Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Aether Is A Drag :)


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 01 November 2019 - 03:12 PM

1. A gravitational aether exists in the form of a non-physical medium described by classical pseudo forces.

2. It was asserted in mainstream history that an aether has to be immobile, but a gravitational medium is allowed a motion through a Ricci flow. Basically, just like the heat equation, geometry is allowed to flow.

3. We define non-physical exactly how classical fields are described - in other words, it has no quantum mediator and so by conclusion, no gravitons. However, what is still unclear to me is the role of quantum mechanics because [it] on the other hand is fundamental to the medium and is the reason why we say the medium is not a true Newtonian vacuum of nothingness.

4. Like all mediums, the gravitational field determines for itself a refractive index in which light can transmit. Initially, Fresnel believed that the motion of the medium would add to the velocity of the particle, but concluded that the contribution was too small to detect. I have modified this in glaring errors of trying to add velocity to light which is impossible, however, a geometric drag interpretation would explain why the speed of light is only a constant in free space and is therefore appears variable considering the strength of the geometric properties of spacetime.

5. By conclusion, a gravitational drag would become the origin of inertia and determined largely by local contributions of the stress energy tensor rather than a holistic case (Machian relativity) . This is why it is easier to move along the surface of a planet rather than to leave it with an escape velocity. It also would explain how weight is involved (more mass indicates a larger drag) and that can also be interpreted into the energy content of the system as envisioned by Einstein, but told us very little and for cosmology, the binding energy of a solar system or quite possibly a galaxy. The drag is also loosely the reason how the sun exerts its force on the solar system, the planets are literally dragged along with it. Again, while the speed of light can appear to vary, when it travels in the same direction as the spin, no velocity is contributed to light, as Fresnel believed, in all these cases, light is still traveling at the speed of light, its just that space is dynamic. These are the same conditions that can allow galaxies to appear to recede at speeds greater than light but like in this case too, relativity is not violated, it is just a contribution of a moving spacetime.

6. Such a drag has been confirmed by experiment, first through the delay of light bounced from planets suggesting the presence of gravity indicated more length for the photons to travel through. It was detected also from the spin, in which light has to travel a little bit longer when moving against the rotational direction of the Earth. This latter phenomenon was also due to a drag of the Earth on the photon, which also can be interpreted as a geometric flow in the direction of spin. One might think this is like running up a stream and in a sense this is a good analogy, in which the stream is space flowing - and spacetime really does flow, space pushing down on us is the reason we stand on the Earth and feel a force of gravity. These sorts of dynamics leads to frame dragging and in stronger gravitational cases, torsion. The importance of retaining torsion in general relativity is supported by the principle of space symmetries, known also as the Poincare symmetries.

7. The drag and its relationship to spin from torsion may play a larger role in the construction of galaxies themselves. Early work showed that the supermassive black hole in the center of galaxies shared a peculiar relationship to the size of the bulge to the velocity of the stars which sprung models for dark matter. The fact didn't seem to catch the attention of physicists enough to think widely that maybe a local source of gravity was responsible for galactic curves. Additionally, it so happens that the supermassive black hole for a standard disk galaxy like our own has the same energy content as required to bind a galaxy together. With further evidence in which galaxies themselves never rotate in an opposite direction to the supermassive black hole, indicates a gravitational drag on the system. Furthermore, dark matter disappears from galaxies as late for the first four billion years: It is understood from this model that this can be understood if the supermassive black holes at that time where not large enough, they needed a four billion feast beforehand. Current dark matter models cannot explain where the missing matter has went to. The alternative explanation for the rotation of galaxies and their supermassive black hole, could be that the black hole developed from the collapsing dust of a galaxy, but under a unified field approach, it seems the presence of these black holes during the first creation of galaxies would explain a number of large scale properties, such as serving a role in gravitational seeding. On top of this, work has shown a very large preference in the direction of spin of a large number of galaxies that were studied, suggesting maybe the early universe had a spin itself. Therefore, the early primordial spin contributed its own drag on galaxies, and like electrons in a magnetic field, aligned their spin with it.

Edited by Dubbelosix, 09 November 2019 - 07:44 AM.


#2 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 01 November 2019 - 03:18 PM

For extended discussion including a toy math model

Quora.com/q/mctpkjczfcviwugm

Edited by Dubbelosix, 01 November 2019 - 03:21 PM.


#3 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 09:17 AM

Aspects of aether that remain vital

1. There is no motion of the aether in terms of a mediating particle.

2. Aspect 1.is backed by the misapplication of gravity to quantum mechanics. Further, divergence theorems have been taken by a large number of scientists to mean they are currently non-compatible. It has been largely forgotten that classical fields are not quantized but somehow unification theories by-passed this stonewall without reason - gravity is a pseudo field, you don't quantize the other so why should gravity be any different.

3.If you cannot detect motion then you cannot add evidence to your theory which will make it a non-starter to find solutions to an aether not rooted immobility.

4. A gravitational aether needs to deviate from previous attempts of aether models significantly that it does not run into these kinds of issues from the first principles of relativity.

#4 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 09:24 AM

Still trying to derange the objective I see

#5 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 10:11 AM

Nope, sticking to current understanding. Besides, I have found a nice way to reserve motion in the ether from a Ricci flow which involves no mediator particle. This should be the right path.

Edited by Dubbelosix, 11 November 2019 - 10:13 AM.


#6 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 01:44 PM

Aspects of aether that remain vital

1. There is no motion of the aether in terms of a mediating particle.

2. Aspect 1.is backed by the misapplication of gravity to quantum mechanics. Further, divergence theorems have been taken by a large number of scientists to mean they are currently non-compatible. It has been largely forgotten that classical fields are not quantized but somehow unification theories by-passed this stonewall without reason - gravity is a pseudo field, you don't quantize the other so why should gravity be any different.

3.If you cannot detect motion then you cannot add evidence to your theory which will make it a non-starter to find solutions to an aether not rooted immobility.

4. A gravitational aether needs to deviate from previous attempts of aether models significantly that it does not run into these kinds of issues from the first principles of relativity.

 

 

1) If the mediating particles (of an aether) are virtual could a motion through them be detected ? I think this would be doubtful

2) Can virtual particles produce pressure gradients? yes they can! Casimir effect. 

3) See 1 and 2, we can detect pressure due to reduced density of virtual particles. Gravity can be viewed as a pressure  gradient, a curvature of space, a change in density of virtual particles or even the permeability of space, etc.

4) General relativity is not concerned with the cause of gravity other than mass. It is only concerned with effects. The previous mainstream attempts at defining an aether have failed. 

 

Might you regard an aether as being virtual particles ie zero point energy? Might space not exist without zero point energy of the vacuum. ie with reduced zero point energy density due to absorbtion by mass space shrinks causing a gradient, Maybe.

 

I do not buy the CMBR as an aether or even a refernece frame, for an aether it is a relic of something hot happening and it is getting cooler probably :)



#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 03:34 PM

1) If the mediating particles (of an aether) are virtual could a motion through them be detected ? I think this would be doubtful
2) Can virtual particles produce pressure gradients? yes they can! Casimir effect. 
3) See 1 and 2, we can detect pressure due to reduced density of virtual particles. Gravity can be viewed as a pressure  gradient, a curvature of space, a change in density of virtual particles or even the permeability of space, etc.
4) General relativity is not concerned with the cause of gravity other than mass. It is only concerned with effects. The previous mainstream attempts at defining an aether have failed. 
 
Might you regard an aether as being virtual particles ie zero point energy? Might space not exist without zero point energy of the vacuum. ie with reduced zero point energy density due to absorbtion by mass space shrinks causing a gradient, Maybe.
 
I do not buy the CMBR as an aether or even a refernece frame, for an aether it is a relic of something hot happening and it is getting cooler probably :)


I won't be able to consider further than what has been said in assertion 3 of the OP:

3. We define non-physical exactly how classical fields are described - in other words, it has no quantum mediator and so by conclusion, no gravitons. However, what is still unclear to me is the role of quantum mechanics because [it] on the other hand is fundamental to the medium and is the reason why we say the medium is not a true Newtonian vacuum of nothingness.


- in this sense, I don't ignore the codepency of a quantum zero point field correction to Newtonian fields, I just don't know how it could act as an aether. This aether I speak of [is] the gravitational field, defined strictly as a pseudo force, but can have a motion due to a Ricci flow.

#8 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:58 AM

I see, 

 

Assigning a field to cover an area of space full of quantum froth, is likely a simpler to model, than trying to model each bit of froth which may or may not be entangled. 

 

I do however like to understand the cause of the effect. I suspect it comes down to what is space, the idea that space is constantly popping into and out of existence as zero point energy is intriguing causing the dark energy effect. In SED , atoms absorb zero point energy, which might cause a pressure gradient around the atoms.  

 

I am going sailing fora couple of weeks, thanks for the reply.



#9 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 06:53 AM

I see, 
 
Assigning a field to cover an area of space full of quantum froth, is likely a simpler to model, than trying to model each bit of froth which may or may not be entangled. 
 
I do however like to understand the cause of the effect. I suspect it comes down to what is space, the idea that space is constantly popping into and out of existence as zero point energy is intriguing causing the dark energy effect. In SED , atoms absorb zero point energy, which might cause a pressure gradient around the atoms.  
 
I am going sailing fora couple of weeks, thanks for the reply.


When it comes to cause and effect, it is possible of course virtual particles act as the mechanism of curvature in the presence of mass. I won't rule that out either just yet.