Medium entrainment considered as flow

To avoid confusion, I will rename the 'spinning wheels' to 'spinning disks' ...

To provide an analogy:
Consider a large container filled with a superfluid (so no friction).
In the middle of the container we have a piston that moves up and down.
The piston accelerates the surrounding medium and forces it to go around around the piston.
(The medium thereby follows a circular path around the piston.)
If we continue to move the piston up and down (and thereby continue to supply energy),
the circular pattern will propagate throughout the container.

Going back to a spinning disk in the LCM:
If the spinning disk finds itself in a position whereby the medium density is different at both sides of the disk,
then the spinning disk will have a tendency to move in the direction of the highest medium density.

Considering an EM wave that we let 'raze' the Sun: the spinning disks included in the EM wave will find a higher medium density in the direction of the Sun. As a consequence, the EM wave will drift towards the Sun. (which we recognize as the gravitational bending of light)

Considering an EM wave that we point towards the Sun (whereby the LCM medium rotates faster near the Sun):
the spinning disks will 'feel' as if there is higher medium density when they enter into a medium with a different tangential velocity.
The EM wave will thereby move in the direction where the faster medium comes from. (which we recognize as the aberration of light)

Considering 'spinning disks' that are contained in a mass: the 'spinning disks' (that are the building blocks of all elementary particles) are forced in the direction of highest medium density. (which we recognize as the gravitational force)

Since mass contains nothing but medium particles bound together through energy: mass can never exceed the speed of the constituting medium particles. This is turn explains why a mass cannot be faster than the speed of light in the surrounding medium. In other words: a mass cannot be faster than the speed of its constituting medium particles.

At the same, the surrounding medium can be subject to a flow. Masses that are separated from each other and are each contained into mediums flowing in opposite directions can exceed the speed of light relative to each other.

On "the belief that time is some sort of physical thing that is physically altered by other physical things (speed)":

Take the Shapiro Delay as described in Wikipedia:
"In a near-static gravitational field of moderate strength (say, of stars and planets, but not one of a black hole or close binary system of neutron stars) the effect may be considered as a special case of gravitational time dilation. According to special relativity, the speed of ight is constant for measurements in a local reference frame. However, this is not true for non-local paths along which a gravitational field is present. The measured elapsed time of a light signal in a gravitational field is longer than it would be without the field, and for moderate strength near-static fields the difference is directly proportional to the classical gravitational potential, precisely as given by standard gravitational time dilation formulas."

What the above implies is that the formulas for special and general relativity must be including a mathematical transformation:
- the variable 'speed of light' is transformed to a reference frame whereby the 'speed of light' becomes a constant
- the constant 'time' is transformed to a variable 'time'

The particles of the medium effectively slow down in a gravitational field.
As a consequence speed of light is reduced and atomic clocks will run slower.

The space-time curvature(at times represented with the rubber sheet analogy) is for sure a valid mathematical representation.
But if we take the rubber sheet analogy and state that it represents the speed of light at every location (as from the perspective of the reference frame of a 'remote observer'), we are probably closer to the physical reality ...

<b>[Bart] "Where it concerns the Sun, the gravitational potential is not dependent on the propagation speed."

"But where it concerns the gravitational potential induced by planets, the propagation speed does matter."</b>

This is the physical equivalent of saying that planetary gravitation propagates, but stellar gravitation does not. Are you really trying to have it both ways? It will be interesting to see what sort of a physical explanation you can provide for such optional behavior. (You can, however, do this in the math with little or no restriction.)

NOTE - if propagation speed is not an issue
<ul>
<li>either because propagation does happen [and is so fast it is effectively infinite]</li>
<li>or because propagation does not happen [and is even more effectively infinite]
</ul></li>
then moving a mass 'here' instantanly changes its gravitational force (and therefore potential) field 'there'.

Either way, the speed of light is exceeded (by a very large margin). Using this effect for ftl communication is just an engineering problem.



<b>[Bart]"... one would expect the effect of 'drag' on the planets when they move through the medium."

The wheels are 'vortices' within a medium that has no friction ..."</b>

Drag is a type of friction. So you are no longer talking about a one-medium model? Or, maybe you are trying to have it both ways again?


<b>[Bart]"Since mass contains nothing but medium particles ..."</b>

Hmmm. What are your medium particles made of? Vortex equations?

Meanwhile, out here in the physical world medium particles are nothing mysterious ... they are made of mass. Like everything else that has physical existence.

===

I've spent a little time thinking about how your model would change in a universe that is described by LR/GR rather than SR/GR. There are some interesting differences.

LB

<b>[Bart]"The space-time curvature (at times represented with the rubber sheet analogy) is for sure a valid mathematical representation."</b>

Space-time curvature is not a mathematical model.

It is one of at least two <u>physical</u> models that match the EFEs. (By the way, the EFEs are a mathematical model.) There are probably more than two physical models that can be imagined which will match the math. But most of you stopped looking when the first one was found.

I stopped looking when I found (actually, when I was shown) the second one. (Why did <u>I</u> stop? It answers so damn many questions. Without creating new ones!) So I'm probably just as bad as you guys, in some ways.

All of us should keep looking. But we don't. Are we lazy? Or just dumb?

And why not both rather than pick one? It is clear to me gravity is not energy-gravity is a force. How can you interchange force and energy? You need to transfer mass to get energy from force.

Picking one (in a particular discussion) is not the same as excluding the other (in a different discussion).

Gravitational energy does exist.
Gravitational force does exist.
Gravitational acceleration does exist.
Gravitational potential does exist.

Sometimes we talk about one. Sometimes we talk about another. But we are lazy, and do not always speak the adjective that would make our meaning clear.