Quantized redshift anomaly

You wrote: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Abstract. Gravity has no aberration, and propagation delays cannot be used without destroying angular momentum conservation at an unacceptable rate. Even the curved spacetime explanation (“gravity is just geometry”) breaks down when masses and speeds are large, as in binary pulsars. But if gravity or spacetime curvature information is carried by classical propagating particles or waves, a modern Laplace experiment places a lower limit on their speed of 1010 c. The so-called Lorentzian modification of special relativity permits such speeds without need of tachyons. But there are other consequences. If ordinary gravity is carried by particles with finite collision cross-section, such collisions would progressively diminish its inverse square character. Gravity would gradually convert to inverse linear behavior on the largest scales. Curiously, at all scales greater than about 2 kiloparsecs, gravity can be modeled without need for dark matter by an inverse linear law. The orbital motions of Mercury and Earth may also show traces of this effect. Moreover, if gravity were carried by particles, a collapsed ultra-dense mass between two bodies could shield each of them from the gravity of the other. Anomalies are seen in the motions of certain artificial Earth satellites during eclipse seasons that behave like shielding of the Sun’s gravity. Certain types of radiation pressure might cause a similar behavior, but require far more free parameters to model. Each of these effects of particle-gravity models has the potential to lead to a breakthrough in our post-Einsteinian understanding of gravitation. This would also change our views of the nature of time in relativity theory."

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Let me read it...Are you saying that observations show that gravity is transmitted between bodies instaneously? Are you saying that particles can do this?

Well, again non-locality. The EPR/Bell/Aspect "non-locality" has this characteristic of instantaneously. That's what non-locality means. There are two ways, I once read, of interpreting non-locality. One way is by means of faster than light transmission. The other way is that the twin photons (in Aspects experiment) remain as a single system even while separated. They are entangled.

I wonder if we mean the same thing by "particle?" What is a particle? To me particle was meant to be some inert stuff. Maybe you are using in it the sense of wave or particle behavoir. Would you call a photon a particle? In a sense yes, Feynman says so. But it is only acting like a particle while really it is a ball of light stuff. And that led me to think about the Sun as a ball of light and this came out.

Could it be that the smallest particle, if we were to enlarge it to the size of the Sun, would be constituted of these tiny particles that we see in the Sun? That the Sun is an electron "Inflated" well, maybe a quark.

<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 />Are you saying that observations show that gravity is transmitted between bodies instaneously?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Definitely not. Instantaneous propagation violates the causality principle and requires a miracle.

The experiments say that gravity propagates at least 20 billion times faster than light. But that is a snail's pace in an infinite, eternal universe. And it is standing still compated to an "instantaneous" speed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That's what non-locality means.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not quite. Non-locality means "outside the light cone" in a universe governed by special relativity, which has a speed limit of c. But in a universe governed by Lorentzian relativity, there is no speed limit, so there is no more significance to being outside the light-cone than to being outside the sound-cone. So "non-locality" loses its meaning, and it is no longer special for entities to interact at FTL speeds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What is a particle? To me particle was meant to be some inert stuff. Maybe you are using in it the sense of wave or particle behavoir. Would you call a photon a particle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Photon" refers to a singlet wave, because light is a pure wave phenomenon. You and I seem to mean the same thing by "particle". Once you get rid of that speed limit concept, all those paradoxes of QM go away -- which is nice.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Could it be that the smallest particle, if we were to enlarge it to the size of the Sun, would be constituted of these tiny particles that we see in the Sun? That the Sun is an electron "Inflated" well, maybe a quark.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In the MM universe, there can be no such thing as "the smallest particle" because scale must be infinitely divisible and infinitely constructable, and no scale is special.

That said, the rest of your idea, if I understand it, seems plausible. The Sun is just an "electron" or "quark" building block of some structure on a huge scale, much bigger than the visible universe. And the real electrons or quarks for us are the Sun and stars in the sky at some incredibly small scale. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i> You are correct, but the effects are so much smaller than the effect of Earth that it is not noticeable. For the case of a nearby mountain we actually can detect the slight deviation from "straight down" if we use some very sensitive equipment. LB <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Larry, the deviation you speak of, no matter how slight, answers my original statement of 12 Feb 2006: 07:49:48; “An apple hanging from a tree absorbs more downward gravitons than the earth below absorbs upward gravitons thereby causing the apple to “fall”. Which could be angular to the tree because some of the horizontal gravitons can also absorbed by an obstruction of <i>x</i> mass to one side of the apple. Thank you so much.
thebobgy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Not quite. Non-locality means "outside the light cone" in a universe governed by special relativity, which has a speed limit of c. But in a universe governed by Lorentzian relativity, there is no speed limit, so there is no more significance to being outside the light-cone than to being outside the sound-cone. So "non-locality" loses its meaning, and it is no longer special for entities to interact at FTL speeds.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, but it only loses its meaning in context of the next paradigm.
Special and General Relativity still form the basis of the present paradigm. So "non-locality" is a falsificatin of SR and that would make it very special. Today.

What does Lorentzian relativity say about Unity?

<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 />What does Lorentzian relativity say about Unity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Unification of the four fundamental forces? LR removes the main obstacle to unification. Our MRB article "On the nature of substance in the Meta Model" offers a type of unification for gravity and electromagnetism, not available using SR. That is the good news. The bad news is that MM says there are an infinite number of fundamental forces over an infinite range of scale, so the ultimate unification has either been completed or receded infinitely, depending on your point of view. -|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

What does Lorentzian relativity say about Unity?

---

Unification of the four fundamental forces? LR removes the main obstacle to unification. Our MRB article "On the nature of substance in the Meta Model" offers a type of unification for gravity and electromagnetism, not available using SR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, I just finished your paper on the speed of Gravity. How come I had to read the whole thing to get to your conclusion? Actually I read it several times, had to. But I must say your writing is crystal clear and this is the first time in a long time I atually tried to keep up with the mathematics.

You are saying that Special Relativity forbids any speed faster than light. Then you say that experiments show that gravity has to exceed the speed of light or else the planets would change their orbit.They are not observed changing their orbit. Therefore experimental evidence exists which falsifies Special Relativity. General Relativity is not affected because it takes motion into account.

I finally figured all that out be reading your paper backwards from the end forward. Why do scientists write like that?

You also use the word instantaneous a few times. Why can't transmission be instantaneous? What if there is no distance in the inside-space-dimension? (wormholes?) You calculate a speed of gravity using a binary star data. When and where does the EMF stuff kick in? What I mean is if a star is a ball of plasma, and a second companion star is likewise, then we have two rotating balls of EMF, a motor. So how does GR account for these electromagnetic effects? Or doesn't it?