Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A Generalization Of The Lorentz Ether Interpretation To The Einstein Equations Of Gr

Lorentz ether general relativity

  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#18 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1480 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 05:13 AM

My model agrees with both Schmelzer's "phonon"-lorentz ether and the Shapiro effect because it states matter is trapped or "tired light" as Mordred called it, both energy and matter as fluctuations in a vacuum with a Planck geodesic that slows as they propagate due to length contraction but are continously generated as approx c phonons in the same locations within a particle horizon (cmbr).

 

Why are you not discussing this on scienceforums.net with Mordred himself :)  Have you posted under a different name on scienceforums.net 

 

Page 10 of this link shows one of your papers you posted on arxiv being discussed by Mordred https://www.sciencef...#comment-953103 Mordred as usual posts some very good links for anyone wanting to understand the math. Whilst this is not your current paper it is related I think, the links Mordred posts to help understand your math were very useful.

 

PS I still dont see why density of the ether in your model is any different from density of zero point energy in SED. Please dont answer I wont understand.



#19 Schmelzer

Schmelzer

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 07:27 AM

PS I still dont see why density of the ether in your model is any different from density of zero point energy in SED. Please dont answer I wont understand.

The formula for the ether density in the Lorentz ether is [math]\rho = g^{00}\sqrt{g}[/math].  I don't know any formulas of that SED, thus, cannot tell if ether density is something different in SED, and even more why.  To repeat myself, this thread is not a thread about SED.  



#20 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3598 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 10:07 AM

The ether theory which is proposed is universal.  All waves which have the same characteristic speed c, known as the speed of light, are waves of the ether.  
 
The theory consists of two parts, a theory of gravity which does not specify the other fields, but identifies the gravitational field with density, velocity and stress tensor of the ether, and a particular model for the matter fields of the Standard Model of particle physics.
 
So, with the old ether it shares the interpretation of light waves as waves of the ether.  But the waves which are usually identified with sound waves (the acoustic phonons) are degrees of freedom of the gravitational field, moreover, they are those additional fields which appear in the theory only after the preferred frame has been accepted.
 
The extracts about the use of the Shapiro delay are fine, but afaiu are nothing but a confirmation of standard GR, and in these questions there will be no difference between the General Lorentz Ether and GR, so, fine but not really a surprise.


There are already good models for gravitational waves, in relation to an aether. I searched many myself, the best aether model there is, uses a gravitational index. Masanori Sato and Hiroki Sato in their paper ‘’Gravitational wave derived from fluid mechanics applied on the permittivity and the permeability of free space’’ suggests that gravitational waves are simply fluctuations of the medium, which appears as the product of the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. That is, the gravitational wave is an acoustic wave in the medium - the proposal shows how the phase velocity of the fluctuation relates to the speed of light.

The model has some interesting consequences, first being that permittivity and permeability are allowed to vary. A second is that the speed of light is variable in gravitational fields. Another interesting property is that while both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theories predict the confinement of light by gravity, neither theory defines the escape velocity or the Schwarzschild radius; in fact, the actual speed of light can only approach zero but never reach it - so in effect light is allowed to escape from a black hole.

#21 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3598 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 11:23 AM

If it means anything, I do like your ideas, I just think your approach or possibly understanding of aether needs an update.

#22 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 02:43 PM

Why are you not discussing this on scienceforums.net with Mordred himself :)  Have you posted under a different name on scienceforums.net 
 
Page 10 of this link shows one of your papers you posted on arxiv being discussed by Mordred https://www.sciencef...#comment-953103 Mordred as usual posts some very good links for anyone wanting to understand the math. Whilst this is not your current paper it is related I think, the links Mordred posts to help understand your math were very useful.
 
PS I still dont see why density of the ether in your model is any different from density of zero point energy in SED. Please dont answer I wont understand.

I had to fix sok me things, there'd only be one gradient vector at a time and it's angle correlates to the polarity of a spinning universe. Also fixes how the spherical strings propagate, they split in half more like this:

2fjjyuq.jpg

And that's your entangled state. At the exact same time Sycamore a 53-qubit quantum computer achieved the only coherent parallel operation in history. Was that the effect of my brainwaves?

#23 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 02:51 PM

Anyway the further out they go in the split at tp=gazillion with a gazillion of these spheroidal strings crossing and intersecting, you can create an atomic nucleus made up of 0D points where these concentric curves intersect AS THE PARTICLE STATE of those quarks

and around it at the electron radius one large particle (the electron) made up of more 0D points, each representing a single electron state as you will never find the volume or diameter of an electron like you would a quark or a state photon

#24 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 03:00 PM

It accomadates the Shapiro effect because remember from Planck time = 0 to tp=1 it is moving at about c, then from tp=gazillion it's moving at the speed of a quark per frame. That's just the effect of having so many of them and my matrices saying tp=1 it will slow down as it will travel n number of string MINUS 1 / n number of strings as the ratio of distance in Planck lengths, at tp=2 it will travel ((n-2)/n)lp from where it was at tp=1. Remember even when getting denser slower particles there are always instances of tp=0 ergo new photons being created everywhere all the time, except where black holes have reversed the strings returning to tp=0 that is what drives cosmic entropy in my model: cancelling out the particle-pair production in the vacuum.

Basically what my model does to achieve quantum determinism is it reverses the causality of post-newtonian approximations for the gravitational interactions, so that all possible interactions are predetermined by how many Planck spheres can fit into your cmbr sphere volume. Which is not the same size as the observed cmbr it is found by using redshift in the 3.27×c cosmological constant to determine where your hubble radius is in approximation to the center of the universe assuming expansion can never exceed c. This gives a diameter of about 22 giga light years. It gets trickier with holeum black holes whose interiors are evolving in the opposite direction of time with a geodesic adjusted for recurring Planck fractals for miniaturized hyperbolic cosmoses exceeding the radio wavelength. The strings themselves vibrate from 18 to 36 orders of magnitude faster than light two Planck fractals below normal spacetime.

Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 03 November 2019 - 03:25 PM.


#25 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3598 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 03:40 PM

It accomadates the Shapiro effect because remember from Planck time = 0 to tp=1 it is moving at about c, then from tp=gazillion it's moving at the speed of a quark per frame. That's just the effect of having so many of them and my matrices saying tp=1 it will slow down as it will travel n number of string MINUS 1 / n number of strings as the ratio of distance in Planck lengths, at tp=2 it will travel ((n-2)/n)lp from where it was at tp=1. Remember even when getting denser slower particles there are always instances of tp=0 ergo new photons being created everywhere all the time, except where black holes have reversed the strings returning to tp=0 that is what drives cosmic entropy in my model: cancelling out the particle-pair production in the vacuum.
Basically what my model does to achieve quantum determinism is it reverses the causality of post-newtonian approximations for the gravitational interactions, so that all possible interactions are predetermined by how many Planck spheres can fit into your cmbr sphere volume. Which is not the same size as the observed cmbr it is found by using redshift in the 3.27×c cosmological constant to determine where your hubble radius is in approximation to the center of the universe assuming expansion can never exceed c. This gives a diameter of about 22 giga light years. It gets trickier with holeum black holes whose interiors are evolving in the opposite direction of time with a geodesic adjusted for recurring Planck fractals for miniaturized hyperbolic cosmoses exceeding the radio wavelength. The strings themselves vibrate from 18 to 36 orders of magnitude faster than light two Planck fractals below normal spacetime.


Stop hijacking people's threads, it's OK to suggest ideas on another persons thread but it is not cool to post elongated explanations about your own pet ideas. It looks like attention seeking.

#26 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 03:42 PM

Stop hijacking people's threads, it's OK to suggest ideas on another persons thread but it is not cool to post elongated explanations about your own pet ideas. It looks like attention seeking.

It's not even off-topic. It's just a method, like you bringing up so many different methods in this thread, Flummox invited me to share my insights so it's really not attention seeking.

Unless you're concerned about spilling beans.

Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 03 November 2019 - 03:42 PM.


#27 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3598 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 03:57 PM

Everything you said is off topic, right down to holeums. The OP has demonstrated a grasp of some physics, which is why the rest of us are discussing it. You are not, you went off on a tangent with no relevance here whatsoever.

#28 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 04:04 PM

Everything you said is off topic, right down to holeums. The OP has demonstrated a grasp of some physics, which is why the rest of us are discussing it. You are not, you went off on a tangent with no relevance here whatsoever.

It was very mechanically relevant to the frame dragging of a phonon type ether and as well as for different rates of propagation for gravitational waves. For an explanation that covers both, that's why I brought it up in the first place. Even in everted holeum space in this context everything is a spacetime ether, under the syntax of my model even spook action is just gravitation just with a radically different rate, as any fundamental interaction is.

Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 03 November 2019 - 04:07 PM.


#29 Schmelzer

Schmelzer

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 10:44 PM

If it means anything, I do like your ideas, I just think your approach or possibly understanding of aether needs an update.

I see the situation differently.  I have an ether theory which is completely compatible with all of modern physics, which is not just concept, but serious theory, with the equivalence to the GR predictions proven and the proof published in a peer-reviewed journal, and with a microscopic ether model which gives all the fermions and gauge fields of the standard model, and which has also been published in a peer-reviewed journal.  

 

Of course, for many ether theorists compatibility with modern physics seems no longer important, they have rejected it completely and no longer care. But for those who don't share such a complete rejection of modern  physics, the leading ether theory would be the one compatible with modern physics, the one which can even claim superiority in comparison with the mainstream approach for theories beyond the standard model, like string theory, which can quantize gravity without problems (one simply has to follow textbooks of quantum condensed matter theory).  

 

The theory completely changes the general situation.  It is now modern physics, which is inferior, which has no scientific arguments against the ether, because the ether is superior even according to their own standards.  There is no experiment, no observation, where the mainstream theories and interpretations are superior to ether theory now.  Instead, the ether is superior now. 

 

And it is relativity which has been rejected by experiments which prove the violation of the Bell inequalities, forcing the defenders of relativity to reject the very foundations of science, namely realism as well as causality, only to save the fundamentalist interpretation of relativity against the Lorentz ether. 

 

They have no longer any physical arguments against the ether, all that remains on their side is ignorance.  

 

But, of course, for the ether defenders this holds only if they give up their own pet theory and embrace the best variant of an ether theory we actually have, the one which has been published following the rules of their peer-review game, the one which meets all the standards of a viable theory of modern physics, given that one can derive out of it as the Einstein equations of GR, as the Standard Model of particle physics, thus, all the established theories of modern physics which have been supported by empirical evidence. 

 

So, simply look at what has been reached by the various ether theories, following the criteria of the scientific method, even following the criteria of established modern physics.  And then follow the winner.   



#30 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1480 posts

Posted 04 November 2019 - 05:07 AM

The formula for the ether density in the Lorentz ether is [math]\rho = g^{00}\sqrt{g}[/math].  I don't know any formulas of that SED, thus, cannot tell if ether density is something different in SED, and even more why.  To repeat myself, this thread is not a thread about SED.  

 

OK you have been working on this for a long time, I fully recognize this is a serious theory, which requires a lot of time to absorb your introduction of 37 pages is where I am at this morning https://ilja-schmelz...zEtherIntro.pdf



#31 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3598 posts

Posted 04 November 2019 - 05:22 AM

I see the situation differently.  I have an ether theory which is completely compatible with all of modern physics, which is not just concept, but serious theory, with the equivalence to the GR predictions proven and the proof published in a peer-reviewed journal, and with a microscopic ether model which gives all the fermions and gauge fields of the standard model, and which has also been published in a peer-reviewed journal.  
 
Of course, for many ether theorists compatibility with modern physics seems no longer important, they have rejected it completely and no longer care. But for those who don't share such a complete rejection of modern  physics, the leading ether theory would be the one compatible with modern physics, the one which can even claim superiority in comparison with the mainstream approach for theories beyond the standard model, like string theory, which can quantize gravity without problems (one simply has to follow textbooks of quantum condensed matter theory).  
 
The theory completely changes the general situation.  It is now modern physics, which is inferior, which has no scientific arguments against the ether, because the ether is superior even according to their own standards.  There is no experiment, no observation, where the mainstream theories and interpretations are superior to ether theory now.  Instead, the ether is superior now. 
 
And it is relativity which has been rejected by experiments which prove the violation of the Bell inequalities, forcing the defenders of relativity to reject the very foundations of science, namely realism as well as causality, only to save the fundamentalist interpretation of relativity against the Lorentz ether. 
 
They have no longer any physical arguments against the ether, all that remains on their side is ignorance.  
 
But, of course, for the ether defenders this holds only if they give up their own pet theory and embrace the best variant of an ether theory we actually have, the one which has been published following the rules of their peer-review game, the one which meets all the standards of a viable theory of modern physics, given that one can derive out of it as the Einstein equations of GR, as the Standard Model of particle physics, thus, all the established theories of modern physics which have been supported by empirical evidence. 
 
So, simply look at what has been reached by the various ether theories, following the criteria of the scientific method, even following the criteria of established modern physics.  And then follow the winner.


OK... Some new questions... First how does your model vary then from the lumineferous aether. You are aware that most aether theories today are vastly different from those theories. Why do we need your aether?

#32 Schmelzer

Schmelzer

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 04 November 2019 - 06:58 AM

OK... Some new questions... First how does your model vary then from the lumineferous aether. You are aware that most aether theories today are vastly different from those theories. Why do we need your aether?

I started with recognizing that a Newtonian background, which does not exist in GR, would essentially simplify GR quantization and that there is, with the harmonic coordinate condition, a nice candidate to define this background. So, if one wonders how to quantize gravity, then the choice would be the ether (string theory has not proven that it can give QG, it remains only an unproven hope that everything will be finite there.)

 

Then I recognized that with this preferred Newtonian background defined by the harmonic condition, there is also a simple definition of an ether, so that the harmonic condition defines the continuity and Euler equations of the ether.  If one accepts this interpretation, there may, in principle, appear places where the ether tears into parts, so that the ether density becomes zero. One would have to add some boundary conditions in this case, thus, to modify GR. But this is "in principle".  But it has a nice consequence: These modified equations would have to be applied for all solutions with causal loops.  So, if you think solutions with causal loops cannot be reasonable physics, my ether theory is much better than GR. Wormholes and similar sci fi nonsense is excluded too.  So, sci fi writers would prefer GR.  

 

Then I found that one can derive for the Lorentz ether the Lagrangian and the Einstein equivalence principle in a quite simple way, with the action equals reaction principle of the Lagrange formalism being the origin of relativistic symmetry. And this is already a key why we need an ether - to explain relativistic symmetry. What are the alternatives?  One can embrace relativistic symmetry as fundamental, and end up as a relativist who fails to quantize gravity because this is impossible preserving general-relativistic symmetry.  Or one can simply reject it.  Then one looks weak once the relativists point to all the experiments which have never shown a violation of relativistic symmetry, and ask for explanation.  Or you can present an explanation.  I can.  Can somebody else? 

 

Why would one need my ether? It gives a classical common sense compatible picture of the world of modern physics.  String theorists may prefer mysticism of some 11 dimensional space somehow defining a curved spacetime, and the rejection of realism and causality.  But those who prefer a picture of modern physics which is compatible with common sense, realism, causality, have no choice but to embrace the ether.  So, the conflict is between realism and common sense against mysticism and relativism, anti-realism. 

 

In comparison with other ether theories you need my ether because it is the only one which is compatible with modern physics.  The main difference to the luminiferous ether is that my ether is universal, all fields are waves of various properties of the ether, not only light waves.  It is clear that any other ether has no chance, given that all the fields of the SM as well as the gravitational field use wave equations with the same c defining the maximal speed of the wave.  The point of the ether theory was to identify that c with waves of an ether.  But if you follow this line, and claim that the speed c of light waves has to be explained as the speed of waves of an ether, then the same speed of all the other fields cries for being explained in the same way.  

 

So, my ether is also a Theory of Everything.  Yet another reason to prefer it.  If I see yet another approach to ether theory and see that the ether is luminiferous but all the other fields of the SM are not even mentioned, this is already sufficient to throw it away.  

 

Then, if one wants to understand the Standard Model of particle physics, the choice would have to be my ether theory.  There are three generations, three colors, and if you think about these appearances of 3 have something to do with our space being three-dimensional, you can find this in my ether theory.



#33 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:05 AM

Space is the ether.

 

I took a look at your front page, Schmelzer. I concur with the frozen-star black hole and early universe. However I couldn't see a variable c. I searched your 35-page pdf and didn't see it. Did I miss it?

 

John Duffield


Edited by Farsight, 04 November 2019 - 08:08 AM.


#34 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3598 posts

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:18 AM

The issue I have, is that a velocity has been assigned to this aether model - I'd love to tinker on the ideas of the OP but what I would search for would be different to what the OP seeks, which appears to have a lot of likeness to previous aether models. This doesn't make it wrong, it's just that a modern theory of the aether has to dispel previous notions of detection by a wind.

Edited by Dubbelosix, 04 November 2019 - 08:19 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Lorentz ether, general relativity