FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 03 Aug 2021, 16:44

All times are UTC

Forum rules

Guests and Members can post here.

Extra Smileys: ... _Editor_QR

Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots, stalkers and anti-semites will be banned without notice. Else, POLICE YOURSELF.

Post a reply
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 999999 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
Do not automatically parse URLs
Read vs. Reed:
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

Topic review - EUT versus General Relativity: or both?
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
I'll try to keep this short and to the point. This is all just theory. Obviously, very little of it has been properly tested via experimentation. I hope that changes in the future.

Waves are mechanical. They have to have a medium for propagation, so light (being a wave) must have travel through a medium. If there is no medium, there is no wave, and therefore no light. Space-time cannot be a medium. Space has no attributes. It is simply another word for volume. There is no reason to believe that time is malleable, so the notion of space-time as a medium simply does not work. There has to be an aether. You can call it whatever you like, quantum vacuum, virtual particles, condensate,...whatever, but there must be some kind of aether to act as a medium. Every medium has its own rate of induction depending on its ratio of bulk modulus (stiffness) to density. Therefore, the rate of induction for light in an atmospheric vacuum is a constant within our universe.

A photon is a single electromagnetic wave. It is a transverse magnetic perturbation of the aether, which results in the electric longitudinal compression and rarefaction of the aether. One magnetic pole causes compression, while the other causes rarefaction. Transverse compression and rarefaction reflects the literal spin of the magnetic field, while the longitudinal compression and rarefaction reflects the pressure fluctuation of the field. While these two actions are really one in the same, we call the transverse surface wave, MAGNETISM, and the longitudinal pressure wave ELECTRICITY. The existence of both positive and negative charge pressures within a single photon (EM wave) means that photons are dielectric (electric neutrality).

Magnetic fields have literal spins, therefore photons, electrons, and positrons have spins. The spin of a toroidal magnetic field is the result of many smaller toroidal magnetic fields flowing through the magnetic vortex. The pathways of these smaller toroids make up the field lines of the larger magnetic field. This is an incommensurable fractal model that probably encompasses infinite scales. The spin of a photon is 1 integer, while the spins of electrons and positrons are 1/2 integer. Spin-1 means that the particle must complete one full revolution to return to its initial state. Spin-1/2 means that the particle only needs 1/2 of a revolution to return to its initial state. This seems counter intuitive, but remember that magnetic field lines each have rivers of smaller spinning fields.

[This video demonstrates how earth's magnetic field lines are energized with plasma tubes. Plasma is a flow of ionized gas. Flowing ions create electric fields coupled with spinning magnetic fields per the right hand rule of electricity.]

In the case of 1 integer spins, the particle's magnetic field is spinning in one direction, while the internal field lines are spinning in the opposite direction. This means that the angular momentum of a photon is, to a degree, self cancelling. Its like hanging a gyroscope from a string, and swinging it clockwise while the flywheel is spinning counter clockwise. The cancelling spins will cause the gyroscope to lose relative mass. This is why photons are said to be massless. There is no such thing as zero mass. There is only inertial mass (rest mass), and relative mass, created by momentum and resistance. Therefore, a photon must complete one whole revolution to negate the effects of its internal field line counter spins, in order to return to its initial state. Another way to say this, is that the overall angular momentum within a photon is incoherent (destructive interference).

In the case of 1/2 integer spins, the spin of the particle's magnetic field is in the same direction as the spins of its field lines. Now just imagine swinging a gyroscope in a clockwise motion while the flywheel is also spinning clockwise. This means that the overall angular momentum of the particle is coherent (constructive interference), causing the particle to gain relative mass while only having to make 1/2 a revolution to return to its initial state. This is how positrons and electrons can both have mass, while photons are assumed massless.

One of the biggest road blocks in Quantum Mechanics is the spin in relation to the magnetic fields of charged particles. For example, an electron would have to spin much faster than the speed of light in order to generate the magnetic fields they carry. It would be impossible for an electron to do that, let alone to have it spin at the speed of light. However, if the spinning energy of the electron's magnetic field lines is coming from a higher energy aether, then it would have an induction rate much faster than the speed of light. Therefore, no violation of the speed of light within our universe.

If magnetic field lines are just rivers of smaller magnetic fields, then those smaller magnetic fields must work the same way. This is what I mean by incommensurable fractals. This implies that there must be a higher energy aether that generates the field perturbation within our own aether, which we call electromagnetism. That higher energy aether would have a much faster induction rate than our own light speed constant. This could account for quantum entanglement. Electron-positron pairs are born in entangled states when two gamma photons collide. If one particle is spin-up, then the other particle is spin-down. If one particle's spin orientation is changed, then so will the other particle's orientation instantaneously change, regardless of distance. This violates the universal speed limit of light. The only other explanation I can think of is that these particles are not entangled within our own aether field, but in a higher aether field that simply does not occupy our spatial dimensions. The induction rate of that higher aether field would appear instantaneous to us, relative to our (much slower) light speed induction rate. If we can find a way to detect both the existence of our aether, and of a higher energy aether, we might be able to prove the existence of parallel universes.

So far, this theory has been able to intuitively explain magnetism, electric charge, angular momentum (spin), relative mass, and quantum entanglement. Of course this would have to be tested both mathematically and experimentally, neither of which can I do at this point.

I did come up with a few simple equations for mass and momentum.

I = Inertia/Inertial Mass/Rest Mass/Resistance, R = Relative Mass, M = Momentum

R = MI

The closest thing to true inertial mass in this universe is the mass of our dielectric aether at rest. We don't know how to measure that, so its simply deemed non-zero. Photons are not massless. They have self cancelling mass, which brings it back down to the inertial mass of the dielectric aether at rest. All other mass in this universe is relative. Your mass on earth is not the same as your mass on the moon. Therefore, relative mass is momentum resisting inertia. Its like the momentum of your fist meeting the inertia of water when you try to punch in the bottom of a pool.

I = -M + M

This is basically Newton's law restated. A force met with an equally opposite force results in inertia. Therefore, negative momentum and positive momentum cancel resulting in inertia. The same can be said for the self cancelling angular momentum of photons.
Post Posted: 16 Oct 2017, 05:20
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Okay, looking forward to it.
Post Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 14:57
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Light speed can vary depending on the medium. So light slows down in air, water, glass, etc, but in an atmospheric vacuum, light has a speed limit, which is evidence of an undetected aether.

However, I suspect there is another higher energy aether fueling the electromagnetic perturbation of our aether. So that higher aether would likely have a much faster rate of induction. I'll have to elaborate more later.
Post Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 13:32
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
So is there a maximum speed? Seems the videos imply, yes light can vary speed.
Post Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 10:06
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Here are some really important videos about sound waves. I think this will help us understand the whole 'speed of light' issue, and what circumstances would be necessary to exceed the 'speed of light'.

The two main factors are the stiffness and density of the medium. High stiffness with low density makes for faster propagation.
Post Posted: 12 Oct 2017, 03:35
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Another issue up for debate is the speed of gravity.

The Standard Model claims to have discovered transverse gravitational waves using large interferometers. I don't think they've exhausted all other possible explanations for the destructive interference patterns they've been observing. I'm sure there are many other possible sources of destructive interference out in the cosmos.

Whatever the case may be, transverse waves take time to propagate. Every medium has its own induction rate. EUT claims gravity causes instantaneous action at a distance. I think that is probably the case. There are three situation that I can think of which may cause instantaneous action at a distance. The first would be a region in a field where the medium is 100% compressed. That would transmit energy instantaneously. The second would be a region where the medium is 100% rarefacted, which would have the equal opposite effect of 100% compression. The third case would be the collapse of a field's energy. Just imagine a surfer riding a huge 30 ft wave, and suddenly the wave loses all of its energy and the water becomes placid. The surfer would immediately fall into the water. All three of those situations involve field pressure, which I believe is an electromagnetic phenomenon.

As far as I've heard, EUT maintains that light speed is a constant. I don't think the "speed of light" is really a speed limit. I doubt there really is a universal speed limit. However, I do believe that what we call the speed of light is the rate of electromagnetic transverse wave induction within the ether, absent all other fields. That rate would be a deterministic constant, as it would be contingent on the nature and state of the medium.

I do think particles can spin faster than the speed of light. In fact, electrons would have to spin much faster than the speed of light to produce the magnetic fields they carry. The Standard Model won't accept that as a possibility, so they prefer to use the abstract term, 'angular momentum' in place of classical 'spin'.

Here is one of EUT's videos explaining instantaneous gravity:
Post Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 04:33
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Seems to me the argument boils down to whether 'gravity' is really magnetism, whether fields are full of dark matter/energy or 'ether', and whether light is really a constant. Does EUT require light be a constant?
Post Posted: 08 Oct 2017, 02:46
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote

Just parking this video here until I can get a chance to watch it. Uses a lot of Feynman diagrams and claims that the 4 forces have been theoretically unified on a low scale energy level, but that on a higher scale the symmetry breaks. Not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds a lot like incommensurability (like pi and phi). So maybe symmetry is not necessary for unification. Don't know.
Post Posted: 29 Jul 2017, 07:00
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Yeah, and it shoots down the idea that a particle acts apart from a wave. Veritasium must not have heard Susskind, who talks about pilot waves as integral to Quantum Mechanics. It's not either-or.
Post Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 00:01
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote

This might give us a general picture of matter forming as a product of field interaction.
Post Posted: 09 Jul 2017, 22:24
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Wow, those are some good videos. Parked here is my Physics playlist, which might end up containing some of the videos above. The one below is set at the beginning of the Leonard Susskind lectures, which start with Einstein and then go through string theory with a lot of math. You'll find Lecture 2 and 3 especially interesting for answering your questions, as the 'Black Hole War' which covers your toroidal and holographic concerns, albeit indirectly in the context of black holes. Apparently it's axiomatic in physics re holographs and that matter is created as a byproduct of field interaction. However, the fields are not merely toroidal, but are often toroidal, as you'll see when Dr Susskind draws. There's really no substitute for hearing him talk, as the contexts help clarify the meaning.
Post Posted: 08 Jul 2017, 21:08
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote

This is the first video I have ever seen that describes "particles" as disturbances in fields. I think its important and thought provoking. Personally, I think particles are units of oscillating field storms that cause subtle disturbances in up-scalesd units of oscillating field storms. This can be applied to everything from house hold dust, down to the infinitesimally small units of aether.

These particles would likely exist within a spectrum, and their frequencies/rates of oscillation would define their mass. The rate of oscillation = mass concept is commonly accepted in Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electro-Dynamics, and Quantum Field Physics, however I think their two most prevalent stumbling blocks are the Planck and Speed of Light constants.
Post Posted: 08 Jul 2017, 04:26
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
So are magnetic fields, mass? Surely they affect mass. Are magnetic fields generated by all or part of the spectrum which must be light? Surely the amount of mass which is part of light must somehow reach zero? What role do magnetic fields play in generating light, and do they really belong to light.. or to mass?

So what the heck is aether? Light, or mass, or?
Post Posted: 08 Jun 2017, 09:49
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
I've been exploring the nature of magnetic fields lately, and I found these videos that helped me form some of my ideas. I thinks its one of the most beautify things I've ever seen.
Post Posted: 08 Jun 2017, 05:26
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Nature of gravity? Or the nature of magnetism? Well, maybe both, since it has to be true that mass has an effect on magnetism, too. Aggregation of magnetic mass would seem like gravity, but might account for why at equator rather than poles, here.
Post Posted: 07 Jun 2017, 01:11
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Here's another one you sent me which is very enlightening:
In the video you posted, Wallace Thornhill claimed that extensive experimentation conducted by Dayton Miller between 1926-1933 has shown evidence of an aether drift. That is a very bold claim to make, when the rest of the scientific community has labeled both the Michelson-Morley and Dayton Miller experiments null results.

Given the fact that the proposed presence of an aether is probably the most vital pillar of the EUT, as presented by Wallace Thornhill, this claim should not be taken lightly.

Linked below is a rather lengthy article arguing in favor of Dayton Miller's conclusions regarding his experiments. If Miller's results did show evidence of aether drift, then it would imply a more stable earth-entrained aether, pooling up at sea level, rather than the isometrically stationary aether that Michelson and Morley where expecting. Its important to note that Miller observed higher degrees of fringe-shift movements (in light waves) at higher altitudes. This could have some profound implications regarding the nature of gravity. ... periments/

Decide for yourself. I think the article was well written. I'm hoping to find more info on the subject.
Post Posted: 06 Jun 2017, 06:42
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Here's another one you sent me which is very enlightening:
Post Posted: 05 Jun 2017, 09:05
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
For a much more detailed explanation of the dipolar gravity hypothesis, watch the video linked below starting at 37:59 minutes.

The idea is related to the London Force.


Here is a short but important video on Solar Birkeland currents.

The idea is that Birkeland currents supply a continuous electric charge to the earth, providing it with an electric field. This continuous electric charge would be essential for the dipolar electro-gravity hypothesis as it is a more elaborate version of the London Dispersion Force.

Short video explaining London Dispersion Forces in Chemistry.

If gravity can be explained by London Force dipolarity, then it is entirely possible that earth's gravity is supplied directly by the sun. That in itself is a fascinating concept.
Post Posted: 04 Jun 2017, 01:06
  Post subject:  Re: EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Here is a short video put out by ThunderBolts (proponents of the EUT) that somewhat explains their idea of gravity. Take a look at the dipole diagram towards the beginning of the video. I don't know how correct it is, but it is based on the theory of electricity. I'll just leave the link rather than embedding the video as not to overload the thread.

I think its an interesting theory, but I would like to see how it might fit in with the standard model. The standard model assumes that gravity is a distortion of space-time created by the presence of matter. The next assumption would be, more mass = more gravity. The problem is, how can we really know the mass of the Sun and planets, when we don't even know for sure what is inside of our own planet? We don't know what our core is made of, and we can't measure the density of each layer within our planet. Furthermore, it is also assumed that Jupiter is the most massive planet in our solar system. That should mean it has the most gravitational influence next to that of the Sun. If that is the case, then why is Jupiter so far away from the Sun compared to Mercury (which is so tiny in comparison). There must be other factors we're ignoring.

What if its not space-time that's distorted, but really a sub-atomic aether that fills space? Dr. Lawrence Krauss (an avid atheist) is a proponent for the standard model of quantum mechanics. In the short video linked below, he makes the case for a quantum aether that fills "empty" space.

I've heard him use this and other theories in an attempt to disprove the existence God. In my opinion, Dr. Krauss is making as stronger case for God's existence. Pretty ironic.

So how might light, electricity, or electromagnetism produce/influence gravity? I don't know, but it is an important question.
The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rater being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish."
--Michael Faraday, 1850
Post Posted: 04 Jun 2017, 00:04
  Post subject:  EUT versus General Relativity: or both?  Reply with quote
Start here, then opine if and as inclined:

Seems to me that we have a two step SEQUENCE which is rooted in the visible vs. invisible properties of LIGHT interacting. So that's where a Unified Theory of Everything should start? Ends up meaning that 'mass' is just cooled-down light, so how and what is used to cool the calorific property of light, creates mass. By contrast, heating it up enough converts it back into light again (which we already know). So 'mass', and even 'gravity' are products of COOLING. Lots of implications there.

Related videos (which are in the twitter feed above, too), the first being well attested in fractals etc., but I think it's wrong to conclude 'gravity doesn't exist', but rather maybe the below helps us FIND how Gravity COMES to exist.

Then the conventional, really interesting video comparing it with EUT:
Post Posted: 03 Jun 2017, 11:35

All times are UTC

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited