Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) I took it upon myself to write a new post since my last one has been spammed. It's hard to follow when you have a poster, posting things with no relevance to the post. This formulation is much better than the one I chose, which involved replacing a metric term in the Einstein equation with a bivector, instead, we retrieve the Einstein equations in a natural way and forms a more acceptable approach. https://bivector.quora.com/Bivector-Gravity The main equation we derived in this work is; [math]\mathbf{G}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4}\mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] To see how we arrive at this equation, follow the link above. Edited December 23, 2018 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 221 Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) I took it upon myself to write a new post since my last one has been spammed. It's hard to follow when you have a poster, posting things with no relevance to the post. This formulation is much better than the one I chose, which involved replacing a metric term in the Einstein equation with a bivector, instead, we retrieve the Einstein equations in a natural way and forms a more acceptable approach. https://bivector.quora.com/Bivector-Gravity The main equation we derived in this work is; [math]\mathbf{G}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4}\mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] To see how we arrive at this equation, follow the link above. I guess intuitively you are calling some posters spammers on this forum :shocked: Wiki does a better description of bivectors than in your paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivector You have a conclusion at last:) which can be discussed at a higher level (Mordred) :) . I hope my prods (unwelcome comments (talking(taking) piss)) did not hurt too much Is there anything you would like to discuss ??? ref your post or should I STFU . Edited December 23, 2018 by Flummoxed Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2018 Wiki does a better description of bivectors than in your paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivector You have a conclusion at last:) which can be discussed at a higher level (Mordred) :) . I hope my prods (unwelcome comments (talking(taking) piss)) did not hurt too much Is there anything you would like to discuss ??? I'm always constructing the theories I present for further conversation, for instance, I'll be discussing why from the equations how the four dimensional curl of the Einstein tensor will reveal physics that are pretty much identical to the conservation of the 4-current - and then I'll be discussing further why this model implements torsion in a natural way, and unique in a sense, from the mathematical description usually presented through the Einstein-Cartan model. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2018 (edited) So let's start that discussion. The four dimensional wave equation acting on the Einstein tensor reveals: [math]\Box G_{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \cdot T_{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} (\partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu}) + i \sigma \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] Because the d'Alembertian (wave operator) is squared in its derivatives, the total dimensions yields [math]1/length^4[/math] and when we define the gravitational 4-current which is conserved: [math]\nabla^{\mu} \nabla^{\nu} \phi_{\mu \nu} = \nabla^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \cdot \nabla^{\nu} \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma (\nabla^{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu} \times \nabla^{\nu} \mathbf{D}_{\nu}) = \frac{4 \pi G}{c^2}\nabla^{\mu \nu}\mathbf{J}_{\mu \nu} = -\mathbf{R}^{\mu \nu} \phi_{\mu \nu}[/math] This means maybe the continuity relationship holds (?): [math]\Box G_{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} \phi_{\mu \nu} = 0[/math] The torsion naturally arises from the second term in the main equation from the geometric algebra: [math]i \sigma \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] Where torsion arises from the cross product term [math]-\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu} = \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}[/math] Making it satisfy the full Poincare group. Edited December 24, 2018 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2018 (edited) So let's start that discussion. The four dimensional wave equation acting on the Einstein tensor reveals: [math]\Box G_{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \cdot T_{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} (\partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu}) + i \sigma \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] Because the d'Alembertian (wave operator) is squared in its derivatives, the total dimensions yields [math]1/length^4[/math] and when we define the gravitational 4-current which is conserved: [math]\nabla^{\mu} \nabla^{\nu} \phi_{\mu \nu} = \nabla^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \cdot \nabla^{\nu} \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma (\nabla^{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu} \times \nabla^{\nu} \mathbf{D}_{\nu}) = \frac{4 \pi G}{c^2}\nabla^{\mu \nu}\mathbf{J}_{\mu \nu} = -\mathbf{R}^{\mu \nu} \phi_{\mu \nu}[/math] This means maybe the continuity relationship holds (?): [math]\Box G_{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} \phi_{\mu \nu} = 0[/math] The torsion naturally arises from the second term in the main equation from the geometric algebra: [math]i \sigma \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] Where torsion arises from the cross product term [math]-\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu} = \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}[/math] Making it satisfy the full Poincare group. As I normally do, I look for different variations from the theory, here we distribute a derivative through the equation and we change the order of the cross product [math]\partial \mathbf{T}_{\nu} = \partial^{\mu} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \partial^{\mu} [\partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} - i \sigma g_{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}][/math] [math] = \Box \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} - i \sigma g_{\mu \nu} \partial^{\mu} \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}[/math] (note to self, investigate a matter-density as the field varies four dimensionally: [math]\Box \phi = \rho[/math] only this time treat the derivative: [math]D[/math] as a scalar instead) Edited December 26, 2018 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2018 [math]\mathbf{G}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4}\mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] A nice equation can be obtained from the equation above: Working in natural units of [math]8 \pi G = c = 1[/math] and identifying [math]\mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu}[/math] as the inverse of the Einstein tensor, we have a description for the force related to the symmetric gravitational theory and the skew symmetric theory involving the torsion: [math]\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu}[\partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})][/math] What makes this slightly different is that [math]\mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu}[/math] can be interpreted as the spacetime tension, which then relates the tension to the spacetime torsion additionally. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2018 (edited) [math]\Box = \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}[/math][math]\Box = \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} + i (\sigma \partial^{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu})[/math] [math]\Box \phi = \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}\phi + i (\sigma \partial^{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu} \phi) = \rho[/math] Nordstrom derived a simpler version, but he argued the equation says matter depends on the gravitational field - but it is also inversely true that the gravitational field (curved spacetime) depends on the density of matter. So the relationship can be interpreted a few different ways. [math]\mathbf{G}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma^{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] [math]\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu}[\partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})][/math] because [math]\Box \phi = \frac{Gm}{r^3}[/math] being edited: Edited December 27, 2018 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

inverse 3 Posted December 26, 2018 Report Share Posted December 26, 2018 hey dubbelosix: may I ask a question: why don't you try to publish at acceptable journals (especially reputable ones or at least indexed ones) if you achieve that, I am almost sure that most of people including scientists will respect your ideas. but otherwise,you will likely continue to see insulting words everywhere ... this is my honest advice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2018 (edited) Why is force variable? Because [math]G[/math] is variable! The Gravitational Aether and Diffraction of Gravity In A Dynamic Medium If [math]G[/math] had not been variable in the coefficient (Planck force) then it would imply a tension constant; if the tension of spacetime requires dynamic components, this may not be an absolute truth within Einstein's equations - a dynamic tension should exist for a dynamic vacuum. There are so many aether theories that fail, in my mind, this is the only one that makes sense. It is an extract from my essay, but before I post it, I want to quote Einstein, ''General Relativity is unthinkable without an aether.'' A Gravitational Aether Excellent arguments exist now for the existence of the gravitational permittivity and permeability with the discovery of gravitational waves. The constancy of the speed of light only holds in a vacuum - but the density of gravitation varies between celestial objects and therefore the speed of light does technically vary. In fact, authors 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 [math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math]. 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. Let’s be clear about something - I do not believe that the thickness of space (the medium) is an aether made from any particle. In fact there cannot be any motion associated to this aether because it would violate the first principles of relativity. In fact you can argue as I have already done, that any true quantization of gravity would be at odds concerning how we actually think about the roles of pseudo forces. But then physics tends to throw uncertainties into the mix, what if it was possible to violate the third law? We will investigate this in the next part, but first an anomaly… Many experiments have been performed to measure the value of the Newtonian G but has come up with varied results and up until this year another measurement has cast a shadow over settling why we keep measuring different values for the constant. Since in this aether theory I have chosen, both permittivity and permeability will depend on G ~ [math]\frac{1}{\epsilon_G} = 4 \pi G[/math] [math]\frac{1}{\mu_G} = \frac{c^2}{4 \pi G}[/math] This leaves open a question of whether the deviations in the value of G has something to do with variations spacetime permittivity and permeability. This particular theory of the aether, as a dynamical ''thickness'' of space due to varying gravitational density, the refractive index for radiation is proportional to [math]\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}[/math] (permittivity and permeaility) and is represented as: [math]n = \sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_G \mu_G}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/math] A high refractive index for the equation [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math] causes a low speed of light (such as found round strong gravitational fields of black holes). It has been argued in literature that the refractive index is more intuitive than curvature; this suggestion is probably quite true, since curvature is the presence of a dynamic metric but we know not what causes this ''dynamic feature'' other through the presence of matter - which is well-known to tell spacetime how to curve, but still doesn't explain why the dynamic phenomenon exists. In a sense, the gravitational explanation for a refractive index supposes a type of mechanical explanation to curvature. I proposed that the Von Klitzing constant may be subject fundamentally to the permittivity and permeability of space: [math]\frac{\mathbf{J}}{e^2} = \sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}[/math] How to make any sense from this hypothesis so far as shown to be difficult. Edited December 27, 2018 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 (edited) [math]\Box = \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}[/math] [math]\Box = \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} + i (\sigma \partial^{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu})[/math] [math]\Box \phi = \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}\phi + i (\sigma \partial^{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu} \phi) = \rho[/math] Nordstrom derived a simpler version, but he argued the equation says matter depends on the gravitational field - but it is also inversely true that the gravitational field (curved spacetime) depends on the density of matter. So the relationship can be interpreted a few different ways. [math]\mathbf{G}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma^{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] [math]\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \mathbf{A}^{\mu \nu}[\partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})][/math] because [math]\Box \phi = \frac{Gm}{r^3}[/math] being edited: There is also an identity from the main equation that can be obtained, known as the shear stress: A shear stress is when a fluid possesses a motion. In classical physics, this motion is often attributed to the particles which make up the fluid. Aside from zero point energy, there cannot be any particle associated to the vacuum fundamentally - in other words, unification attempts to describe say an aether made of particles, should be forbidden by principles of relativity. It is easy to argue from relativity that thiings like gravitons should probably not exist, due to gravity being strictly a pseudo force. It's not so easy to throw away the idea though that there is some ''particular aether'' associated to quantum mechanics, especially in light of field theory which involves the creation and annihilation of particles in the quantum realm. To say motion is forbidden from relativity, may be a harsh statement, so perhaps we can state: 1. There is no [detectable] motion can be associated to the aether field That is 2. Until we find evidence of particle creation and annihilation on scales much smaller than an atom. There is a lot of energy out there in the vacuum, in fact physics predicts the energy scale as [math]10^{120}[/math] which is how many orders of magnitude in which exists the discrepancy: We do not measure this massive amount of energy, so where is it? Zero point energy is not observable, at least not yet - they are known as off shell particles, and in theory are treated in such a way that they are not described by Hermitian operators (which is the way to create ''observables'' in quantum theory) - off shell particles [are] virtual particles. Might it be there is no such discrepancy and dark energy is really off-shell zero point fluctuations? Why can we not measure this energy? The answer may be surprisingly simple - zero point fluctuations do not generally live long enough to interact with real matter in the vacuum so the presence of this energy is completely shielded from our experimental prowess. In the case of shear stress of a vacuum and the idea of a spacetime tension, have to be gravitational features and analogues of quantum mechanical types. Viewing space like a fluid makes wonderful predicts, as our own cosmological physics is based primarily from derivations involving the ideal fluid solution which also gives rise to the continuity equation (time evolution) within the Friedmann model, something which general relativity ironically enough lacks. Some physicists have considered whether spacetime itself is a type of superfluid! When we say spacetime tension and shear stress have to be gravitational features, has a strong connection with the gravitational aether theory, in which not only is spacetime not nothing, but it predicts that the speed of light and the gravitational constant is variable. It even provides logical reasons out of the information paradox. The speed of light being variable, could very well be true, but we mean this variability in a different sense to thinking it varies without reason. Phenomenon like the Shapiro effect suggests that frame dragging makes light move a longer distance when traveling in the opposite direction of earths spin. In a similar stance, [we know] light does not always move at light speed in a general theory of relativity, in fact it strictly states in relativity, that light moves at c in an empty vacuum (ie when gravity is sufficiently weak) so it remains to be only a special case. However, gravity can affect the speed in which a photon moves, due to the thickness of space cause by a gravitational field - this is why light has to travel that extra bit more when coupling to the curvature of some source of gravity. Now... does a photon then still move at light speed? Of course, it probably does, but relative to someone outside the system watching this happen, would suggest spacetime is the medium and the speed of light varies proportional to the field strength. In gravitational aether theory, the speed of light can only approach zero speeds, therefore light cannot be bent in such a way that there is a point of no return, concerning black holes. It might take a photon billions of years to travel from inside the system and back out again, similar to how a combination of nuclear events and gravity prevents a photon from leaving the inner core of the sun and will take roughly 40,000 years to make its escape! As for variability in Newton's so-called ''constant'' [math]G[/math] surely this is all just pseudoscience I hear you say perhaps? Well no, the implications of a varying [math]G[/math] have been speculated upon for a while, even back to Dirac's large number hypothesis. Historical attempts to measure the value of [math]G[/math] to current day has shown remarkable discrepancies, that vary on either spectrum. It has been argued that a black hole cannot contain a surface tension because it is ''not a thing,'' - that the area boundary of a black hole is not special in the sense it should have a tension, but this depends on the way you might view this. Certainly in analogy, you could theoretically place something on the boundary - and even though this is not about inter-molecular bonds in the way of Van der Waals forces, this does have something to do with the dynamic feature of spacetime itself. Just like placing an object with some surface on water taking extra force to remove it due to the waters surface tension, there is also a force pulling on the system that has touched the event horizon - and so additional force theoretically would be needed to ''pull it out,'' if such a thing could even be possible. I see this as an analogue to a type of spacetime tension. All we need to do, is think of spacetime, not only as a fluid, but a special fluid that varies around massive bodies, like planets, stars and black holes due to the presence of gravity. Back to shear stress - as a I stated, shear stress arises from fluids that are in motion - the Ricci flow is the heat equation for a Riemannian manifold. It is a simple proposition, that curvature itself can flow and this remarkable feature allows a spacetime to take on fluid like features from nevertheless, a heat equation written in a form which uses gravitational physics with a usual diffusion constant. The Ricci flow of curvature should be the missing piece to explain the motion of a spacetime as if it were acting like a perfect fluid in motion. So how do we get the shear stress from the modified EFE? [math]\mathbf{G}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma^{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})[/math] Well what we will find out is the shear stress must be related to the stress energy tensor as: [math]\tau_{\mu \nu} = \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G} \mathbf{G}_{\mu \nu} = \mathbf{T}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G}[\partial_{\mu} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\nu} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma^{\mu} \times \mathbf{D}_{\nu})][/math] This has dimensions of force over area, which is the same dimensions for the shear stress. The relationship of sheer stress to the stress energy tensor has been well-known for a while, whether in this form or not, the stress energy tensor does contain off-diagonal elements which describes the sheer stress of a system from the momentum density tensor. The flux of relativistic mass across a surface is equivalent to the density of the i'th component of linear momentum, [math]T^{0i} = T^{i0}[/math] and the components [math]T^{ik}[/math] represents the flux of linear momentum and the remaining component after [math]T^{ii}[/math] which represents the pressure, then [math]T^{ik}[/math] represents the shear stress. Knowing this we can write it under standard convention: [math]g_{ik} \tau = \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G} \mathbf{G}_{i k} = \mathbf{T}_{i k} = \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G}[\partial_{i} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{k} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{i} \times \mathbf{D}_{k})][/math] Edited December 27, 2018 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 221 Posted December 27, 2018 Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 (edited) Why is force variable? Because [math]G[/math] is variable! The Gravitational Aether and Diffraction of Gravity In A Dynamic Medium If [math]G[/math] had not been variable in the coefficient (Planck force) then it would imply a tension constant; if the tension of spacetime requires dynamic components, this may not be an absolute truth within Einstein's equations - a dynamic tension should exist for a dynamic vacuum. There are so many aether theories that fail, in my mind, this is the only one that makes sense. It is an extract from my essay, but before I post it, I want to quote Einstein, ''General Relativity is unthinkable without an aether.'' A Gravitational Aether Excellent arguments exist now for the existence of the gravitational permittivity and permeability with the discovery of gravitational waves. The constancy of the speed of light only holds in a vacuum - but the density of gravitation varies between celestial objects and therefore the speed of light does technically vary. In fact, authors 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 [math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math]. 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. Let’s be clear about something - I do not believe that the thickness of space (the medium) is an aether made from any particle. In fact there cannot be any motion associated to this aether because it would violate the first principles of relativity. In fact you can argue as I have already done, that any true quantization of gravity would be at odds concerning how we actually think about the roles of pseudo forces. But then physics tends to throw uncertainties into the mix, what if it was possible to violate the third law? We will investigate this in the next part, but first an anomaly… Many experiments have been performed to measure the value of the Newtonian G but has come up with varied results and up until this year another measurement has cast a shadow over settling why we keep measuring different values for the constant. Since in this aether theory I have chosen, both permittivity and permeability will depend on G ~ [math]\frac{1}{\epsilon_G} = 4 \pi G[/math] [math]\frac{1}{\mu_G} = \frac{c^2}{4 \pi G}[/math] This leaves open a question of whether the deviations in the value of G has something to do with variations spacetime permittivity and permeability. This particular theory of the aether, as a dynamical ''thickness'' of space due to varying gravitational density, the refractive index for radiation is proportional to [math]\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}[/math] (permittivity and permeaility) and is represented as: [math]n = \sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_G \mu_G}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/math] A high refractive index for the equation [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math] causes a low speed of light (such as found round strong gravitational fields of black holes). It has been argued in literature that the refractive index is more intuitive than curvature; this suggestion is probably quite true, since curvature is the presence of a dynamic metric but we know not what causes this ''dynamic feature'' other through the presence of matter - which is well-known to tell spacetime how to curve, but still doesn't explain why the dynamic phenomenon exists. In a sense, the gravitational explanation for a refractive index supposes a type of mechanical explanation to curvature. I proposed that the Von Klitzing constant may be subject fundamentally to the permittivity and permeability of space: [math]\frac{\mathbf{J}}{e^2} = \sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}[/math] How to make any sense from this hypothesis so far as shown to be difficult. Just a couple of things, I am sure you are aware of Lorentz ether theory, which gives all the same answers as SR. LET never failed, it just became more fashionable to SR because the maths was easier. A link for those too lazy to google it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Ref the speed of light being variable in free space, I do not believe any experiment has ever shown this to be true. Gravity curves and changes its direction but it is always c. Do you happen to have any measurements proving c is variable in free space? A gravitational field bends the photon field around in ever decreasing circles until it disapears up its own photon field. for example an electron field orbiting a nucleus of an atom, can absorb a photon field raising the electon to a higher energy level. This is exactly the same for a black hole singularity. The similarity between black holes and fundamental particles I find intriguing. ref the aether concept and space, gravity particles etc. I am sure you are aware space is a conductor of fields and all things are fluctuations in the field of space(aether). In the scheme of things it is logical to think space came first, along with quantum fluctuations, with caused time to emerge. At absolute zero these fluctuations might behave differently to how they might at above 2.7K for example. Quantum wormholes, and Quantum particles exist in the Quantum cafe at above absolute zero. I am curious to know where you are going with the third law of thermodynamics :) Are you toying with the idea particle creation, forming clouds of very cold nebulae, which might be primordial matter, a bit like the Boomerang Nebulae for example.Another lazy person link 3rd law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics A gravitational field bends the photon field around in ever decreasing circles until it disapears up its own photon field. for example an electron field orbiting a nucleus of an atom, can absorb a photon field raising the electon to a higher energy level. This is exactly the same for a black hole singularity. The similarity between black holes and fundamental particles I find intriguing. Edited December 27, 2018 by Flummoxed Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 Just a couple of things, I am sure you are aware of Lorentz ether theory, which gives all the same answers as SR. LET never failed, it just became more fashionable to SR because the maths was easier. Ref the speed of light being variable in free space, I do not believe any experiment has ever shown this to be true. Gravity curves and changes its direction but it is always c. Do you happen to have any measurements proving c is variable in free space? ref the aether concept and space, gravity particles etc. I am sure you are aware space is a conductor of fields and all things are fluctuations in the field of space(aether). In the scheme of things it is logical to think space came first, along with quantum fluctuations, with caused time to emerge. At absolute zero these fluctuations might behave differently to how they might at above 2.7K for example. I am curious to know where you are going with the third law of thermodynamics :) i disregard all aether theories, except for the main one, the gravitational aether, which Einstein first proposed and said, that his general theory would be unthinkable without it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 Also, I never said the speed of light was variable in free space, I have clearly stated the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum without the presence of gravity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 (edited) I am curious to know where you are going with the third law of thermodynamics :) Are you toying with the idea particle creation, forming clouds of very cold nebulae, which might be primordial matter, a bit like the Boomerang Nebulae for example.Another lazy person link 3rd law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics A gravitational field bends the photon field around in ever decreasing circles until it disapears up its own photon field. for example an electron field orbiting a nucleus of an atom, can absorb a photon field raising the electon to a higher energy level. This is exactly the same for a black hole singularity. The similarity between black holes and fundamental particles I find intriguing. I've used the third law a few times, first to predict that stable black hole particles cannot exist. I used the third law to predict a cold big bang opposed to a hot big bang, which is at odds with how we understand entropy. In this case, I speak of the zero point field (as off shell energy) meaning it is hidden from plain sight and doesn't normally couple to real matter due to their short life span. Edited December 27, 2018 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 221 Posted December 27, 2018 Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 Also, I never said the speed of light was variable in free space, I have clearly stated the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum without the presence of gravity. Technically you did " but the density of gravitation varies between celestial objects and therefore the speed of light does technically vary" maybe I misunderstood you yet again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 153 Posted December 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 You misunderstand, free space means there is no gravity, everything is absent that could hinder the speed of light. This is why we say, the speed of light travels only at the speed in free space/vacuum with absence of significant gravity. This is why the speed of light varies around celestial objects, because gravity is like a ''thickness'' of space and to some observer, appears as though light slows down in gravitational fields. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Flummoxed 221 Posted December 27, 2018 Report Share Posted December 27, 2018 (edited) You misunderstand, free space means there is no gravity, everything is absent that could hinder the speed of light. This is why we say, the speed of light travels only at the speed in free space/vacuum with absence of significant gravity. This is why the speed of light varies around celestial objects, because gravity is like a ''thickness'' of space and to some observer, appears as though light slows down in gravitational fields. Your definition is correct, I was wrong. free space in British nouna region that has no gravitational and electromagnetic fields: used as an absolute standardAlso called (no longer in technical usage): vacuumCollins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins PublishersI cant find anything credible that says the speed of light varies around celestial objects, do you have a reference ? I did find this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light which suggests some mathematical models need virtual photons to travel faster or slower than light speed, these virtual photons are not directly observable, and therefore may not exist. Nasa state quite clearly that gravity does not affect the speed of light. Is Light Affected By Gravity?Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant.Dr. Eric Christian Edited December 27, 2018 by Flummoxed Quote Link to post Share on other sites

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.