What Happened?

[dash]

Phil’s Dad wrote: I wonder why you stop at the particle level in your discussion. Can not an infinitely large Universe also be infinitely small?

Along those lines recently I was trying to figure out if an infinite universe can actually “move forward” where every particle in the universe depends on the influence of every other particle in the universe. By “move forward” I mean where every particle progresses in whatever it ought to be doing. If the “next step” of a particle depends on the influence of every other particle in an infinite universe, how can an infinite amount of information be brought to bear on each particle. I’m still uncertain as to whether it’s possible, even with infinite computational ability.

Anyway as I was considering that, I realized that there is the issue of locality. A particle near me does not care what a particle in the crab nebula is doing “right now”. Whatever that distant particle is doing takes years to propagate here, due to the speed of light limitation. As such the influence of the crab nebula on particles in my local vicinity only depends on what was happening in the distant past “over there”.

Specifically it seems possible to have an infinite universe, provided the “aether” or fabric of the universe propagates effects at the speed of light. Every particle affects the aether, and those effects spread outwards. As such each region of the aether is dependent on the rest of the universe, but the problem is mitigated because you only have to be concerned with the immediate vicinity.

Now I’m trying to figure out if it’s possible to have no particles at all, only the “aether” and its characteristic properties. Might an electron not be a particle that exists on its own, and then has an influence on an electric field? Rather, could the “electron” be a stable phenomenon in the “aether” that has the effect of propagating outwards in all directions an effect on the aether like the electric field? So you have only the aether, plus stable “constructions” within that aether that we confuse as being particles. The question is, why have a particle, and then also have its effect on a separate field? Why not dispense with the particle and only have the field?

The way I visualize this is similiar to computer demo effects. There is a “fire” effect where you have a hot spot on a video window, and the “heat” propagates from hot to cold pixels. It’s accomplished with an averaging of neighboring pixels. If you simulate this you get a situation where “heat” bleeds away in a nice circular manner. An electron could be a stable source of “heat” that then bleeds off in 3 dimensions, the heat dissipating in an inverse square manner. Here is a link showing an image of such a “fire” simulation. http://www.xdr.com/dash/fire.html

It occured to me that perhaps there really are only two fundamental “particles” in this aether, the electron and the positron. Maybe somehow there is a stable mode where you get some 900 electrons and 901 positrions together and this blob forms a proton. Or 901 of each forms a neutron. In each case the overall “charge” on the heavy particle is correct, and its mass would be correct also.

Also I was wondering if a stationary electron is a perfectly symmetric structure in the aether, meaning it has a perfectly uniform effect on the aether spreading out in all directions. Perhaps a moving electron is no longer symmetric. It has a different effect on the aether, and this effect is itself moving through the aether.

I’m trying to figure out how special relativity can fall out of this approach. I don’t believe in general relativity, actually. I don’t believe space is warped. Rather, I like a uniform aether that actually does have a fixed reference frame. The question is how to have such a universe yet explain the observed effects.

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

This is quite interesting reading.

“Clifford M. Will wrote:Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eotvos experiment, tests of special relativity, and the gravitational redshift experiment. “

Robitaille questions COBE and WMAP data

Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

WMAP and COBE have produced almost no valid scientific data. The WMAP and COBE teams have be caught deliberately cooking their data books to manufacture the result they want. Smoot’s “wrinkles in the fabric of time” are nothing but ghost remnants of signal processing. Smoot systematically removed the galactic foreground, the dipole signal and quadrupole signal in order to “find” a signal that is ~1000 times smaller than the contamination. His systematic signal processing introduced systematic remnants of his signal processing, and he mistakes these introduced ghost signals for data – his alleged multipole anisotropies. Talk about incompetence.

The COBE-FIRAS team allege the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever measured, hailed by the astrophysical scientists as a triumph that proves their CMB and big BANG. Really? Not the truth by any stretch of the imagination. The FIRAS instrument is so riddled with faults and shortcomings that its data is not worth the paper it’s written on. Their most perfect blackbody spectrum is not a direct measurement of the sky, but a comparison of the sky with the external calibrator Xcal. Owing to significant design shortcomings, the sky undoubtedly leaks into the external calibrator Xcal, and so the sky ends up being compared to itself. The FIRAS team will always get a blackbody spectrum if the sky dominates the external calibration because they assume a blackbody for the sky and for Xcal. But they never even got a proper null, and so they deliberately doctored the data to get one. And all the errors they couldn’t doctor they moved into their calibration files! The COBE-FIRAS team is telling tall tales.

[dash]

dash wrote: I’m trying to figure out how special relativity can fall out of this approach. I don’t believe in general relativity, actually. I don’t believe space is warped. Rather, I like a uniform aether that actually does have a fixed reference frame. The question is how to have such a universe yet explain the observed effects.

Turns out this is a recurring theme in Theories of Everything.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Grand_Unified_Theories

If “particles” are made of something that is always travelling at lightspeed, then when the “particles” are in motion the internal speed must decrease, and so time dilation and the ‘c’ speed limit and all of Special Relativity just fall out.

I especially like the one by Natarajan T.S. http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/natar/1701.html

“POSTULATE I: Every micro particle is endowed with two types of motion, an Internal Motion and an External Motion. … POSTULATE II: The internal motion is a circular motion in a plane with a radius characteristic of the mass of the particle. … POSTULATE III: When a particle has external motion, the internal (circular ) motion is always in a plane normal to the external motion. … POSTULATE IV: The magnitude of the instantaneous velocity of the particle, which is the resultant of its internal and external velocities, is always equal to ‘c’ … POSTULATE V: The angular momentum and the radius of the internal motion are unaffected by the external motion and are therefore the same for all observers. POSTULATE VI: Physical laws are the same in all inertial frames (postulate I of STR).”

Interesting point is all the referenced sites seem to fit a pattern. They pick some set of experimental evidence and ignore the rest, and come up with an intuitive model to describe what’s going on at the bottom level. Then there are varying degrees of equations and math to back it up. Then they make very few predictions. No claims of cheap & easy energy sources, for example.

So — these people are more devoted to the pursuit than I am, and they are much further along. No point in my investing more time in trying to come up with an original approach when it probably isn’t original at all.

-Dave

[pluto]

G’day

You may find this link interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1539
The case for a non-expanding universe

Authors: Antonio Alfonso-Faus
(Submitted on 11 Aug 2009)

Abstract: We present the results of two empirical constancies: the fine structure constant and the Rydberg constant. When the speed of light c is taken away from the fine structure constant, as shown elsewhere, this constancy implies the constancy of the ratio e^2/h, e the charge of the electron and h Planck constant. This forces the charge of the electron e to be constant as long as the action h (an angular momentum) is a true constant too. Then the constancy of the Rydberg expression implies that the momentum mc is also a true constant. This is just the second law of Newton. The Compton wavelength, h/mc, is then a true constant and there is no expansion at the quantum mechanical level. General relativity then predicts that the universe is not expanding. It is the only solution for cosmology. The time variation of the speed of light explains the observed red shift.

[Brian H]

Halton Arp has a flat, non-expanding schema, too: http://haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_for_le_sage_gravity . There are a number of articles on his site there, all worth reading. Interesting work with Hoyle is mentioned.

Arp says matter and light start out small and grow, and that redshift is an illusion. He claims protection from Occam’s Razor (though he doesn’t use the name) — it works without all the fiddly add-ons and particles and assumptions the Standard Model collects.

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzz

Arp is my favorite cosmologist a true leader.

The expansion of the universe is backed by redshift/velocity data which is under dispute. In my opinion the BBT and the expansion of the universe will go down in histroy as the biggest crank pot theories backed by ad hoc theories and supported by churches and politics and money. NASA has been informed by many and yet fall short in placing key people to resolve critical issues and data collecting.

The expansion caused by ejecting matter via jets and the contraction of matter via a universal law of clustering into a gravity sink is observable in many images. These can influence at various levels such as solar systems, galaxy, local groups of galaxies, clusters of local group galaxies and super dooper clusters of thousands of galaxies and so on. The plot thickens.

[pluto]

G’day

You may find this paper interesting to read.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213

The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model — with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity

Authors: Jin He
(Submitted on 9 May 2006 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2007 (this version, v8))

Abstract: The standard model of expanding universe is based on the theory of general relativity (GR) which assumes that spacetime is curved. The reason of curved spacetime was given by Einstein that locally there is common acceleration for all test particles so that gravity is canceled. This is called the equivalence principle. The present paper shows that it is not true for Schwarzschild solution (static gravity of pure spatial inhomogeneity). The paper also presents isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravity. Freely falling particles locally have accelerations of any magnitude and any direction, which also indicates that the gravity can not be locally cancelled too. Realistic gravity is non-static which is the case in between. This indicates that the assumption of curved spacetime is a fundamental mistake. Therefore, a correct gravitational theory or a model of the universe must be based on the absolute flat background spacetime. The existence of such absolute spacetime is shown to be true from the following three basic principles about the universe: (1) the density of large-scale mass distribution of the universe varies with time (corresponding to an isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravitational field); (2) the gravity is described by a Lagrangian which is the generalization to the proper distance of special relativity (the metric form of GR); (3) Hubble law is approximately true. These lead to varying light speed and give account of `accelerating expansion`. Therefore, the assumption of big bang and expansion is incorrect.

[Brian H]

pluto wrote: G’day

You may find thinteresting to read.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213

The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model — with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity

Authors: Jin He
(Submitted on 9 May 2006 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2007 (this version, v8))

Abstract:
…
(3) Hubble law is approximately true. These lead to varying light speed and give account of `accelerating expansion`. Therefore, the assumption of big bang and expansion is incorrect.

Ugh. I wish these high-powered scientists who aren’t native English speakers would drop a dime and get an edit job before they put this stuff out. That “These lead …” sentence is several steps over the line into incoherence.

[dash]

pluto wrote:
You may find thinteresting to read.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213

That is an interesting article.

For instance, on the top of any aircraft can be put a high-speed rotational mass. The rotational gravity produced by the mass can partially offset the earth gravity from beneath the aircraft. Because rotational gravity is squarely proportional to the rotation speed, rotational gravity can be comparable to aircraft weight if the speed is large enough.

Hmm. So one could construct a spacecraft by having a big spinning gyroscope and underneath it you have your cabin. The spinning gyroscope generates its own gravitational force that pulls on the cabin, and it rises. Since it is connected to the gyroscope, the gyroscope is lifted as well. Sort of pulling itself up by its own bootstraps.

The cabin would be in the plane of rotation (perpendicular to the axis of rotation). Seems like it would be trivial to test this. Have a very accurate scale with a weight on it underneath a spinning object, see if the scale changes as the spinning object goes faster and faster.

Personally I’d love if GR were disproved.

[pluto]

G’day

Hello Brian:
A dime a dozen

Sometimes a person gets lost in the concept and cannot find a dime.

Hello dash

Interesting.

[Brian H]

pluto wrote: G’day
…
Hello dash

Interesting.

“Because rotational gravity is squarely proportional to [=proportional to the square of?] the rotation speed, rotational gravity can be comparable to aircraft weight if the speed is large enough.”

Rotational gravity? If it has anything to do with E=MC², it had better have counter-rotating masses, or the aircraft would be spinning in a blur itself. And the gyro disk would have to be unobtainium, so it wouldn’t disintegrate in a blaze of glory.
The on-board energy source would have to be Star Trek dilithium anti-matter, too.

TAANSTAAFS = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Spin. Or gravity.

[dash]

Brian H wrote: TAANSTAAFS = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Spin. Or gravity.

It’s funny. We don’t have a convincing Theory Of Everything, yet we are certain of so much that we don’t even question it anymore.

Perhaps being certain of one’s knowledge is the best ticket to irrelevance. Hmmm.

[Brian H]

dash wrote:

TAANSTAAFS = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Spin. Or gravity.

It’s funny. We don’t have a convincing Theory Of Everything, yet we are certain of so much that we don’t even question it anymore.

Perhaps being certain of one’s knowledge is the best ticket to irrelevance. Hmmm.
On the other side of the scale, credulous acceptance of obviously unbalanced theories is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation ….

But if you want a fine example of what you reference, check out this demolition of Atmospheric Greenhouse Theory from Germany, by a couple of actual competent physicists: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4 (pdf). As a bonus, it also proves that IR blocking has nothing to do with how a glass greenhouse works, either.

[dash]

Brian H wrote: On the other side of the scale, credulous acceptance of obviously unbalanced theories is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation ….

So is everything either black or white to you? Nothing in between?

One must either accept unconditionally what the experts have determined the truth to be, or alternatively one must accept unconditionally the exact opposite viewpoint? The idea of being able to rationally pick and choose for onesself is threatening to you for some reason?

[Brian H]

dash wrote:

On the other side of the scale, credulous acceptance of obviously unbalanced theories is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation ….

So is everything either black or white to you? Nothing in between?

One must either accept unconditionally what the experts have determined the truth to be, or alternatively one must accept unconditionally the exact opposite viewpoint? The idea of being able to rationally pick and choose for onesself is threatening to you for some reason?

Look up the list of formal Logical Fallacies, sometime. You seem to be able to use almost all of them in close sequence.

[Author]

Posts