Quantized redshift anomaly

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 9 months ago #17242 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tommy
 Why do scientists write like that?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You should see the second paper, where I was joined by the late senior physicist J.P. Vigier as co-author. A few sections of that paper are Greek, even to me. [

]

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You also use the word instantaneous a few times. Why can't transmission be instantaneous?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That would make its speed infinite, which makes momentum infinite too, which would produce an infinite force. Plus, instantaneous anything across finite space violates the causality principle by having no antecedent cause for that effect. Any causality violation is a miracle, forbidden in deep reality physics.

Propagation can be approximately instantaneous, but not literally instantaneous. In that sense, math without propagation delay is only an approximation to reality.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What if there is no distance in the inside-space-dimension? (wormholes?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Singularities cannot exist in deep reality physics either because they violate "the finite cannot become infinite". See metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp for a fuller discussion of these physical principles.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">GR covers gravity only, and says nothing about electrodynamics. The fact that electrodynamic (Coulomb) force is near-instantaneous too is shown in that second paper I mentioned, published in Foundations of Physics. (A preprint is on the web site as the 2nd "speed of gravity" link.) The model showing how to get electricity and magnetism out of gravitons and elysium is in "On the nature of substance in MM", which is presently available only in MRB and our "Gravity" CD. However, it will be going up on our web site soon because the 2-year embargo on MRB articles is now up for that paper. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Dangus
Offline
Premium Member

18 years 9 months ago #14823 by Dangus

Replied by Dangus on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Larry Burford
 Another interesting observational tid-bit:

Some gravimeters are sensitive enough that they can track the movement of a person (or any roughly 75 kg mass) around a laborotory. To the best of my knowledge no one has tried to find the lower mass limit or the upper distance limit of this tracking ability.

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

Would this not be different depending on the relative sphere of influence to the parent body? That is to say, in deep space, the range of effect would be much further wouldn't it? Or am I not understanding how that all works?

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 9 months ago #14826 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

[Dangus] "Would this not be different depending on the relative sphere of influence to the parent body? That is to say, in deep space, the range of effect would be much further wouldn't it?"

Yes, or no, depending on exactly what you mean. The range of the force doesn't change. But when the force fields of several masses are in competition the sphere of influence of the various forces does change. IOW, Newton's body always exerts the same force on a passing apple, but the results (effects) of that force are different on Earth than in space.

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Tommy
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 9 months ago #17129 by Tommy

Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

What if there is no distance in the inside-space-dimension? (wormholes?)

Singularities cannot exist in deep reality physics either because they violate "the finite cannot become infinite". See metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp for a fuller discussion of these physical principles.

I read that one a while back. I don't believe in magic either. I always wondered how an atom can do its thing forever without a battery pack. Enter ZPE. (Puthoff 1987) Same with the photon. I reject as incomplete, the notion that the photon does not create entropy and thereby does not require an energy source.

I wholly agree that "something" cannot be infinite, and in this context a measured energy cannot be infinite.

BUT

I also can clearly see that the infinite energy could exist in a different dimension, let's call it the hyperdimension. And I wonder if all those "infinities" that are renormalized out, actually exist where the theory "touches" the infinite. Try to understand what I am trying to say.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

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?

GR covers gravity only, and says nothing about electrodynamics. The fact that electrodynamic (Coulomb) force is near-instantaneous too is shown in that second paper I mentioned, published in Foundations of Physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tom, you said elsewhere that this constitutes a falsification of Special relativities "faster than light" restriction.

reduces to

falsification of Special Relativity.

Can you copy the conclusion of that paper to here for me?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 9 months ago #14833 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tommy
 I always wondered how an atom can do its thing forever without a battery pack. Enter ZPE.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">More specifically, enter the energy sources for ZPE, elysium and gravitons.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Same with the photon. I reject as incomplete, the notion that the photon does not create entropy and thereby does not require an energy source.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Viewed as a pure wave, light does not require an energy source. It simply spreads as it travels, as any wave does.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I also can clearly see that the infinite energy could exist in a different dimension, let's call it the hyperdimension.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions, there might be some justification for bringing this science fiction concept into real physics. But as things stand, the concept is not even defined.

Gaining a deeper understanding of reality is as much about not going down seductive dead-end paths as it is about going down good ones.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wonder if all those "infinities" that are renormalized out, actually exist where the theory "touches" the infinite. Try to understand what I am trying to say.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Having already decided that the quantum physicists who need renormalizations are talking physical nonsense, it is difficult for me to take seriously a non-standard take on their nonsensical notions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you copy the conclusion of that paper to here for me?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Here are some highlights from the conclusions:

The evidence from all six experiments that bear on the question of the speed of gravity is unambiguous in excluding answers as slow as lightspeed. A similar remark applies to the propagation speed of electrodynamic forces. The strongest of these experiments sets a lower limit to the speed of gravity of 2x10^10 c. All objections and questions about this conclusion raised during the last four years have now been addressed and answered. In particular, claims (championed by Steve Carlip) that such a result is inconsistent with general relativity are now shown to be false. Moreover, no serious claim of experimental support for gravity propagating at lightspeed has been advanced in modern times. Attempts to do so have seriously confused changes in gravitational force fields with gravitational radiation (an effect of changes in potential fields), the latter of which unquestionably would propagate at speed c, assuming it exists.

When a source mass accelerates, that induces changes in its gravitational force field. The lack of detectable aberration (propagation delay) for those changes means that the distant gravitational field accelerates when the source mass accelerates, in lockstep. To avoid direct violation of the causality principle, the propagation delay must be finite, even though much smaller than the corresponding propagation delay for photons. Because special relativity (SR) forbids propagation speeds faster than lightspeed in forward time, the customary interpretation of that theory is in conflict with, and is potentially falsified by, this result. GR has always implicitly recognized these facts through its equations of motion, which use instantaneous coordinates and momenta rather than retarded ones. That and its reliance on a single frame to define “coordinate time” mean that GR is based as much on Lorentz’s interpretation of relativity (LR) as on SR. These two theories, LR and SR, both employ the relativity principle and the same math (Lorentz transformations), but LR adopts a preferred frame and lacks the reciprocity between frames postulated by SR. Interestingly, no experiment testing SR or LR confirms frame reciprocity. Therefore, because LR is consistent with all experiments, it remains just as viable as SR as a model for the relativity of motion. It follows that the falsification of the SR interpretation in favor of the LR interpretation has no immediate mathematical consequences for GR. The main physical consequence is negation of the proof that faster-than-light propagation is impossible.

Because of the belief that GR is based on the SR interpretation of the relativity of motion, which disallows the possibility of faster-than-light propagation in forward time, the most common interpretation of GR is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. This interpretation is also based on a misunderstanding of the implications of aberration and confusion between the meanings of gravitational force variations and gravitational waves. However, the consequences of a propagation speed of gravitational force variations as slow as lightspeed would be catastrophic for many astrophysical bodies, as can be tested in even elementary computer experiments with orbits; and such slow variations are strongly disallowed by physical principles and by all existing experimental evidence.

The following is the single, most important conclusion to be noted here, and would be true even if the geometric interpretation of GR could be shown to be consistent with all experimental evidence and with a gravity propagation speed of c. The mere existence of a viable alternative interpretation of the GR equations based on Lorentzian relativity, taken together with the continued experimental viability of LR, mean that the proof of the impossibility of propagation and communication in forward time at arbitrarily high speeds no longer has supportable experimental underpinnings.
...
-|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Tommy
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 9 months ago #14834 by Tommy

Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

Originally posted by Tommy

I always wondered how an atom can do its thing forever without a battery pack. Enter ZPE.

More specifically, enter the energy sources for ZPE, elysium and gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

At this point we are saying the same thing. I asked Hal Puthoff about the source of the ZPE. I asked him because he was asceibing a physical quality to the ZPE, specifically deterministic chaos. Well, then, I asked him, what is the source of energy for the ZPE? He came back with non-deterministic chaos. But then I pinned him down I guess, and he came back with love, citing sages of old. Apparently, the ZPE is a kind of field in the domain of electromagnetics.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

Same with the photon. I reject as incomplete, the notion that the photon does not create entropy and thereby does not require an energy source.

Viewed as a pure wave, light does not require an energy source. It simply spreads as it travels, as any wave does.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tom, can I refute you on this one point? As I understand it, the Maxwell/heaviside equatins work without a source, so what? Does that mean light needs no source either? You said no magic. Light without a battery pack is magic. You should know that Maxwell originally accounted for these inner energy sources, I think they are the displacement currents.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

I also can clearly see that the infinite energy could exist in a different dimension, let's call it the hyperdimension.

If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions, there might be some justification for bringing this science fiction concept into real physics. But as things stand, the concept is not even defined.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it. Obviously you don't know very much about it. Can you point me to the paper which falsified the Aether?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gaining a deeper understanding of reality is as much about not going down seductive dead-end paths as it is about going down good ones.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Like those push things that can move worlds without any heat?

quote:

I wonder if all those "infinities" that are renormalized out, actually exist where the theory "touches" the infinite. Try to understand what I am trying to say.

Having already decided that the quantum physicists who need renormalizations are talking physical nonsense, it is difficult for me to take seriously a non-standard take on their nonsensical notions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This made me laugh. Very good! All I am saying is that could be that their infinities are for real. The electron, regarded as a point, comes up as infinite. Maybe so...

Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.423 seconds