Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />how can you have a local gravitational field everywhere?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium has some background density. Light is a disturbance of that medium. However, much as a surface wave does not change the great bulk of water below the surface, lightwaves in elysium are very minor changes to the medium. Moreover, proximity to masses makes elysium denser, but only by roughly parts in a billion or so.

So local gravitational fields make only superficial changes to the larger medium. However, those superficial changes produce the relativistic effects of light-bending, gravitational redshift, and perihelion advance. And they provide a local standard of rest for lightwaves.

The density of elysium has another manifestation -- gravitational potential. That potential can have an arbitrary constant added (corresponding to the background elysium density) without effect because only changes in it are important to us. We are used to thinking of gravitational potential as a producer of gravitational force, when it is more likely the other way around: The Gravitational force from large masses imposes a density gradient on local elysium, which we see as a gradient in local gravitational potential. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Were your comments taking a shot at what I believe? It sounded like it. So I shot back.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is the way misunderstandings arise and productive conversations get derailed. I failed to appreciate that "extra dimensions" was a sensitive subject for you, and therefore that my remarks would be perceived as a "shot".

"Extra dimensions" arose as a science fiction concept. But many such concepts find their way into real science, so its humble origins does not make it wrong. The main point I should emphasize about new dimensions is their lack of definition. By not defining what type of dimension it is, what its properties are, when or where it exists, and how it manifests itself, those who espouse new dimensions are free to make outrageous claims of things that violate physical principles, and can never be refuted because the concepts are so fuzzy that they can be one thing or another, changing on whim as needed to keep the concept viable.

Remember, dimensions are concepts for measuring things. They are not material, tangible entities that can affect matter. So to propose a new dimension, one must propose a property of substance that is not presently being measured by the five fundamental dimensions we now have: 3 of space (length, area, volume) plus time (change) plus mass (scale). All other physical properties can be reduced to these five or changes in them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've been thinking about pushing gravity a lot, and I have yet to come up with an explanation in my mind.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is very important to have.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I still don't know what you mean by asylium, I know you mean Light carrying medium LCM, but what is it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium (whose unit constituent is the elyson) is a space-filling medium, disturbances of which are lightwaves. Because light is a transverse wave, elysium must be a contiguous medium, like an ocean, rather than a discrete medium such as air. Presumably, in a universe infinite in space, eternal in time, and infinitely divisible and constructable in scale, elysium is just a "local" ocean on some mega-planet that occupies our visible universe maybe a few billion times over, but is just an insignificant drop in the vast universe beyond.

Obviously, while we see many manifestations of elysium, enough to be able to describe many of its properties, the elyson has yet to be discovered. But the concept has been of considerable help in beginning to understand the physics of atomic processes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And the gravitons, where are they coming from? How can they be moving in all directions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons are just another medium, one of an infinite number of mediums occupying space. Stars and galaxies are examples of other space-filling mediums in the "local" universe. The graviton medium is discrete, much like air molecules. So the origin of gravitons is parallel to the origin of air molecules on Earth -- gravitons are the "atmosphere" of some mega-planet on a vast scale presently beyond our means to measure. But Slabinski's paper derives many constraints on graviton properties -- size, speed, collision cross-section, number density, etc.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And if they can interact with masses, wouldn't they disdapate heat as they interact? Can you imagine the heat generated by a force moving the earth?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Slabinski addresses that very point. He derives the formula for the universal gravitational constant in terms of gravitons, then the formula for heat deposited in masses by gravitons. You need to read his article and follow his derivation to better understand the answer to your question.

The very short answer I can give you here is this. If graviton collisions were perfectly elastic and scattered without depositing any heat, there would also be no net force. If gravitons were all absorbed, the heat would instantly vaporize all matter. But if both processes are active, with gravitons predominantly scattered but sometimes absorbed, the gravitational constant can be G while keeping the heat generated quite small.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All I have concluded about pushing gravity is many questions. Like, why push? And where are these ubigitious gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons are about a million times smaller than the smallest quantum particles we can presently detect. So we have only their manifestations to infer their properties.

All forces in the universe can ultimately be reduced to momentum transfers by contact, which is a type of push. When you "pull" a wagon, you really push the inside of its handle toward yourself. Etc. So to avoid magic, forces that appear attractive will usually be blockages of isotropic fluxes by the apparent source of attraction. That way, you get pulling forces out of nature's only vehicle, contact or pushing forces.

Ultimately, if we do not insist on clear, physical processes, but allow fuzzy thinking into our efforts to describe nature, we will end up like quantum physics with many paradoxes and even a contradiction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I use the word INSIDE of empty space instead of the constrining "dimension."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I just don't get the connection. There are lots of mediums in space. "Aether" or elysium might be another of them. What is it about the concept of "dimension" that makes you think of a space-filling medium as a dimension? I see no possible connection. But then, when you capitalize "INSIDE" that way, it makes me think you are traying to say something more than "in". Don't be a fuzzy thinker or a fuzzy communicator. Define your concepts. Say exactly what you mean by "inside empty space". At present, this phrase has no meaning for me besides the obvious meaning: "occupying space".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And I didn't come to the conclusion of an INSIDE by following some path down an alley, I experienced it. And after determining how much of those experiences were actual, I became convinced there is something else inside of empty space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are these experiences communicable to others? Naturally, space is filled with many mediums. What more could you possibly mean here? Please don't be vague about what you mean, or how you arrived at it. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

Were your comments taking a shot at what I believe? It sounded like it. So I shot back.

---

That is the way misunderstandings arise and productive conversations get derailed. I failed to appreciate that "extra dimensions" was a sensitive subject for you, and therefore that my remarks would be perceived as a "shot".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thank you. Extra Dimension? I don't know what scientists would call it, they have dozens of different names and it is frustrating to have to learn every single one of them only to realize they are all talking about the same thing, but are forced to state it in their "native tongue". Whorph talks about this in his principle of linguistic relativity - how we look determines what we see. I didn't coin the word "dimension" or even was the first to use it as I did. BUT IF ONE WERE TO USE those concepts, then what I am talking about is not the usual dimensions, or even space/time itself.

I don't know if "sensitive subject" is the right word, more like
"experienced subject."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Extra dimensions" arose as a science fiction concept. But many such concepts find their way into real science, so its humble origins does not make it wrong. The main point I should emphasize about new dimensions is their lack of definition. By not defining what type of dimension it is, what its properties are, when or where it exists, and how it manifests itself, those who espouse new dimensions are free to make outrageous claims of things that violate physical principles, and can never be refuted because the concepts are so fuzzy that they can be one thing or another, changing on whim as needed to keep the concept viable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I certainly appreciate what you are saying above, but being all of the above does not constitute falsification. Even if we have no idea whatsoever what a something is, that lack of definition does not lead to the conclusion that that something therefore does not exist. Having said that, I understand and agree with you.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Remember, dimensions are concepts for measuring things. They are not material, tangible entities that can affect matter. So to propose a new dimension, one must propose a property of substance that is not presently being measured by the five fundamental dimensions we now have: 3 of space (length, area, volume) plus time (change) plus mass (scale). All other physical properties can be reduced to these five or changes in them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have my own word. But only I have an intimate grasp of what I mean. I like to use the word "INSIDE" all caps because that is the only place I can imagine it to be. Some use the word "vacuum" to describe empty space. What I am saying with my word is that there is something INSIDE the vacuum. The vacuum is not empty, it is, like the Chinese say, "full". I do attribute a quality to the INSIDE. I regard it as PURE ENERGY. What I mean by that is energy not doing anything. So it is an energy which cannot be measured in time or space. As far as scale is concerned, this INSIDE is not only inside the vacuum, it is inside all matter too. But again, you are right. So I won't try to propose a new dimension again. I'll just stick with my own word.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

I still don't know what you mean by asylium, I know you mean Light carrying medium LCM, but what is it?

---

Elysium (whose unit constituent is the elyson) is a space-filling medium, disturbances of which are lightwaves. Because light is a transverse wave, elysium must be a contiguous medium, like an ocean, rather than a discrete medium such as air. Presumably, in a universe infinite in space, eternal in time, and infinitely divisible and constructable in scale, elysium is just a "local" ocean on some mega-planet that occupies our visible universe maybe a few billion times over, but is just an insignificant drop in the vast universe beyond.

Obviously, while we see many of elysium, enough to be able to describe many of its properties, the elyson has yet to be discovered. But the concept has been of considerable help in beginning to understand the physics of atomic processes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If we were to talk with my words, I would say that the INSIDE itself cannot be directly detected. What we can do, I think, is detect where the INSIDE interfaces with the outside. The electron for example. Or the photon. So I think your elysium manifestations are those interfacings with something deeper INSIDE. Elysium is an energy that is doing something.

Here is where we part ways. I am assuming that you are assuming that Elysium is all of it. I differ from you in that I assume more, I go further and say that even the Elysium has a source. You might ask how could I assume more than everything? OK.

Emergence. One of the properties of an integrative system is the emergent property of a relatinship. An emergent property is something that emerges out of the relationship which was not found in the parta when they were apart. Like the liquidity of H20. A concrete example is the meaning of this sentence. This sentence is made of black and white marks. Notice that there is nothing special about these marks. But when they are put together in certain ways, meaning emerges. The meaning of this sentence is an emergent property of black and white,

And so it is with the physical. A new property greater than the physical is not only allowed, it is to be expected to emerge when the physical and whatever else is integrated. In fact you do address
the different scales, and even extend them to infinity. Perhaps you are, in your speculations, only adding rather than integrating scales.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I just don't get the connection. There are lots of mediums in space. "Aether" or elysium might be another of them. What is it about the concept of "dimension" that makes you think of a space-filling medium as a dimension? I see no possible connection. But then, when you capitalize "INSIDE" that way, it makes me think you are traying to say something more than "in". Don't be a fuzzy thinker or a fuzzy communicator. Define your concepts. Say exactly what you mean by "inside empty space". At present, this phrase has no meaning for me besides the obvious meaning: "occupying space".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What I mean by inside empty space is precisely that it does not occupy space, it is inside space. However I cannot point to it without pointing at something. Maybe what I am trying to say is that INSIDE and space are the same thing, and that while others might think of space as being empty, I think of it as being full. (I borrowed that from the Chinese)

When we look at the ocean, we see the surface but not the deepness of it. Perhaps the Aether/Dirac sea/quantum foam/quantum ground/Elysium can be compared to the surface of an ocean. That is what I am seeing.
I see all these scientists trying to describe an ocean in terms of the features of the surface of that ocean. Which is alright, but when they imply that the surface is all of it, then, well...

I don't know if I am clear or not clear. It is clear to me anyhow. Maybe I haven't learned to say it alright yet. Maybe it can't be said. Maybe the Tao te Ching is right when it says line one the "Tao explained is not the Tao."

Think of it this way, IF one looks at the Universe in terms of energy,
then it is clear there is a source for this energy. Simple as that. If one looks in terms of dimensions, then it is clear that there is a hidden ground dimension. If one looks in terms of matter, then it is clear that there is more than mechanical forces.

If one looks in terms of gravity, then why isn't it clear that EMF
has a role too? I don't know how Elysium plays the role, is EMF made of Asylium? In other words, are you (or who?)replacing the classical notions of EMF and gravity with a new stuff you call Elysium? Or is Elysium something than makes up EMF and Gravity?

Again, are you adding or integrating your scaling? When you say that we are but little stuff in some bigger stuff, then that is adding. Integrating would mean that the scales are emergent. Like adding 1+1 and getting 11.

(I cannot believe)photons do not fly around forever because they are photons. Every single one of them has a secret invisble battery pack required by the second Law in order to sustain itself. Or equivalent...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All forces in the universe can ultimately be reduced to momentum transfers by contact, which is a type of push. When you "pull" a wagon, you really push the inside of its handle toward yourself. Etc. So to avoid magic, forces that appear attractive will usually be blockages of isotropic fluxes by the apparent source of attraction. That way, you get pulling forces out of nature's only vehicle, contact or pushing forces.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I like your explanation, it makes sense out of the concept. I can see now how pulling is pushing. What about positive and negative? How can you explain those as pushing forces? Now I wonder if the pushing agent is outside what is being pushed in the pushing model? Why do you have to have particles of Elysium? I cannot picture particles doing all this.

And when you get a whole bunch of these things with built-in battery packs they can make a star. That's why, I think, astronomers observe matter/energy flowing outward from the center of galaxies. Obviously they are plugged into a souece of energy. Simple as that...