and B field cannot come into existence out of 'nothingness' i believe, they should have a source.
The source is the thing that is emitting the radiation.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
The sine waves just indicates the changing strength of the fields over time. Nothing moves along that line (that line doesn't even exist outside of attempts to represent the mathematics graphically).
Ok, but then why would a linear propagation need sinusoïdally behaving changes of strenght in the field simultaneously ?

'Changes in the strenght of the field' is a very vague description.

It tells us little more than the 'attraction' planets imposed upon objekts with Newton.

12. You shouldn't let the term "wave equation" mislead you into thinking that the solutions are always sinusoidal waves. In general, they are not sinusoidal waves. Sinusoidal waves are special solutions that allow one to compose from them more general solutions.

13. For example, if one considers the two-dimensional wave equation:

The general solution is:

where and are arbitrary functions of a single variable.

14. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by Strange
The sine waves just indicates the changing strength of the fields over time. Nothing moves along that line (that line doesn't even exist outside of attempts to represent the mathematics graphically).
Ok, but then why would a linear propagation need sinusoïdally behaving changes of strenght in the field simultaneously ?

'Changes in the strenght of the field' is a very vague description.

It tells us little more than the 'attraction' planets imposed upon objekts with Newton.
If you want to send waves along a piece of string, you wiggle one end from side to side, don't you? But the wave travels along the string, at right angles to the direction of your wiggling. This is just what transverse waves are - displacements that travel. Isn't it? And if you wiggle the end in simple harmonic motion, then, due to the constancy of the speed of the wave that is created, you will have a sinusoidally shaped wave.

15. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Either something is oscillating, or it is not, and if it is oscillating then it has a source for that, a source that we know nothing about as yet, no ?
As Strange rightly said, the source is whatever emits the radiation, and what "waves" is the electromagnetic field. That is perfectly well understood, I believe.

16. The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.

17. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Do you ever tire of posting nonsense?

18. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Physics (science, in general) cannot tell us anything about the underlying nature of reality. Or even if there is such a thing. It builds models (such as fields) based on things we observe and measure, and then tests those models.

Philosophy may claim to tell you if there is some external reality or not, and what it is like if there is. But as scientists (and engineers), all we can do is make measurements to try and describe what happens. (Arguably, all of this goes on entirely in our heads, so it makes no practical difference if there is no reality "out there".)

19. Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Do you ever tire of posting nonsense?
My latest series of questions is indeed the last of them,It is indeed tiresome that i do not find certain explanations satisfactory.Thank you anyway to have answered them in a genuin way.Aside from an entire model that i am building, a do realise that mainstream cannot be convinced of anything other than GR, unless experimental evidence is provided - difficult - but i also have some real calculus to back up certains claims i will make. Calculus that provides support to correlations i found out, calculus very hard to be denied.More on that later.

20. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Do you ever tire of posting nonsense?
My latest series of questions is indeed the last of them,It is indeed tiresome that i do not find certain explanations satisfactory.Thank you anyway to have answered them in a genuin way.Aside from an entire model that i am building, a do realise that mainstream cannot be convinced of anything other than GR, unless experimental evidence is provided - difficult - but i also have some real calculus to back up certains claims i will make. Calculus that provides support to correlations i found out, calculus very hard to be denied.More on that later.
In translation: you are incapable and unwilling to understand basic science , so you decided to make up your own (crank) theory.

21. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Very Flemish, that last sentence!

I think I understand your desire for a more physical image of what is going on. I am not sufficiently good a mathematician to find an equation a wholly satisfying model of reality. But your comments raise the question of what sort of "some thing" something is made of. I suggest to you that EM radiation contains energy, which is "some thing"; energy contained in the oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

From the way you talk, I wonder if you might benefit from a better understanding of waves in general. Waves can transfer energy without transferring mass, for example.

Just in case you have not read it, there is a description of EM waves here: : Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

22. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
But there are underlying principles. For example, the photon is the gauge boson of the U(1) group symmetry. In other words, the nature of the photon isn't mysterious to the physicist as it is understood in the context of gauge theory.

23. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Do you ever tire of posting nonsense?
My latest series of questions is indeed the last of them,It is indeed tiresome that i do not find certain explanations satisfactory.Thank you anyway to have answered them in a genuin way.Aside from an entire model that i am building, a do realise that mainstream cannot be convinced of anything other than GR, unless experimental evidence is provided - difficult - but i also have some real calculus to back up certains claims i will make. Calculus that provides support to correlations i found out, calculus very hard to be denied.More on that later.
WHAT? You are building a model, when you have not yet understood the current model? That sounds like a recipe for ridicule to me.

There is every likelihood that you build something to address the current gaps in your personal understanding rather than the true shortcomings of the accepted theory. Which will make you look foolish.

24. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Aside from an entire model that i am building, a do realise that mainstream cannot be convinced of anything other than GR, unless experimental evidence is provided -
@Noa. In order to improve current theories, and especially to overthrow them, requires two things.

First, one must have a deep and thorough understanding of current theory. This would involve not only clear appreciation of the model and its defining equations, but awareness of the experimental and evidential support for the theory, the areas of weakness and those of particular strength.

Secondly, one must possess and unusually strong intelligence, with the ability to see and to demonstrate how an alternative perspective can provide an improved explanation for all current observation and evidence.

Your posts suggest you are "just an average guy" and currently lack both these requirements. I am, therefore, curious to know on what basis you have concluded you have these abilities and see more deeply than some of the finest, most penetrating, most original minds on the planet. Would you be prepared to address that? Thank you in anticipation.

25. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
mainstream cannot be convinced of anything other than GR, unless experimental evidence is provided
That's better. Why do you think that GR is the current dominant theory?

26. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by Strange
The sine waves just indicates the changing strength of the fields over time. Nothing moves along that line (that line doesn't even exist outside of attempts to represent the mathematics graphically).
Ok, but then why would a linear propagation need sinusoïdally behaving changes of strenght in the field simultaneously ?

'Changes in the strenght of the field' is a very vague description.

It tells us little more than the 'attraction' planets imposed upon objekts with Newton.
Here we have yet another example of a person who demands that the universe be simply comprehensible to that individual. I always find this attitude curious, because these same people, who often found trigonometry a challenge in high school, demand that the entirety of physics be instantly and intuitively obvious to them, without ever stopping for a moment to consider that some things may simply be beyond them. The defect always lies with everyone else (e.g., "the obscurantist scientists").

Let's just look at this wave question. Forget EM waves for the time being. Tie one end of a rope to a fixed point, and whip the other end. A wave propagates linearly down the rope. As it does so, the rope's wiggling will trace out a somewhat sinusoidal shape (with appropriate constraints, we could have a perfect sinusoid). The wiggle propagates down the rope. Yet, the rope itself does not propagate (you've tied one end to a fixed point, and you're holding the other). That's a common example of a wave that propagates, without the underlying atoms that wiggle actually propagating along with the wave.

Don't get that one? Drop a stone into a still pond. Waves will propagate away from the stone. But the water just wiggles up and down; the wave propagates away. Don't take my word for it -- try it yourself and see.

Once you've understood that the waving and the propagating are decoupled, you can try to go back to the EM case. Light propagates in a (more or less) straight line. As it does so, its E and M components wiggle.

When you complain that "changes in the field is a vague description," you are actually saying "I, Noa Drake, do not understand the phrase, so I will declare it to be vague." But to scientists, it is very clear. We can calculate precisely the outcome of an experiment involving light. We can invent things like lasers and WiFi cards, we can characterize the CMB to exquisite precision, we can create materials specifically designed to convert light from the sun into electricity, and obtain the conversion efficiency that we calculate beforehand. It is silly of you to declare that this is all from "a vague description." You are only making a statement about your own ignorance.

27. I would have to disagree on that, the photon is not just a classic wave as you describe it in the sense that it could be doing several things : Displaying transversal waves as it is propagating an amount of mass sinusoidally, resulting in an avarage linear speed c.

The fact that i ask unobvious questions or silly questions,is the result of searching beyond the obvious to find out the micro-reality of things.
You will not find anything new if you are afraid of embarassing yourself, or if you have no trust in your own capabilities.
I run multiple scenarios and combine many things, an ongoing search. If that is silly to some, fine.

Further, i have made no reproaches to scientists, or at least non intended.
I did not become interested in all of this to prove scientists wrong either.

In origin i am a product developer, and that is my final goal , in which this investigation will help me.

Let me tell you what i find very regrettable, it is this ongoing persistent denial of the possibility for a discrete medium for gravity.(classic aether models were indeed very inconsistent, but that does not mean the idea of a discrete medium for gravity must be condemned all together)
If scientists had concentrated on that over the last one hundred years, then chances are they would have been able to devise many very energy-efficient power systems, not in the least in the field of nuclear fusion. This does not mean that i do not appreciate achievements made of course, nor the achievements thanks to GR. I hate black/white attitudes for that matter.

Understandably many of you assume that i will be incapable to bring out anything of real interest, given that i am not a scientist,
up to me to change that view in the future.

Finally, i will never,not ever, accept time as a separate or included dimension, and will continu do defend the idea that there is always one dominant frame of reference. These assumptions were the consequence of not accepting a discrete medium for gravity, leading to complete absurdity.
GR gives us a correct set of rules, being a reflection of an underlying microreality that makes spacetime become emergent, that is why the predictions of GR concerning the behaviour observed, are correct.

Very intelligent people such as many of you are, have forgotten how to produce valuable scenarios from inward thought.
Knowledge is an instrument, not the mechanism , for new usable ideas.

28. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
I would have to disagree on that, the photon is not just a classic wave as you describe it in the sense that it could be doing several things : Displaying transversal waves as it is propagating an amount of mass sinusoidally, resulting in an avarage linear speed c.

You've totally missed the point, Noa. I gave you a concrete, easily accessible example that shows how there can exist a wave in which there is energy propagation without a "thing" itself moving at the same speed as the energy. Your original question presupposes some coupling between the two. The purpose of the examples I gave is to show you that your implicit assumption is wrong.

The fact that i ask unobvious questions or silly questions,is the result of searching beyond the obvious to find out the micro-reality of things.
That's all fine, but it is a futile quest. At any phase of obtaining an answer that you personally might deem to be the "micro-reality of things," you will always be able to find someone else that could ask further questions. Take the "gyron aether theory" thread for example. The OP there thinks that invoking needle-gyrons that interact "purely mechanically" explains micro-reality. Well, maybe it does for him personally, for some appropriately loose definition of "explain." But I can ask deeper questions, like, why needles? Why that particular size, and not another? What does "purely mechanically" mean, really? In the macro-world, mechanical interactions are really electromagnetic ones. So invoking gyrons is not a step closer to reality. It is merely another trip around the circle.

You will not find anything new if you are afraid of embarassing yourself, or if you have no trust in your own capabilities.
I run multiple scenarios and combine many things, an ongoing search. If that is silly to some, fine.
Not silly, at all. I'm merely pointing out that you are much too quick to short-change what is actually known. Much of that appears to stem from ignorance of what is known. At the same time, you put too much stock in your own taste as an arbiter of what constitutes micro-reality. I see too much of this "It makes no sense to me, therefore it makes no sense" attitude coming through, without honest consideration of the greater likelihood that "it makes no sense to me because I'm either too ignorant of what is known, or because I just lack the mental hardware to understand it."

Further, i have made no reproaches to scientists, or at least non intended.
I did not become interested in all of this to prove scientists wrong either.
I am not accusing you of trying to prove anyone wrong. I am merely pointing out that your attitude is as I've characterised it above. And in the next sentence of yours that I quote below, you reinforce what I am saying:

ILet me tell you what i find very regrettable, it is this ongoing persistent denial of the possibility for a discrete medium for gravity.(classic aether models were indeed very inconsistent, but that does not mean the idea of a discrete medium for gravity must be condemned all together)
You regret it for personal reasons, not scientific ones. Put another way, you feel that your tastes should take precedence over the collective wisdom accumulated over a century by really smart people whose entire professional careers are devoted to studying this single thing. That's a standard brew of arrogance and ignorance, the former abetted by, and abetting, the latter.

If scientists had concentrated on that over the last one hundred years, then chances are they would have been able to devise many very energy-efficient power systems, not in the least in the field of nuclear fusion. This does not mean that i do not appreciate achievements made of course, nor the achievements thanks to GR. I hate black/white attitudes for that matter.
You seem to think that if we all just believed in fairies passionately enough, we'd have fusion? Now you're just being silly. You are blaming scientists for not trying hard enough to give you a theory that you like.

Sorry, but neither science nor nature owes you any such satisfaction. We go with the evidence. Scientists work incredibly hard to construct the simplest theories that are consistent with the evidence (they get Nobels for that, you know). They didn't bypass classical models out of some weird fetishistic preference for modernity. They left the classical world behind, kicking and screaming, band-aiding the old theory as long as they could until the patches just couldn't hold any longer.

You really ought to study the actual history of science before you are allowed to make sweeping -- and absurdly wrong -- pronouncements about science.

Understandably many of you assume that i will be incapable to bring out anything of real interest, given that i am not a scientist,
up to me to change that view in the future.
It's not because you aren't a practising scientist, Noa. It's that you combine arrogance with ignorance in a way that prevents you from learning.

Finally, i will never,not ever, accept time as a separate or included dimension
That's very open-minded of you. Dogmatic insistence that nature conform to your personal preference is a route to disappointment. Sorry that you are so rigid, especially given how little you know about science.

, and will continu do defend the idea that there is always one dominant frame of reference. These assumptions were the consequence of not accepting a discrete medium for gravity, leading to complete absurdity.
GR gives us a correct set of rules, being a reflection of an underlying microreality that makes spacetime become emergent, that is why the predictions of GR concerning the behaviour observed, are correct.
Yes, you are free to adopt that attitude, but it's a crank's wank. I prefer to go with the evidence, even if my pea-sized brain doesn't like what that implies. That's the challenge, and wonder, of science.

Very intelligent people such as many of you are, have forgotten how to produce valuable scenarios from inward thought.
Knowledge is an instrument, not the mechanism , for new usable ideas.
And here you mischaracterise scientists with a self-serving strawman cartoon caricature. You've obviously never spent time among actual scientists, doing real science. You just made up some stick-figure sketch in your mind.

29. An elaborate and well balanced response, tk421.

My conviction of a discrete medium for gravity however, did not appear from ignorance, arrogance or narrow mindedness, the opposite in fact.
A humbleness to understand that we know very little instead of a smug attitude that says we already know it all, and reading continuously the papers on the subject of discrete spacetime, entropy, the holographic principle, osmosis, the meaning of the constant G etc. Further the study of the origin of electron orbitals and the formation of atoms. You possibly underestimate my skill to make new and valid links, as well as envision 3-dimensional scenario's,the core of a developement process.

Not believing in a continuous spacetime, is the result of elementary logic, not some ignorantly cracked up nonsentical blurting of ideas. And no Nobel Prize was awarded for that concept by lack of proof. Experimental 'evidence in support' of it, did not show any sign of a manifold etc, it showed that predictions made, were correct indeed, and valued accordingly. But that tells us nothing about the true nature of this supposedly continuous fabric of spacetime.
I repeat : the theory of GR delivers a set of rules and causalities that reflect an underlying microdynamic which is the fundamental responsable mechanism for the behaviour of all objects as we observe it.
Why would it be harmfull to investigate and try to model that dynamic ?
That is open mindedness instead of running around with eyecaps.

Given the fact that the continuous nature of it has not been proven, the claim 'continuous spacetime is correct',is as valid or invalid as the claim 'continuous does not exist and must at some point consist of discrete building blocks'.

Meanwhile, the word 'crank' in this context of exchange of ideas, must have been the invention of a very very very narrow minded man.
As one forummer put it so beautifully 'Our way is the only way'.

Another thing that is very regrettable, is that the legacy of Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare and others, was washed away down the drain concerning their contributions on a medium for gravity, instead of building on it further. Thanks to the utterly ignorant interpretation of the outcome of the Michelson Morley experiment, amongst others.

The day that i will stop trusting my own ability for logic and common sense, will never come.
It is the source of our wisdom, and the only real mechanism for progress.
Each and everyone of you should trust in it.Aside from that i have expressed many times on this forum my belief in synergy, the benefits of complementary skilled people working together.

Only a flock of sheep would voluntarily give up on their individual intellectual capabilities.

Sorry to have expressed here an oppinion, i am told by some that that is blasphemic in a scientific environment.

On your last remark: i spent time, a whole year long , with a man who invented himself improved spacesuits for Nasa and the developement of the Proba satelite, my 4th year professor. A mentor for my convictions indeed, who rewarded me with excellent scores. Unfortunately he has no degree in physics, the poor soul...

30. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The day that i will stop trusting my own ability for logic and common sense, will never come.
It is the source of our wisdom, and the only real mechanism for progress.
That is a foolish and demonstrably false statement. "Common sense" was followed for millennia. True progress was possible only when we let go of the self-centered notion that one's imagination was sufficient to figure out how the universe works. You are not that smart, Noa. No one is. Data is supreme. Individual tastes count for very little. Look at where it got Aristotle.

Each and everyone of you should trust in it.
Everyone should be properly humble about his or her limitations. Such self-knowledge is important and rare.

Only a flock of sheep would voluntarily give up on their individual intellectual capabilities.
No, that's basically solipsistic. Each one of us has different tastes, different preferences. Why do you believe that all of us should believe as you do?

Sorry to have expressed here an oppinion, i am told by some that that is blasphemic in a scientific environment.
I'm not letting you get away with that dishonest shot. Your opinion isn't a blasphemy, and no one is accusing you of such a thing. You are, however, being properly and accurately shown to be making assertions based solely on your personal tastes and beliefs. It is us who are blaspheming you, in your world view, because you are the one who is rigid and closed-minded.

Science does not dictate what to believe (but you do). Science merely says -- and quite fairly -- that if you want to assert something, we're going to check it against data.

31. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Another thing that is very regrettable, is that the legacy of Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare and others, was washed away down the drain concerning their contributions on a medium for gravity, instead of building on it further.
Er? What?

So you are totally ignorant of the history of science as well as all aspects of modern science?

32. Why leave out deliberately in your first quote, my additional remark on synergy and complementary skills, i wonder..
'Data is supreme', where are the data for the continuous nature of spacetime then ?

33. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The day that i will stop trusting my own ability for logic and common sense, will never come.
It is the source of our wisdom, and the only real mechanism for progress.
Each and everyone of you should trust in it.
This is absolutely wrong. Getting away from so-called "logic" and the failures of common sense are the reason for the scientific method.

If you cannot understand this, then .... well, I don't know.There just isn't any hope for you, in terms of understanding how science works.

34. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Another thing that is very regrettable, is that the legacy of Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare and others, was washed away down the drain concerning their contributions on a medium for gravity, instead of building on it further.
Er? What?

So you are totally ignorant of the history of science as well as all aspects of modern science?
Aether theories were replaced with Einstein's new concept, what is wrong with that statement then.

An example, the 'molecular vortices' by Maxwell. As undeveloped as it may have been,it was not nonsentical as a starting point at all.

35. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Another thing that is very regrettable, is that the legacy of Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare and others, was washed away down the drain concerning their contributions on a medium for gravity, instead of building on it further.
<br>
<br>
Er? What?<br>
<br>
So you are totally ignorant of the history of science as well as all aspects of modern science?
<div><br></div><div>

Aether theories were replaced with Einstein's new concept, what is wrong with that statement then.</div><div>

An example, the 'molecular vortices' by Maxwell, i read the original document online. As undeveloped as it may have been,it was not nonsentical as a starting point at all.</div>

To conclude in general,
Ignorant and arrogant and narrowminded, nobody in my environment thinks of me that way, the opposit in fact has been said by most intelligent persons.
There is no place for me on a forum were people have no appreciation for my contributions of any sort.
There are fundamental disagreements that cannot be aligned.
I am leaving, because i do not learn from the forum and the forum does not learn from me.

Good luck, and special thanks to Markus, an 'opponent' in convictions,yet debating with him was exemplary.

36. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The day that i will stop trusting my own ability for logic and common sense, will never come.
It is the source of our wisdom, and the only real mechanism for progress.
Each and everyone of you should trust in it.
This is absolutely wrong. Getting away from so-called "logic" and the failures of common sense are the reason for the scientific method.

If you cannot understand this, then .... well, I don't know.There just isn't any hope for you, in terms of understanding how science works.
Do you know how Erik Verlinde came to write his 'on the origin of gravity..' ?
His holliday trip was suspended, hence he had a whole week with 'nothing' to do for the first time in years.
He says he spent it mainly on 'thinking and rethinking and re-questioning his beliefs, knowledge and accomplishments.
No scientific method whatsoever involved, inward thinking.

And this lead, my friend, to one of the most intriguing newly proposed concepts for gravity in a very long time, not dismissed at all by mainstream.
Obviously you will tell me prejudicedly that i compare myself to him.., not at all.

But this week of thought did produce something very substancial.
It is wrong to assume as i said that 'Our way is the only way'.
Tell me again inward thinking and personnel logic is useless.

37. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Another thing that is very regrettable, is that the legacy of Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare and others, was washed away down the drain concerning their contributions on a medium for gravity, instead of building on it further.
Er? What?

So you are totally ignorant of the history of science as well as all aspects of modern science?
Aether theories were replaced with Einstein's new concept, what is wrong with that statement then.

An example, the 'molecular vortices' by Maxwell. As undeveloped as it may have been,it was not nonsentical as a starting point at all.
Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is the basis of relativity. Lorentz and Poincare (and Hilbert and several others) were also working working on exactly the same idea. So none of these scientists ideas are "washed down the drain"; they are still a vital part of modern physics. In fact, Lorentz invariance is so fundamental that it has been repeatedly tested to ever greater accuracy (1 part in 1030 I think).

I really think you should spend a little time learning some basic physics.

38. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
[He says he spent it mainly on 'thinking and rethinking and re-questioning his beliefs, knowledge and accomplishments.
No scientific method whatsoever involved, inward thinking.
And he is able to do that because he has a huge and deep mathematical and intuitive knowledge of the subject. It has nothing to do with ignorant "common sense".

And this lead, my friend, to one of the most intriguing newly proposed concepts for gravity in a very long time, not dismissed at all by mainstream.
Not dismissed. But also, not accepted (yet) because there is no evidence to support it.

Tell me again inward thinking and personnel logic is useless.
No. Because I never said that to start with. I said: getting away from so-called "logic" and the failures of common sense are the reasons for the scientific method.

39. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Do you know how Erik Verlinde came to write his 'on the origin of gravity..' ?
His holliday trip was suspended, hence he had a whole week with 'nothing' to do for the first time in years.
He says he spent it mainly on 'thinking and rethinking and re-questioning his beliefs, knowledge and accomplishments.
No scientific method whatsoever involved, inward thinking.

And this lead, my friend, to one of the most intriguing newly proposed concepts for gravity in a very long time, not dismissed at all by mainstream.
Obviously you will tell me prejudicedly that i compare myself to him.., not at all.

But this week of thought did produce something very substancial.
It is wrong to assume as i said that 'Our way is the only way'.
Tell me again inward thinking and personnel logic is useless.
You need to draw a distinction between what he did -- thinking, with a very complete knowledge of the mainstream theory, as well as of the data set that led to the mainstream becoming the mainstream -- and what you are proposing, which is to ignore the mainstream theory, and choose an idea that you like for reasons that have nothing to do with the data, but only your personal preference.

If you do not understand the difference, then there is a serious problem with the way you process information and knowledge. No one here said "Thinking is bad." Data is supreme. If what you think leads to a contradiction with data, your thinking is wrong. Plain and simple. And if there's no data to support your idea, your idea is unsupported. Right now, there's a tremendous body of data to support the mainstream. That data comes from many different domains, and all of it points in a certain direction that leads to the mainstream. Science never says, arrogantly, "There's nothing you can tell me or show me that would change my mind." All of this is subject to revision, as data is supreme. If new data arises to occasion a rethinking of a theory, the theory gets rethought. Instead of this caricature of drone scientists mindlessly walking in lockstep with a Thought Leader, the right picture is a bunch of scientists wishing for a better theory, thinking of possible alternatives all the time. They usually fail, because the barrier is so high. Many theories are aesthetically beautiful, but fail the test against data. And data is supreme. Aesthetics counts for little.

40. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
a smug attitude that says we already know it all
Only a fool would think this, and if it were so, then physics would be a boring subject indeed.

Ignorant and arrogant and narrowminded, nobody in my environment thinks of me that way, the opposit in fact has been said by most intelligent persons.
There is no place for me on a forum were people have no appreciation for my contributions of any sort.
There are fundamental disagreements that cannot be aligned.
I am leaving, because i do not learn from the forum and the forum does not learn from me.
Good luck, and special thanks to Markus, an 'opponent' in convictions,yet debating with him was exemplary.
I for my part never considered you ignorant and arrogant at all ( in fact I think you are quite intelligent ), and to be perfectly honest I am sad that you feel you need to leave. The initial start was a little rocky, but after that you were always polite, considerate and very civilised in the way you presented your ideas and asked questions. I do not agree with many of your ideas and opinions, but I think for all of us here it is really important to separate people from their opinions. In real life I have many friends whose opinions about certain subjects I don't share, yet they are still my friends.

In any case, I wish you the best of luck too.

41. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Finally, i will never,not ever, accept time as a separate or included dimension, and will continu do defend the idea that there is always one dominant frame of reference. These assumptions were the consequence of not accepting a discrete medium for gravity, leading to complete absurdity.
GR gives us a correct set of rules, being a reflection of an underlying microreality that makes spacetime become emergent, that is why the predictions of GR concerning the behaviour observed, are correct.
How does GR manage to give the "correct set of rules" if it has no special frame of reference that you consider to be necessary?

42. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Another thing that is very regrettable, is that the legacy of Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare and others, was washed away down the drain concerning their contributions on a medium for gravity, instead of building on it further. Thanks to the utterly ignorant interpretation of the outcome of the Michelson Morley experiment, amongst others.
The way I see it, nature was shouting about the true nature of space and time, and these people weren't listening. Einstein and subsequently Minkowski did listen to what nature was saying, and revolutionised the way we think about reality.

It is worth noting that the wave-equation itself that is satisfied by the electric and magnetic fields:

contains within it, as the coefficients of the individual terms, the Minkowskian inverse metric tensor. This equation is invariant to the Poincaré group of transformations, and indeed the Lorentz group (a subgroup of the Poincaré group) of transformations were discovered as a result of considering the invariance of Maxwell's equations.

43. I feel compelled to answer in part, to some questions asked or remarks made above :

Already in 1861, Maxwell understood a thing or two
about the speed of light and a discrete medium of vortices,
one cannot exist without the other as it seems according to him.
Check a.o. page 22 (page 49 of the PDF-document below).

By the way, his level of understanding of 'heat' was unprecedented,
precisely because of this assumption of a discrete medium.

(This however does not mean the whole document should be regarded as correct.)

Now, litterally deleting these assumptions from his work, as Einstein did,
and then construction a 'continuous spacetime' supposedly based on it,
cannot lead to a decent understanding of micro-reality.

It can lead at best to a theoretical causal reflection of it,
a parallel,resulting in a usefull tool for prediction indeed,
but failing terribly as a means to determine the origin of things,

Such is my oppinion, and i will back it up.

Further:
Concerning the construction of an atom,
i have uncovered 2 correlations that should not exist
or be inferred, given the currently established understandings.
backed up with straight forward and very understandable calculus
and visual relation.

All in due course.

Further :
For those who are not familiar with product developement as a profession,
here's a quote 'we' like a lot, you won't i suspect,
but it is the basis of a generalist approach in which specialist knowledge
is not essential to discover things or develope a new model.
Sometimes to much specialism is even counter-productive to produce
new ideas to be validated later.
Helicopter view, pattern seeking is my game,
along with 3D envisioning and assessment according to the given constraints.

"A product developer knows something about everything,
but never everything about one thing."

>The link to the document by Maxwell:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf

A
nd again, since 'Data is supreme' as i was told :

>Show me the 'supreme data' for the continuous nature of spacetime please,
that mountain of evidence piling up out there in mainstream physics.

44. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Now, litterally deleting these assumptions from his work, as Einstein did,
and then construction a 'continuous spacetime' supposedly based on it,
cannot lead to a decent understanding of micro-reality.
Of course it can. If the assumptions are neither necessary nor supported by evidence then they can be unceremoniously dumped. That si how science works.

(Ignoring the rather meaningless phrase "understanding of micro-reality".)

It can lead at best to a theoretical causal reflection of it,
a parallel,resulting in a usefull tool for prediction indeed,
Yep. Science, in other words.

"A product developer knows something about everything,
but never everything about one thing."
That sounds like me. (Which is probably why I spent so many years working in product development.) But I fail to see the relevance.

>The link to the document by Maxwell:
The appeal to the Words of The Prophets is symptomatic of crank science (and religion).

>Show me the 'supreme data' for the continuous nature of spacetime please,
that mountain of evidence piling up out there in mainstream physics.
You are shifting the burden of proof: if you claim that "aether vortices" (or whetever) exist then it is up to you to provide evidence for them.

But, basically, GR only works if space-time is smooth and continuous. On the other hand, we know this is the reason why it cannot co-exist with quantum theory. So there is likely to be an underlying theory (quantum gravity) that, perhaps, models space-time as discrete. Good examples of the sort of approach people are taking are things like Causal Dynamical Triangulation, Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory, etc.

If/when such a theory is successful it will show that GR was only a good approximation. (But you will still be asking, "but what is it really".)

45. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Show me the 'supreme data' for the continuous nature of spacetime please,
That space-time is continuous on macroscopic scales is evidenced by the very fact that GR gives the correct predictions for experiments carried out in that domain. As for microscopic scales - the short answer is that we don't know whether it is continuous, but a strong case can be made for it becoming discreet below a certain length scale.

46. What is Words of the Prophets Strange ?It is just a document containing his work , no ?

47. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
What is Words of the Prophets Strange ?It is just a document containing his work , no ?
The trouble is, some people (*) seem to like to quote the words of Einstein, Maxwell, Newton, etc. as if that had some sort of scientific validity.

(*) Most of them are appear to be cranks, crackpots and pseudoscientists. You don't want to do that... do you?

48. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
What is Words of the Prophets Strange ?It is just a document containing his work , no ?
I suspect that what Strange is referring to is your use of selective quotation of an authority in an effort to support your viewpoint by proxy. But you have to have done your homework if you are going to pull off such a maneuver successfully.

You quote only from Part I of his article on Physical Lines of Force. At the end of Part II he emphasizes that the mechanical model is, essentially, a cognitive crutch not to be taken seriously as a micro-reality (to use your term). It is also extremely important to recognize that the model presented in the paper you cite is incapable of propagating light, so it is deficient in a rather fundamental way. Maxwell would not invent displacement current for another several years. By the time he published his famous Treatise, the mechanical model was gone. So the Prophet himself thought so little of his mechanical artifice that he had abandoned it within a few years.

So why did he invoke a mechanical model in the first place? The answer is easy: He wrote during the ascendancy of the Mechanical Age. It was the age of steam. He naturally used imagery that would help the audience of the time to understand what he was trying to teach them. But he was very careful to emphasize that the model was not reality. If you're going to invoke Maxwell, you should do so more fairly.

At some point, the mechanical model has to be buttressed and band-aided with so many ad hoc features that it hinders more than helps. An aether that is stiff enough to propagate light at the speed it travels, while simultaneously being insubstantial enough to allow material objects to traverse it, requires magic. Maxwell did not believe in magic. He kept the equations, and threw out the gears and vortices.

49. You make a good point here.

But i also said 'underdeveloped as it may be, it is a good starting point', just a few paragraphs above that.

Searching for a means of propagation on say Planck level, is i believe still a valid path to investigate.

I would also certainly agree that Prophets and what not, are not interesting as sources, but here it is a genuin document, not a rewritten interpretation,
and so i found it worthwile looking into.

How does GR manage to give the "correct set of rules" if it has no special frame of reference that you consider to be necessary?

Note that GR relies on having no preferred frames of reference, so the question becomes: Why would physical reality behave as if it has no preferred frame of reference if it really does?

51. No more sharing with people who are completely uninterested in my information and questions.

52. What is the true fysical meaning of c in these definitions ?
It's a ratio that tells us how space and time are related.

The discrete medium has a specific density distribution as the defining factor for the strenght of the gravitational potential.
You must remember that gravity is actually non-linear in nature; i.e. energy-momentum is a source of the gravitational field, but so is gravity itself. That is one of the reasons why GR differs in its numerical predictions from Newtonian gravity. I doubt very much that you will be able to replicate these non-linear effects through the mechanical interactions of ( undetectable ?? ) particles.

I am not sure if you are even aware of that, but there are a large number of "mechanical models of gravity" along the lines of what you propose : Mechanical explanations of gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They all failed quite miserably, their inability to incorporate non-linearity being one of the reasons.

no difference experienced between moving in free space with a resulting g-factor experienced, and being at rest at earth surface experiencing the same g-factor.
That is true only if the reference frame is small enough. For a larger frame within the earth's gravitational field you will find tidal forces ( albeit small in magnitude ), whereas there are no tidal forces in an accelerated frame of reference. They are equivalent only on scales of order 1/g.

time slows down, as does everything else that is atomic in nature
Gravitational time dilation also affects things that aren't "atomic" in nature; for example, the life span of elementary particles ( not composed on any constituents ! ) is affected. You will need to explain this, not just qualitatively, but also with the correct numbers.

53. @Markus

Ok, i have some questions and remarks here :

*the Mechanical models wikipedia :
"The theory posits that the force of gravity is the result of tiny particles or waves moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe."
>This is not in any way related to my propositions. No mechanical 'pushing' going on or high speed interactions.
> Mine is an attempt to take the best of General Relativity and combine it with a locally absolute frame of reference consisting of a discrete medium to which things move relatively > ' Absolute Relativity '

*"
You must remember that gravity is actually non-linear in nature; i.e. energy-momentum is a source of the gravitational field, but so is gravity itself. That is one of the reasons why GR differs in its numerical predictions from Newtonian gravity. I doubt very much that you will be able to replicate these non-linear effects through the mechanical interactions of ( undetectable ?? ) particles. "

Can you clarify more on the required non-linearity ?

In the proposed model the distribution itself of the particles in the particle field provide the curving around the planet spherically speaking, and radially speaking you have straight lines that become dynamically distorted by the effect of a slip concentrically away from the planet.
The precession of Mercury could be the result of this phenomenon.

So the density distribution along with the slip , make up the metric as described by GR.

*"
Gravitational time dilation also affects things that aren't "atomic" in nature; for example, the life span of elementary particles ( not composed on any constituents ! ) is affected. You will need to explain this, not just qualitatively, but also with the correct numbers."

> How elementary are they really if they can have a changeable lifespan ?
Entering an area of higher density will slow their rate of dissipation or decay down, in analogy with the slowing down of the rate at which the mechanical clock can transfer Ep into Ek (the ticking rate slowing down as a consequence).

Remark on the followed logic here : The possibilities :
-If an elementary particle is regarded as only existing of itself, that is 'one something', no constituents,
then what would it decay into ?
-It cannot be decaying from something into nothing, because there is only transformation, if you give up that notion then we are entering the world of Magic.
-Insisting on it being elementary and capable of decay, means that it has it has to brake into pieces,
and would therefore by definition no longer be regarded as elementary.

> So an elementary particle decaying is a 'contradictio in terminis'.

Hence as it decays, it has constituants, and therefore it could be subject to the above proposed mechanism of delaying the falling apart, due to entering a denser medium.

Generally speaking : May i remark that we are not exacly in the correct topic section to assess some newly proposed theory, this thread was about the speed of light etc. It was not my intention to propose in this section a full account of my model.
Perhaps we should conclude here on the model, after of course your responses on the above should you want to give any, Markus, in particular i am willing to learn more about the required non-linearity.

I would gladly continue these discussions
in the topic of 'Model for a consistent theory...'

54. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
@KJW

Correct rules, yet no special frame of reference :

It is not so easy to answer , and i am developing the clarification continuously.
But it is, i believe, THE key of it all, the key to a unifying theory.

On one hand there is GR with multiple definitions, equasions involving the c factor,
and they turn out to be very usefull and correct with the observed, the empyrical.
And the curvage characteristics explaining things Newton could not.
These are is in my view the valuable parts of GR, extremely valuable.

On the other hand there is the matter of symmetry, no preferred frame of reference,
developed into an explanatory theory for the observed. And the consequently supposed continuous spacetime.
This in my view is the unvaluable part of GR.
The problem you need to solve is that GR is based on the absence of any preferred frame of reference. If there were preferred frames of reference, there would be no GR. The absence of preferred frames of reference is actually quite a powerful principle in that one can derive physical fields as well as laws of physics from that principle. Without that principle, those derived fields and laws of physics would not exist. Thus, one could argue that if there were preferred frames of reference, then there would be no energy-momentum or gravitation. But there is energy-momentum and gravitation and these satisfy the requirements of GR. But if energy-momentum and gravitation existed for other reasons, then it would be unlikely that they would naturally satisfy the requirements of GR because the principle that gives GR its characteristics would be absent, and it would just be a fortuitous accident.

Looking at what you said in your post, it seems to me that you are taking known physical phenomena and are trying to make them fit within your framework. The problem with that is: How are you going to deal with unknown physical phenomena? Einstein didn't derive GR to account for anomalies in Newton's theory. Einstein derived GR to extend the notion of relativity to gravitation. In doing this, Einstein found the unaccounted for 43"/century in the perihelion advance of Mercury. But it is important to note that this value would have been present in the theory even if Einstein was not aware of this anomaly in Newton's theory.

55. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Can you clarify more on the required non-linearity ?
What is meant by this is that gravity "self-interacts" in a fashion - the primary source of gravity is the stress-energy tensor, but the very fact that the field equations are highly non-linear means that the field also couples to itself, in a manner of speaking. It is for example possible ( in theory ) to come up with topological constructs that are held together purely by their own gravitational self-interaction, in the complete absence of any energy-momentum ( these are called geons ). In general, in the Einstein field equations, each component of the metric tensor not only depends on energy-momentum, but also on other components and their derivatives. This is quite unlike the Newtonian case.

How elementary are they really if they can have a changeable lifespan ?
They are elementary in the sense that currently available deep inelastic scattering data shows no sign whatsoever of any internal structure or constituents of these particles.

If an elementary particle is regarded as only existing of itself, that is 'one something', no constituents,
then what would it decay into ?
Other elementary particles, while obeying all relevant conservation laws.

It cannot be decaying from something into nothing, because there is only transformation, if you give up that notion then we are entering the world of Magic.
Yes, it is transformation in that the relevant conservation laws are upheld. No one said that they are decaying "into nothing".

Insisting on it being elementary and capable of decay, means that it has it has to brake into pieces
No, decay does not mean "breaking up into pieces"; remember that elementary particles are not classical objects, and do not behave according to the rules of classical mechanics. When we consider such particles, we are dealing with a system that is inherently quantum in nature.

Perhaps we should conclude here on the model
Fair enough.

Have you read through my "GR Primer", which is a sticky in the physics section of this forum ? This will give you a basic feel of the structure of the field equations, and will demonstrate immediately how they are non-linear and coupled.

56. Ok, thank you Markus

57. Noa:

If an elementary particle is regarded as only existing of itself, that is 'one something', no constituents,
then what would it decay into ?

Markus :

Other elementary particles, while obeying all relevant conservation laws.

But this is in all honesty - in the context of all the above - the point where i have reached the end of my patience with this fairy tale.

I remain confident that mainstream science will gradually shift in the upcoming years
towards a serious demystification of certain elements of GR, such as time as a separate dimension,
symmetry, experiencing the same laws of nature in both understood frames of reference etc, a continuous nature of spacetime...
(And as i said, referring to my answer in post 50, i respect indeed the established GR formulas and their usefullness in science and technology.)

A very high degree of nuance is necessary, and old taboes must be broken.

I really hope that in the next 10 years, persons like Verlinde 'and friends' will bring clarity
into all of these nonsentical aspects, reconciling things, by means of a fundamental explanation in simple 3D reality.

"Once the earth was flat and now it is round."

Shoot me for 'pulling that Galilei card' if you like, but that is how seriously messed up the currently established understandings are.

That is why i cannot stay on this forum, because people here are deaf to reason.

58. Originally Posted by Noa Drake

But this is in all honesty - in the context of all the above - the point where i have reached the end of my patience with this fairy tale.
Decay chains of elementary particles ( and their respective conservation laws ) are well established, and easily observable in any particle accelerator - hence empirical fact. I am not sure where the "fairy tale" is to be found in any of this.

59. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
but that is how seriously messed up the currently established understandings are
Do you expect your theory to contain any mathematics?

60. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
but that is how seriously messed up the currently established understandings are
Do you expect your theory to contain any mathematics?
It will provide the true nature, mathematically, and subatomically supported with undyniable calculus,
as the quantum link, for the Universal law of gravitation by Newton. Embedded in the extended notions by Einstein.
My model is derived from a totally different perspective then theoretical science, yet describing the same, and increasingly
consistent ever since my first assumptions.

The likes of this professional scientist, Daniele Oriti (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics),
will provide elaborate equasions and derivations,
as his type of models will start to dominate in upcoming years.
I came amongst others across his article today, searching for relevance of my assumptions.

[/COLOR]]Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) | Research News | AEI Potsdam | Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

As naive and underdeveloped as James Maxwell's 'molecular vortices' were,
he will prove to be the founding father of 21th century understandings of gravity.

@Markus

I do not doubt the decay into other particles, but the GR argument was about the lifespan extention caused by slowing down of time there, saying that as these particles have no constituents that must be proof that it is time itself slowing down and not their constitution influenced directly due to motion towards the earth.

And as i said, i quit here, anyone can reach my by email.

61. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The likes of this professional scientist, Daniele Oriti (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics),
will provide elaborate equasions and derivations,
as his type of models will start to dominate in upcoming years.
I came amongst others across his article today, searching for relevance of my assumptions.

[/COLOR]]Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) | Research News | AEI Potsdam | Quantum steps towards the Big Bang
I think most people assume that Loop quantum gravity or something similar (Causal dynamical triangulation, String theory, etc) will turn out to be the correct way to unify gravity and quantum theory. And they may all turn out to be different approaches to the same underlying theory.

Perhaps you could explain what that has to do with your ideas, because it isn't clear.

As naive and underdeveloped as James Maxwell's 'molecular vortices' were,
he will prove to be the founding father of 21th century understandings of gravity.
He already is. His work provided the basis of relativity.

62. I would disagree on your last remark, a discrete medium for gravity destroys all basic assumptions of Relativity.
Einstein erased that foundation from his legacy, a foundation that will prove to be very important, in fact the unifying link.

63. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
I would disagree on your last remark, a discrete medium for gravity destroys all basic assumptions of Relativity.
And yet that is exactly the problem that Oriti and all the others working on quantum gravity are trying to address. It must turn out that any such theory must have general relativity as an approximation for most situations. This should mean that Maxwell's equations also emerge from the same underlying theory and also turn out to be an approximation.

64. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
I do not doubt the decay into other particles, but the GR argument was about the lifespan extention caused by slowing down of time there, saying that as these particles have no constituents that must be proof that it is time itself slowing down and not their constitution influenced directly due to motion towards the earth.
Gravitational time dilation also happens if the particles are not in motion; it is a function of gravitational potential only.

65. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
I do not doubt the decay into other particles, but the GR argument was about the lifespan extention caused by slowing down of time there, saying that as these particles have no constituents that must be proof that it is time itself slowing down and not their constitution influenced directly due to motion towards the earth.
Gravitational time dilation also happens if the particles are not in motion; it is a function of gravitational potential only.
I understand that, as i have indicated in post 50. Being in the denser medium, which is closer to earth, will slow down the rate of decay, as opposed to being in a less dense medium radially further away from the earth centre.
And should you approach the earth even more, then the slowing down of the rate of decay will increase (decay takes longer), because you will end up in an even more dense medium. Hence 'time' for that particle seems to have slowed down.
And if that particle were to have had a clock in his backpack so to speak, then it would slow down at the same rate.
It is understood here that to stay put in the same area of density, will produce a constant rate.

If you or KJW may have the assumption that my propositions could lead to anything substantial
(i do have more than i put on the forum), then you can reach me on my emailadress indicated.

Also it has become tiresome and stressfull to get negative, opposite, or no response for months,
i don't handle that very well.

I will peacefully continu working on it, outside the forum,
but i know that if complementary skilled people would
contribute, it might just become very very substantial.

I know that those who have been around here for a long time,
will think "we have seen it all before, a wast of time".
I don't think you will have seen it before, but then anyone can make up his own mind.

66. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
I would disagree on your last remark, a discrete medium for gravity destroys all basic assumptions of Relativity.
And yet that is exactly the problem that Oriti and all the others working on quantum gravity are trying to address. It must turn out that any such theory must have general relativity as an approximation for most situations. This should mean that Maxwell's equations also emerge from the same underlying theory and also turn out to be an approximation.
It is a pity that i am not understood.
In post 50 i expressed my respect and value for the obtained equasional results by GR containing the factor c, resulting in correct predictions on empyrical data.
I indicated a nuance to be taken to it.

The challenge is to make the predictions fit for your new model (bending of light, blueshift redshift, the clock issue and many more),
yet at the same time lose the assumptions on symmetry and an included time dimension.

This is because a discrete medium for gravity immediately hands you one local dominant frame of reference : the medium itself, destroying symmetry.
Hence my investigation on the micro-meaning of the c factor in the formulas, to arrive at an explanation with simple 3D reality as the stage. The latter being the most sensible solution in my oppinon, given the fact that science itself has always over the course of history, indicated the mystical or magical to be a veil for underlying hard scientifically proven functionalities.

What i have noticed in many of the papers working on a new approach, by professional, credited scientists
(be it discrete spacetime, entropy, thermodynamics etc),
is that the content of those papers is intrinsically not in agreement with or at least moving away from notions of 'spacetime' (instead of space and time) and 'symmetry'.
Yet at the end of such a paper then is indicated 'that it's all in conformity with GR and spacetime etc".

Because discrete elements are independent and they can be used as points to which motion relatively occurs.
And if you were then to try and 'glue' them to the continuous fabric so to speak to make things compliant,
then they would no longer be discrete.
>> Saying A means automatically that B is implied.

That line they hold on to is getting very thin in those papers,
and will at some point in the future disappear.

Further: If a new theory is to reconcile GR with QM, then surely GR and QM will prove to be only partially correct and or incomplete - the best elements of both - so the new theory should comply to those elements (and their experimentally verified relevance) , but will also bring on that replacing crucial new unifying factor.

Remark :
You may tink, why would an entropic or thermodynamic approach also have to imply a discrete medium for gravity > Because these dynamics are in need of a medium for propagation or transmission from one to another.

67. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Even if your premise was correct, you are imagining something like the head of a snake wiggling through space. Light however travels at the same speed, no matter the amplitude or frequency, indicating that even if your rough idea about the prevailing fields were correct, that the perpendicular "displacement" is independent from the linear movement. No? Like when you fire a bullet, it will drop at the same speed as one you let go from your hand, no matter what the muzzle velocity is.

But this is all irrelevant, since your fundamental understanding is flawed.

68. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The challenge is to make the predictions fit for your new model (bending of light, blueshift redshift, the clock issue and many more),
yet at the same time lose the assumptions on symmetry and a separate time dimension.
I'm afraid I completely fail to follow your reasoning - if you destroy the underlying symmetries by introducing a Lorentz-violating medium, you will not be able to make the predictions fit. It's like replacing the wheels of a car with pyramids, and expecting the car to still run the same way as before.

What i have noticed in many of the papers working on a new approach, by professional, credited scientists
(be it discrete spacetime, entropy, thermodynamics etc),
is that the content of those papers is intrinsically not in agreement with or at least moving away from notions of 'spacetime' (instead of space and time) and 'symmetry'.
Yet at the end of such a paper then is indicated 'that it's all in conformity with GR and spacetime etc".
I know of no accredited, professional scientist who seriously contemplates abandoning the space-time symmetries underlying GR; in particular, that is not what Verlinde is proposing at all. If you believe that that is what he does, then, without wanting to be disrespectful, I need to tell you that you haven't understood his papers very well.

Because these dynamics are in need of a medium for propagation or transmission from one to another.
No they aren't. Entropy is a measure of how many micro states a system can have; this does not require any medium. For example, these micro states could turn out to be topological invariants of the underlying space-time manifold. The point is that this hints at the possibility of a quantisation of space-time itself, but this quantisation can very well be geometric and/or topological ( or even pre-geometric ) in nature. Loop Quantum Gravity is a good example for such a model, so is Causal Dynamical Triangulations; in both of these you have geometric operators with discreet eigenvalues, but neither of which postulates a medium for gravity.

69. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
I will peacefully continu working on it, outside the forum,
I think it will probably be the best thing to do - work through it, and see for yourself.

As a little test for yourself, I'll leave you with this : suppose we have a very small spherically symmetric body with total mass of 1 solar mass ( e.g. a black hole ). Consider a spherical shell around the body at a distance r=4km from its centre; consider a second shell at a distance r=5km ( in usual Schwarzschild coordinates ). Euclidean geometry tells us that these shells should be at a radial distance of 1km from each other, right ? GR disagrees, however - the question becomes what would an observer with a ruler actually measure as distance between these shells ( proper distance ) ?

Once your model is complete and can give a numerical prediction, come back to us and we will tell you whether it is right or not. Hint - the proper radial distance actually measured with a local ruler is very much greater than 1km, in fact it is greater by several orders of magnitude. GR gives the precise number - can you and your model ? And if you can give the answer, can you do the same with bodies that have angular momentum and net electric charge ?

70. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
It is understood here that to stay put in the same area of density, will produce a constant rate.
If you are at a different planet at a location where the density is the same as at the location on earth, will the rate be the same? In other words, are you applying a principle of relativity to conclude that the same density leads to the same rate regardless of where that same density is? If you assume that it is correct to apply this principle of relativity, then why is it not correct to apply a principle of relativity for general relativity?

71. @ Markus : your quote :

"I know of no accredited, professional scientist who seriously contemplates abandoning the space-time symmetries underlying GR; in particular, that is not what Verlinde is proposing at all. If you believe that that is what he does, then, without wanting to be disrespectful, I need to tell you that you haven't understood his papers very well."

Have a look at this video presentation by Verlinde : (click video in CDS)

https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDis...?confId=136461

A
t time indicated in the video : 04:11 and 24:05 in particular :

Spacetime is not the only way he says, concerning gravity forces.

And personally i do not see how a force like osmosis, being objects guided in a discrete medium
(a major factor in his new vision)
would eventually leave one shred of spacetime left standing as a mechanism for gravity.

This does not mean that he would take such steps in his next paper, we don't know that yet.
For the moment he is elaborating on the relation with temperature, but then that is exactly what a discrete medium
for gravity would be related to (this bit being my oppinion)

"Entropy is a measure of how many micro states a system can have"

Such a system could consist of discrete particles, having a certain amount of degrees of freedom as a whole, locally.
Changing those degrees of freedom ( a dynamic event) causes motion for objekts in it.

72. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
It is understood here that to stay put in the same area of density, will produce a constant rate.
If you are at a different planet at a location where the density is the same as at the location on earth, will the rate be the same? In other words, are you applying a principle of relativity to conclude that the same density leads to the same rate regardless of where that same density is? If you assume that it is correct to apply this principle of relativity, then why is it not correct to apply a principle of relativity for general relativity?
Another planet has its own spherically distributed region of density of the discrete medium around it.
If that planet for instance had more mass, then it would not have the same density in the same location as earth.
The same density would be located further away from the centre then in the case of the earth.

But that has little to do with things because the 2 fields are not dependent on one another.

Although i may have not correctly understood your question.

73. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Although i may have not correctly understood your question.
It certainly sounds like it.

You are on Earth where the density of whatever-it-is is X. Your twin brother is on Plane Grog where the density of whatever-it-is is also X.

Do your clocks run at the same speed?

74. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The elecromagnetic field waves indeed, except nobody knows what it looks like or what it is made of.Apparently it is not necessary in theoretical physics that something is made of 'some thing'.Also, the quoting of the rules of the theory does not provide insight in the microstructure of reality.The fact remains that the light slows down under certain conditions,with the consequences suggested above.I cannot but stay in disagreement with the provided clarifications on this matter.
Even if your premise was correct, you are imagining something like the head of a snake wiggling through space. Light however travels at the same speed, no matter the amplitude or frequency, indicating that even if your rough idea about the prevailing fields were correct, that the perpendicular "displacement" is independent from the linear movement. No? Like when you fire a bullet, it will drop at the same speed as one you let go from your hand, no matter what the muzzle velocity is.

But this is all irrelevant, since your fundamental understanding is flawed.
I have studied that item,
and have got it down both sharply numerically and as a concept.
That bit looks so nice that i don't want to show it just yet.
This apart form the case where extreme densities are involved,
such as those near the edge of a massive planet.

75. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
would eventually leave one shred of spacetime left standing as a mechanism for gravity.
He arrives at the Einstein Field Equations, which are all about space-time. Furthermore, nowhere in his paper does Verlinde argue that space-time needs to be abandoned as a concept, nor does he attempt to introduce some ethereal "medium". What he postulates is that gravity ( which remains curvature of space-time ! ) is ultimately due to the tendency of systems to increase in entropy through a mechanism of the holographic principle.

I think you should go back, forget about YouTube, and carefully study his actual paper.

76. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Although i may have not correctly understood your question.
It certainly sounds like it.

You are on Earth where the density of whatever-it-is is X. Your twin brother is on Plane Grog where the density of whatever-it-is is also X.

Do your clocks run at the same speed?
Yes they would.
But how is that relative to one another ?

In each case there is a relation between the density of the local medium and the rate of the local clock.
This was the whole point : the discrete medium becomes the thing to relate to.
That is not the same as relating the embankment to the train and vice versa for instance.

Was that the question ?

77. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
would eventually leave one shred of spacetime left standing as a mechanism for gravity.
He arrives at the Einstein Field Equations, which are all about space-time. Furthermore, nowhere in his paper does Verlinde argue that space-time needs to be abandoned as a concept, nor does he attempt to introduce some ethereal "medium". What he postulates is that gravity ( which remains curvature of space-time ! ) is ultimately due to the tendency of systems to increase in entropy through a mechanism of the holographic principle.

I think you should go back, forget about YouTube, and carefully study his actual paper.
It is not youtube, it is this :
(And the man is undergoing evolution i would say, in his quest.)

CERN Colloquium
On the Origin of Gravity, Dark Energy and Matter.

by Prof. Erik Verlinde (University of Amsterdam)

Thursday, 28 April 2011 from 16:30 to 17:30 (Europe/Zurich)
at CERN ( 503-1-001 - Council Chamber )

>>And his talk at timing in the video 04:19 to 04:45 is explicit on spacetime

78. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Although i may have not correctly understood your question.
It certainly sounds like it.

You are on Earth where the density of whatever-it-is is X. Your twin brother is on Plane Grog where the density of whatever-it-is is also X.

Do your clocks run at the same speed?
Thank you.

79. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Although i may have not correctly understood your question.
It certainly sounds like it.

You are on Earth where the density of whatever-it-is is X. Your twin brother is on Plane Grog where the density of whatever-it-is is also X.

Do your clocks run at the same speed?
Yes they would.
But how is that relative to one another ?

In each case there is a relation between the density of the local medium and the rate of the local clock.
This was the whole point : the discrete medium becomes the thing to relate to.
That is not the same as relating the embankment to the train and vice versa for instance.

Was that the question ?
You applied the principle that the laws of physics are same for the same density regardless of the location of that same density. You obviously didn't realise it, but you have in fact applied a principle of relativity. Given that you have accepted this principle in your theory, why doesn't it also apply to general relativity?

80. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Although i may have not correctly understood your question.
It certainly sounds like it.

You are on Earth where the density of whatever-it-is is X. Your twin brother is on Plane Grog where the density of whatever-it-is is also X.

Do your clocks run at the same speed?
Yes they would.
But how is that relative to one another ?

In each case there is a relation between the density of the local medium and the rate of the local clock.
This was the whole point : the discrete medium becomes the thing to relate to.
That is not the same as relating the embankment to the train and vice versa for instance.

Was that the question ?
You applied the principle that the laws of physics are same for the same density regardless of the location of that same density. You obviously didn't realise it, but you have in fact applied a principle of relativity. Given that you have accepted this principle in your theory, why doesn't it also apply to general relativity?
It only appears that way, because it is very different as my last paragraph there tried to explain.

The embankment and the train have the same laws of physics going on in GR,
but in my model the discrete medium is NOT moving relative to the embankment,
but the discrete medium IS moving relative to the train.

> So they are not experiencing the same laws of physics at all.

So this embankment-train situation is very different compared to say an airplane experiencing gravity due to a certain density around planet A or planet B, because these last two are 2 separately rotating planets, having each thire own co-rotating discrete medium.

81. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
but in my model the discrete medium is NOT moving relative to the embankment,
but the discrete medium IS moving relative to the train.
So the motion of your medium is not affected by the motion of physical objects.

because these last two are 2 separately rotating planets, having each thire own co-rotating discrete medium.
So the motion of your medium is affected by the motion of physical objects.

Hmmm...

It will be interesting to see what physical properties you have to give your medium to resolve this apparent contradiction.

At what point between, say, the Earth and the Moon, does the medium stop co-rotating with the Earth, and tart co-rotating with the Moon. Or, for that matter, start co-moving with the ISS. Or any of the many long distance space probes. Or ...

Aether drag hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did i even bother to start responding again,
against the mountain of disbelieve you and others have put up.

Tell me then, if spacetime is undergoing distortion due to drag by the earth (precession Murcury consequently),
then something fysical was moving relative to something fysical adjacent to it (spacetime against another part of spacetime),
talk about a contradiction : the spacetime moves relative to itself. >>> Spacetime IS the discrete medium.

Such a concentrical slip would cause this 'spacetime' to stretch its elasticity onto eternity, ever stretching out, and would have been doing so since the existence of the earth (the same for all other planets etc). Giganticly rediculous, the continuous 'alien' fabric we should call it.

If it were a discrete medium, that is spacetime 'without time attached to it' so to speak,consisting of individual components at Plack level, then such wild abberrations would not have to take place. And then such relative motion in the drag would be normal and perfectly explainable. Also the emergent curvage would come into place in a very natural way.

No no, we would rather have time itself go slower instead of clocks (and the rest of it) going slower due to fysical encounter with the surroundings, welcome to the Dark Ages, the Mystical, the nonsentical to the max.

One day, hopefully within your lifetime, you will face the fact, due to evolution in science,
that this past century was enormously mistaken as for the deeper nature of gravity, proposed by GR.

Please don't start on the mountain of evidence, where's the evidence for the continuous nature of spacetime, and is it visible ?
The burden was upon he who proposed the theory, and he did not deliver that proof.

But then when somebody comes along to propose 'the aether' ," oh my, it is not visible and not proven to exist, how rediculous..."

> Two standards of assessment clearly.

Do you not understand that the negation of a discrete medium for gravity
is the very cause of the current discrepancy between GR and QM ?
Do you not understand that the time dimension is GONE once one proposes a discrete nature at Planck level for the gravity system ?

Now i'm really done here, i'm getting to angry, i can no longer support the lack of insight.
I wish you and your forum friends wisdom in the upcoming years.

83. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
So they are not experiencing the same laws of physics at all.
That is clearly in contradiction to experiment and observation, particularly since you have previously acknowledged the validity of the mathematics and predictions of GR.

84. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Tell me then, if spacetime is undergoing distortion due to drag by the earth
Geometrodynamics doesn't have anything to do with "drag", since space-time is not a medium in the classical sense.

Such a concentrical slip would cause this 'spacetime' to stretch its elasticity onto eternity
There is no such concept as "elasticity of space-time"; there is only curvature. Again, that is because space-time is not a classical medium.

Please don't start on the mountain of evidence, where's the evidence for the continuous nature of spacetime, and is it visible ?
The burden was upon he who proposed the theory, and he did not deliver that proof.
The evidence was provided in previous posts.

85. It is continuous, and it is dragged ever before and ever to come, causing a.o. the precession, but " no, it is not elastic ".

Whenever someone probes for its fysical qualities , it turns out to be theoretical or 'non-classical'.

And when we suggest it is just theoretical or metaphorical, all of a sudden it is very real.

Obviously something out there is real because it regulates all movement of all matter, we could call it a medium (whoops , i must be a crank now).

And if there is one thing that has nothing to do with moving objekts then it is TIME, that one thing that is not real.

Please read my arguments above and earlier in the thread, and also focus on what Verlinde says, as indicated in the video fragments.

Objekts are moved by a surrounding discrete medium, in simple 3D, clocks and rods are directly affected by this.
(whoops, i must be a crank for suggesting such terrible abberrations..)

Also please read the papers of a younger generation of professional scientists, who are moving towards a shift, a paradigm shift.

'Emergence' is the new discovery direction, and it will have enormous consequences
for our fundamental understanding of gravity and subatomic structure.

And that's all folks.

86. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Noa Drake
So they are not experiencing the same laws of physics at all.
That is clearly in contradiction to experiment and observation, particularly since you have previously acknowledged the validity of the mathematics and predictions of GR.
No experiment at this moment can be the judge of that, since no medium, neither continuous or discrete, has been found (we lack the technology for now). Should we find it, then we can start saying what is moving relative to what, and consequently determine if both bodies experience the same laws of physics. Elementary logic, not a valued concept here regrettably so.
Meanwhile new hypotheses have a right of existence. Mine is a model with discrete medium to which locally only one body is moving, such as the train, obviously.

87. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
What assumptions?

One day, hopefully within your lifetime, you will face the fact, due to evolution in science,
that this past century was enormously mistaken as for the deeper nature of gravity, proposed by GR.
Well, I hope within my lifetime that there will be a great breakthrough in quantum gravity. However, it can't show the last century as mistaken, by definition.

Please don't start on the mountain of evidence, where's the evidence for the continuous nature of spacetime, and is it visible ?
I think you have already been given a pointer to all the evidence for GR as a theory that works, so I won't waste time by posting it again.

The burden was upon he who proposed the theory, and he did not deliver that proof.
I don't know what this statement is supposed to mean. There is overwhelming evidence consistent with GR and (sadly, perhaps) none yet that contradicts it.

Now i'm really done here, i'm getting to angry, i can no longer support the lack of insight.
So you keep saying.

Thank you.

89. Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Thank you.

The Staff rarely deletes accounts of involved members.
Suspension (either temporal or permanent) of a member's account is done only if the member violated (repeatedly) the Forum Guidelines and ignored the warnings of the Staff.

If you wish to end your involvement on the Science Forum, it is advisable to log out and to never come back.

90. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Originally Posted by KJW
You applied the principle that the laws of physics are same for the same density regardless of the location of that same density. You obviously didn't realise it, but you have in fact applied a principle of relativity. Given that you have accepted this principle in your theory, why doesn't it also apply to general relativity?
It only appears that way, because it is very different as my last paragraph there tried to explain.
It doesn't just appear that way. You did apply it whether you realised it or not. And it seemed obvious to you that the same density at different locations should produce the same clock rate. I would like you to think hard about why that should be the case. You also said that a density that is constant over time will produce a clock rate that is constant over time, an application of the principle of relativity over time as well as location.

91. You deleted deliberately my nuanced and correct explanation in your quote.

Strange adopted exactly the same cowardly trick when quoting this, where i specified about the continuous nature :

'The burden was upon he who proposed the theory, and he did not deliver that proof.'

And such backstabbing techniques have been used over and over again,
to preserve the precious continuous spacetime against ironclad logic, sad bunch that you are.

>>How do you want to have a debate if you invoke methods of a coward to win an argument...

May i suggest to the administrator to close the topic i started here,
since the debate is over.

92. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Strange adopted exactly the same cowardly trick when quoting this, where i specified about the continuous nature :

'The burden was upon he who proposed the theory, and he did not deliver that proof.'[/FONT][/COLOR]
And yet you ignore all the "proof" (evidence) that is provided. Is that not "cowardly" by your own definition?

since the debate is over.
But you can't let it go...

93. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Thank you.
I'm afraid that is not something we do unless there is a very special reason. Remember though that everyone here is free to decide which threads to participate in, and which ones not.

May i suggest to the administrator to close the topic i started here,
since the debate is over.
If you no longer wish to participate, simply stop posting and unsubscribe from this thread. The other participants may continue to discuss this or not, again according to their own choosing.
In whatever we do here, it is important to keep a sense of perspective - this is an amateur science discussion forum, not more. It has no meaning or significance in the "professional" scientific and academic world whatsoever, so we all need to retain the ability to sometimes just walk away and leave a discussion be; personally, I don't always find that easy to do, especially once you get emotionally involved in a thread. However, if it gets to a stage where we feel that we can't just walk away, or even go a day without logging in, then it is probably time to take a step back and evaluate our motives.

Remember, all of this here is supposed to be intellectual fun, and perhaps a nice hobby; if you start taking it too seriously by thinking that what anyone says or thinks on here actually makes a difference in the scientific community or mainstream, then you are missing the point entirely.

In any case, I am hoping that you are taking at least some aspects of what has been explained about GR with you when you leave; that is all anyone could have hoped for.

Good luck.

94. Ok, and good luck to you.

95. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
You deleted deliberately my nuanced and correct explanation in your quote.
I deleted the rest of your post from my quote because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I wasn't talking about trains or embankments, or motion, or even the aether per se. I was talking about the principle of relativity. In particular, I was talking about your application of it. I was addressing the fact that it forms a part of your theory even though you loath to think that it does. The point I was making is that the principle of relativity is a deeply fundamental principle that you can't get away from. And you can't simply ignore it because it has profound implications for the nature of reality, which won't go away by ignoring them. My particular concern is how you arrive at your theory rather than the theory itself.

96. 'relativity' has a more everyday meaning than General Relativity in our vocabulary.And i will surely, in my model, be just fine without symmetry.If you want to make your point then please start out to compare apples with apples.

97. The group of scientists , Lorenzo Sindoni, Steffen Gielen and Daniele Oriti ( multi award and grat winning, and working at Max Plack Insitute )are working towards at theory that reflects all my assumptions.Gravity from 3d environment where the spacetime manifold is not fundamental, rather a curved space background.
They are looking into how c is to be interpreted and how discrete space can make everything emergent.

On the Inspire network for scientific papers you will find all of their work.

They are not afraid of deconstructing GR to an underlying microdynamic, in fact it is their goal.

If i am a crank then these professional scientists are also a bunch of cranks.

The thing that makes me confident is that i hadn't read anything from these guys when i constructed my model.

One example, they introduce a preferred frame of reference in space.

I do not have the skills to provide equasional derivations as done in theoretical physics,
but i am capable with a different approach to produce a consistent concept of it, with visual and elemetary logic.

These guys show me that my conceptuals are far from sick and ignorant.

And mark my words,they will make time and symmetry dissapear as fundamental, in the upcoming years.

It is not about 'anti GR', it is about 'pro progress', what could be wrong with that i wonder.
The antithese is not necessary, try and become accustomed to that idea , i would suggest in a well meant way.

98. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
The group of scientists , Lorenzo Sindoni, Steffen Gielen and Daniele Oriti ( multi award and grat winning, and working at Max Plack Insitute )are working towards at theory that reflects all my assumptions.Gravity from 3d environment where the spacetime manifold is not fundamental, rather a curved space background.
They are looking into how c is to be interpreted and how discrete space can make everything emergent.

On the Inspire network for scientific papers you will find all of their work.

They are not afraid of deconstructing GR to an underlying microdynamic, in fact it is their goal.

If i am a crank then these professional scientists are also a bunch of cranks.

The thing that makes me confident is that i hadn't read anything from these guys when i constructed my model.

One example, they introduce a preferred frame of reference in space.

I do not have the skills to provide equasional derivations as done in theoretical physics,
but i am capable with a different approach to produce a consistent concept of it, with visual and elemetary logic.

These guys show me that my conceptuals are far from sick and ignorant.

And mark my words,they will make time and symmetry dissapear as fundamental, in the upcoming years.

It is not about 'anti GR', it is about 'pro progress', what could be wrong with that i wonder.
The antithese is not necessary, try and become accustomed to that idea , i would suggest in a well meant way.
It's important to recognize that scientists everywhere, all the time, are considering new ideas. It's likely that any idea that you have is being considered, or already has been considered by someone else, so merely encountering such shouldn't be taken as validation by itself. What counts is whether there is evidential support for the idea, whether it can replicate all of the successes of the mainstream, and additionally do more. That's a tall order, of course. And by your own admission, you lack the maths ability to do more than talk vaguely about your idea, so you can't even provide specific predictions that would form the basis of experimental tests.

There is another something important that distinguishes what they're doing from what you're doing. You have already declared that "there's nothing that could ever convince" you that you were wrong. That type of dogmatic stance is antithetical to the humble open-mindedness of the scientific method. I don't see Sindoni et al. making such declarations. They are going about the business of science as scientists do, starting with a hypothesis and then seeing where it leads. Again, the universe doesn't much care about an individual's sense of aesthetics. Our job isn't to impose our will on the universe. The universe is as it is. Progress stops whenever we ignore the data and insist that nature conform to our wishes. It didn't work out well for Aristotle. The scientific method is unarguably the best method humans have devised for figuring things out. Open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong.

99. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
.....If i am a crank then these professional scientists are also a bunch of cranks. ....
A lot of them are, that isn't anything surprising. They usually go crank outside of their theory of expertise but not always. This is not something that should be inspiring confidence in anybody which is why it helps to stay a bit skeptical of unsubstantiated claims.
If you search for Nobel Prize winning cranks you will likely find a list of respected scientists who won the Nobel for original research and then seriously damaged their reputations by becoming cranks.

PS You forgot to capitalize your I for "i am a crank." To bad, it would have made you statement look much more compelling.

100. Indeed debates would be a lot more pleasant if we said 'you could be wrong' instead of 'crank'.

The above scientists could be wrong, but the open mindedness on their part, to solve an apparent contradiction is a far better attitude than saying it is impossible or nonsentical. Nothing is lost in trying.

Further , simple calculus can get you very far in trying to prove something, the complexity of the equasions and derivations is not the measure for succes.

101. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Indeed debates would be a lot more pleasant if we said 'you could be wrong' instead of 'crank'.

The above scientists could be wrong, but the open mindedness on their part, to solve an apparent contradiction is a far better attitude than saying it is impossible or nonsentical. Nothing is lost in trying.

Further , simple calculus can get you very far in trying to prove something, the complexity of the equasions and derivations is not the measure for succes.
Sorry, but that's what many cranks say, to invent a rationale for having no maths. Unfortunately, Noa, simple calculus will not suffice at all to describe what we have experimentally observed. So, although the complexity of equations by themselves is not a guarantee of success, the absence of the ability to handle the required high level of complexity is a guarantee of failure. You are, once again, letting your dogmatic faith in simplicity cloud reality.

And you leave yourself vulnerable to the crank charge in declaring that there's nothing that could ever convince you that you are wrong. Scientists don't say that. Evidence trumps feelings. Those who adamantly reject even the possibility of being shown wrong are...well, cranky, if not cranks.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement