Crisp:

What is your opinion of Henry lindner's dynamic space theory
at " http://home.earthlink.net/~hhlindner/Writings/Space/Physics.htm " ?

Uuuuhhhh... I really know too little about GR to appreciate this properly. You should really ask people like James or chroot to look at this.

Bye!

Crisp

Fairfield,

I have been watching this one but didn't post because it was addressed to Crisp. But now that he has responded I am anxious to see James and/or chroots response (or others) since this parallels (but is more sophisticated) than my own view.

I'll not say more at this point in that I don't want to throw this off track. Once you have your responses then I want to come back (pro or con) and show the parallels.

Fairfield,

I have been waiting to see if you received any responses. It has been a couple of days and nobody seems to want to comment on this paper.

I suspect that if I go ahead at this point and draw the parallel to UniKEF that that will generate some replies.:D

As I understand the paper it views space flowing into mass and causing gravity.

In UniKEF space is created by an energy flow and it also generates gravity; plus accounts for the accelerating expansion of the Universe at the same time.

I appreciate the article since it offers some insight how this concept may answer some of the questions which I have been asked but could not answer with regard to how it is better than Relativity. This author seems to have some understanding of that but it remains to be responded to by those more keen as to the issues of SR and GR and how this really, if it actually does, addresses them.

Relativists: Where are you? What say yee about the following statements from the end of the referenced link.

******************* Extract ****************

4. Relativists apply the Lorentz transformations to this observer's velocity to explain the slowing of the clocks. But SR, the subjectivistic interpretation of the Lorentz transformations, does not provide the needed velocity assumption. SR does not treat gravity or acceleration and thus did not predict and cannot explain why gravity produces this apparent velocity at any given r, neither does the EGIA provide this velocity. The only link that Einstein made between SR, acceleration, and velocity in his presentations of GR was his thought experiment involving the slowing of clocks due to their velocity on the periphery of a rotating disc,22 and this has no relevance to the relationship between gravity and velocity discussed here.

5. The appeal to SR creates another problem for the Relativists. According to SR, the Earth-surface clock would appear to be slowed to the required rate only for the observer who falls from infinity. The same clock should appear to be slowed less for an observer who falls from a lower height and has a lesser velocity. To invoke SR here is to abandon the equivalence principle of SR: the doctrine that SR is valid in every freely-falling frame.


**********Emphasis Added ***************
Relativists would need to concede that SR is actually valid only in the unique frame which falls from infinity and whose velocity at every point outside a mass equals the escape velocity--which is indeed an implication of the theory presented here.
*******************************************

Question: Is the above a true statement?


I conclude that the EGIV that was predicted and explained by this theory was not predicted and cannot be explained within Relativity by appeal to observers using the EGIA and/or SR. Atomic clock-slowing by gravity is a physical reality that must be related to space as it is affected by nearby mass. How Einstein produced the escape velocity formula for the gravitational red shift using his subjectivistic method I do not know. I have demonstrated that the simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that mass causes its surrounding space to flow towards it, attaining a velocity of relative to any stationary atomic clock at any given r.

MaxM:
Thanks Max. No hurry. Thoughtful answers are best.

<i>Relativists would need to concede that SR is actually valid only in the unique frame which falls from infinity and whose velocity at every point outside a mass equals the escape velocity--which is indeed an implication of the theory presented here.
*******************************************

Question: Is the above a true statement?</i>

Answer: no.

James R.,

Then I think we must assume the rest as a minimum is also based on some false premises?

James R. or others,

**********Emphasis Added ***************
Relativists would need to concede that SR is actually valid only in the unique frame which falls from infinity and whose velocity at every point outside a mass equals the escape velocity--which is indeed an implication of the theory presented here.
*******************************************

Question: Is the above a true statement?


Answer: no.


__________________



?: Is there a short concise statement as to the definition of SR's applicability to other frames, other than "It applies to all frames?"

That is mathematical comparison to its correctness for velocities other than escape velocities in the example given.?

The reason I ask is it would appear futile to make such a claim if the mathematics didn't support it.

MacM:

Thanks again Mac. I had that in mind too, but I assumed it was obvious to everyone.

The whole point of relativity is that it allows us to convert from one frame of reference to another. It works in all reference frames. That's why it is called "relativity".

JamesR:

The whole point of Lindner's paper is that, as far as he can see, Relativity doesn't work accurately.

James R.,

I think what Fairfield is saying is a good point and parallels my question.

Can you or somebodyelse post a demonstration of mathematical error on his part, in lieu of saying Relativity is consistant.

It is and has been my position that relativity may be consistant but that that doesn't make it exclusively correct. There may be many alternative views which will also be correct mathematically and from there one has options to describe physical reality.

Fairfield:

Yes, I know.

I was asked whether relativity applies to different reference frames, or only to some particular frames, so I answered that question.

I have not considered Lindner's theory. I haven't had time to look at it properly, yet.

Entrained Ether theories aren't just the property of Lindner. This site is the best I've found so far:

http://www.olypen.com/hcwarren/

My question is, is this crack-pottery or real science? Also, since the theory makes some falsifiable predictions, why don't its proponents get busy doing experiments?

Experiment to prove/disprove the theory:

http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-010515.pdf

postoak,

Yes that has been my thinking as well. He gives testable scenarios. It seems that qualifies it as "Theory". I would like to see greater interest in testing such concepts.

Please allow a very naive question. I usually try not to post anything that is completely daft, but may be making an exception here.

Is the notion that mass compresses surrounding space mathematically equivalent to the notion of that it causes an inward flow?

IOW does space have to actually flow (as if down a sink) to produce Lindner's model, or could it just be changes in local geometry that have the same effect? (I don’t mean curvature in the usual extra-dimensional sense but something much more simple).

I don’t have the means of illustrating this graphically. However if one draws a grid of rectangles in which the length of the horizontals remain constant, but in which the vertical distances are progressively shortened from top to bottom, this might represent spatial and temporal compression in the direction of some mass at the bottom of the page. (They would be radials and ‘shells’ near a point of mass).

One could draw a straight line diagonally across this grid to represent the path of a photon passing by this mass. The straight line would be the path that the photon is taking in some hypothetical absolute geometry beyond spacetime, or alternatively simply the path that the photon would follow if it was completely unaffected by mass or the local geometry of spacetime.

As the photon moved through the grid it would appear to us (whose instruments are affected by this compression) that as the photon came closer to the mass its path would curve inwards towards the mass. This is because according to our measurements the distance it travelled laterally would continually be measured as decreasing relative to the distance it travels vertically. It would be measured as being deflected towards the mass while in fact it would be completely unaffected by it, or by the changed geometry of spacetime. In other words the deflection of the photon from a straight line would be a function of our distorted measurements and not a function of the nature of photons. This would be roughly equivalent to a flow of space towards the mass, or to gravity/curvature acting on the photon.

I won’t go on ‘cause I’ll just dig a deeper hole. I’ve no idea where all this leads. I was just intrigued by the simplicity of the geometry.

If it’s fatuous nonsense please say so, I expect it is.

OK, I like anything aether, BUT why hasn't been Lindners theory be falsified/tested yet???

Well, the next time you get asked to vote "do you want to give scientists more money to do experiments", be sure to vote yes...


:)

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by Vortexx
OK, I like anything aether, BUT why hasn't been Lindners theory be falsified/tested yet??? Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of these aether theories exist. It is fairly impractically and pointless to disprove each and every one.

That said I've finally looked through his theory... couple comments:
Earth completely determines the motion of the surrounding space for many kilometers out, sweeping it along with it into its 30km/s uniform motion through the larger volume of space that is entrained by our Sun and Solar system.
He explains this, but doesn't explain why space is entrained by the earth's rotation. He fails to explain why one rotational motion entrains, and another doesn't.

A one-way light speedometer could directly detect the gravitational 11.2km/s space wind, and all other motion relative to space, which would concretely contradict Relativity.
It's probably good to point out that we have measured lightspeed from earth to space.... and the anistropy he is talking about has not been mentioned.

Matter may be observed astronomically falling into gravitators at velocities greater than c (relative to the sink). In the case of a black hole, the velocity may exceed 2c. Likewise, matter may be seen moving away from any space sources at velocities >c.Relativity excludes velocities > or < c in any frame
This has been explained by current science.

To make any sense of motion in this Cosmos we must admit that space is physical, and relate all motion to this space. We must remove the observer from the center of physics
Both these statements seem unfounded. We can not assume space is physical, because we can not see/observe it or it's effects. For the same reason, we can not relate all motion to it.
Also, having the observer as the center of physics makes sense. We only know what we observe/experience. Anything else will no influence us.


All in all, he does not show much. He makes vague assumptions, and backs it up with little math. It is better formatted and explained then other theories, but doesn't have much content.

Persol,

Good overview. I think this is what we lay types were looking for.

My read of your position is you don't give it much weight but then you didn't trash can it either. What do you think your bottom line is % wise?.

I'm not sure... there really isn't much there. I'd give it slightly better odds then most aether theories, but not much since he still has some loopholes. (how to determine/calculate entrainment being the biggest)

Persol:

'Earth completely determines the motion of the surrounding space for many kilometers out, sweeping it along with it into its 30km/s uniform motion through the larger volume of space that is entrained by our Sun and Solar system.'

"He explains this, but doesn't explain why space is entrained by the earth's rotation. He fails to explain why one rotational motion entrains, and another doesn't."

Could you clarify the last sentence for me: Are you making the distinction betwen orbital motion and axial motion, or something else?

Thanks.

Persol -- who's "he"? -- are you talking about the Lindner link? I'd prefer to get your take on the Warren link, since I think it's a more rigorous treatment.

Originally posted by Fairfield
Are you making the distinction betwen orbital motion and axial motion Yes.

Persol,

Are you making the distinction betwen orbital motion and axial motion.

Yes.



Maybe it is Relative. Wouldn't that be the shits. I have no idea how one would justify entrainment in any case but I do see a substantial difference between rotary motion (spinning) and orbital motion, which is for all practical purposes linear velocity.

If you use earths rotation = 1 (C) then orbit relavistically becomes
1/365 = 0.002739 or:

(1-(0.002739/1)^2)^.5 = 0.999996247 = 1-0.999996247 = 3.75E-6, less than 4 millionths of the affect. Don't know that I would say it isn't there.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacM
Maybe it is Relative. Wouldn't that be the shits.
Lol... it would reck the rest of Linder's theory though.

I have no idea how one would justify entrainment in any case but I do see a substantial difference between rotary motion (spinning) and orbital motion, which is for all practical purposes linear velocity.
That's the problem though. The surface of the earth moves about 1k mph, the earth orbits about 60k mph, and our solar system is moving at about 2million mph (assuming it's the center of the rest of the observed universe's movement is somewhat random).

According to the entrainment thoery (if it's consistant), light would bend in the direction that the earth is rotating in... as it's dragged along with the space.

Hello folks,

A friend told me you were discussing flowing space, so I thought I'd check in.

My work on theoretical physics and this theory is philosophical. If you want to see a mathematically rigorous treatment of the idea, just look of the papers by Ives, Kirkwood, and Martin as referenced. They derived all the equations of GR more simply than Einstein and Schwarzchild did. FS fits the known facts AND provides a physical explanation for gravity.

I've realized over many years that such a revolutionary idea needs to be presented step by step. So I've written three papers. The first proves that Relativity is subjectivistic and that we need an objectivistic physics--one that relates motion to the matter and space of the Cosmos, not to any observer in any state of motion. Relativity is about what "appears" to be the case to the observer, not about what "is" the case in this Cosmos--most physicists do not realize this. The second paper proves that space is a substance, not a void. Any plausible theory of the Cosmos MUST be an ether theory. The third paper, Flowing Space, then offers an ether-type theory that explains why SR and GR work as well as they do.

Let me answer your questions so far:

Flowing space has been dismissed by academics by their invoking SR and a falling observer--falling from infinity and so reaching the escape velocity at any r outside the Earth. They thus try to say that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial velocity is already known. This doesn't work *within their system* for the reasons I state.

>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Persol
Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of these aether theories exist. It is fairly impractically and pointless to disprove each and every one.

Any non-subjectivistic, physically plausible theory of physics MUST be an ether theory. So start studying them and testing them. Needless to say, independent thinkers cannot test a theory such as this--we have to get the establishment to look into it. They have the satellites, lasers, NASA, funding, etc. .

>That said I've finally looked through his theory... couple comments:
[b]Earth completely determines the motion of the surrounding space for many kilometers out, sweeping it along with it into its 30km/s uniform motion through the larger volume of space that is entrained by our Sun and Solar system.
He explains this, but doesn't explain why space is entrained by the earth's rotation. He fails to explain why one rotational motion entrains, and another doesn't.

As another member mentioned, the revolutionary motion of the Earth is a uniform translation--no rotation or acceleration relative to space (the space that's flowing into or out of the Sun). The rotation of the Earth is accelerational and space appears to NOT be accelerated with mass but to resist mass's acceleration (inertia).

> A one-way light speedometer could directly detect the gravitational 11.2km/s space wind, and all other motion relative to space, which would concretely contradict Relativity.
It's probably good to point out that we have measured lightspeed from earth to space.... and the anistropy he is talking about has not been mentioned.

We have measured a two-way travel time. One way travel times are notoriously difficult to determine due the clock-synchronizing problem. Using Einstein's synchronization method, one-way travel times in opposite directions will appear to be identical even if they are not.

> Matter may be observed astronomically falling into gravitators at velocities greater than c (relative to the sink). In the case of a black hole, the velocity may exceed 2c. Likewise, matter may be seen moving away from any space sources at velocities >c.Relativity excludes velocities > or < c in any frame
This has been explained by current science.

Relativity and QM explain nothing. They model measurements by the observer--period. When data don't fit their assumptions they add a fudge factor. Paradoxes and contradictions roam free. Here's just one other example of a problem requiring a fudge factor-- Why wouldn't an observer flying past our solar system at near-c see the heavier planets spiral into the heavier Sun?

>
To make any sense of motion in this Cosmos we must admit that space is physical, and relate all motion to this space. We must remove the observer from the center of physics
Both these statements seem unfounded. We can not assume space is physical, because we can not see/observe it or it's effects. For the same reason, we can not relate all motion to it.
Also, having the observer as the center of physics makes sense. We only know what we observe/experience. Anything else will no influence us.

This issue is dealt with thoroughly and decisively in the first paper listed on my homepage titled "Beyond Consciousness to Cosmos..." It is a finished piece that will be published. "Etherism over Atomism" is a draft, as is "Flowing Space".

>All in all, he does not show much. He makes vague assumptions, and backs it up with little math. It is better formatted and explained then other theories, but doesn't have much content.

Flowing space, from the simplest postulates, predicts that a clock sitting on the Earth's surface will slow just as if it's moving as the escape velocity. I made this prediction before I realized that Einstein had beat me to it. FS directly relates the Lorentz transformations to gravity.

Are you guys even aware that Einstein admitted that space is ether? He was terribly confused since this admission was incompatible with his subjectivistic epistemology.

I will try to keep up with this forum, but I'm traveling tomorrow to the Natural Philosophy Alliance conference.

Welcome HL. Don't know much about the aether but but I'm right with you on the general issues you discuss in your site intro.

Persol,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the problem though. The surface of the earth moves about 1k mph, the earth orbits about 60k mph, and our solar system is moving at about 2million mph (assuming it's the center of the rest of the observed universe's movement is somewhat random).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have no justification but my view has been that entrainment would be more of a function of "Omega" (radians/sec) function than one of a linear velocity function.

In my own work I proposed a form of enhanced gravity due to spinning motion of particles, etc. But again that is based on a change in velocity of mass through a moving field. It was simular to inverse centrifugal force.

In my view this would also be seen in linear acceleration. It has to do with issues involving inertial forces. But as you already know my view is not supported by mathematics and is more a mere concept.

I hope Henry Lindner can add some clarification to this issue.



*******************************************


Henry Lindner,

Welcome. It will be good to have your participation. I am a believer that there is a better alternative to Relativity but do not have the higher mathematics to prove it.

(Although, I also don't think higher mathematics are required to support logic.:D )

Henry Lindner,

Welcome to sciforums.

I checked out your website, and found it interesting, but there are some things that I don't agree with.

First, why is it that all aetherists believe that the photon's propulsion, and travel, medium is the aether? Aetherists always assume that the gravitational fields drag the aether around, and the speed of light is always equal to c relative to this aether. I believe there is a simpler explanation.

Let's assume that aether is not the medium of travel for light, but that gravitational fields are. For example, if light uses gravitational fields for propulsion, then the speed of light would always be equal to c relative to the local gravitational field regardless of how fast the local gravitational field is moving through a static aether. So the near-null results of various aether-detection experiments (Michelson-Morley, Miller, etc) can be explained by the fact that those aether-detection devices were stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field. The small non-null results of those experiments would be caused by the small effects of the Sun's gravitational field on the light in those devices.

According to my model, time would slow down for an object moving through a gravitational field not because of time dilation, but because the roundtrip speed of light would slow down relative to that object, which would in turn cause the reactions in that object to slow down by the same amount.

The second problem I have with your theory is your assumption that gravity is the result of flowing space. If gravity was the only long distance force in the universe, I might agree with you. However, there are other long distance interactions (electrostatic and magnetic) that follow the 1/r^2 rule just like gravity. Since both the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions follow the 1/r^2 rule, it is very likely that the same mechanics are behind both of these interactions. You can't assume that gravity is the result of flowing space, because if you do, you then exclude any possibility of explaining the electromagnetic interaction since they both can't be caused by flowing space.

Tom

Prosoothus,

The second problem I have with your theory is your assumption that gravity is the result of flowing space. If gravity was the only long distance force in the universe, I might agree with you. However, there are other long distance interactions (electrostatic and magnetic) that follow the 1/r^2 rule just like gravity. Since both the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions follow the 1/r^2 rule, it is very likely that the same mechanics are behind both of these interactions. You can't assume that gravity is the result of flowing space, because if you do, you then exclude any possibility of explaining the electromagnetic interaction since they both can't be caused by flowing space.


ANS: Fair enough point to consider but I would not see 1/r^2 due to entrainment as being an exclusive point. That is it may very well be a geometric function which is being imposed on all such forces.

The radial projection from the origin of a sphere inscribes the 1/r^2 function and would apply to any force I would think regardless of physical origin.

Originally posted by Henry Lindner

The first proves that Relativity is subjectivistic and that we need an objectivistic physics
I'm guessing that the paper I read was the first one. I do not see how you made it clear that objectivistic physics is better. Very obviously, we base our intelligence on what we see. Using relativity we can determine what have observer in the universe is seeing. There is no need (and no proof) of a steady point of reference. In this respect, your theory is also not objectivistic, as you still require the use of relative motion to gets results of any meaning.

Relativity is about what "appears" to be the case to the observer, not about what "is" the case in this Cosmos--most physicists do not realize this.
It is about both. Just as we can set the frame of reference to us sitting on earth, we can set it to a point in a galaxy far far away.

The second paper proves that space is a substance, not a void. Any plausible theory of the Cosmos MUST be an ether theory.
One again, I think it failed to do this. There are problems with ether theory, and you have not fixed them. You can say that space flows, but don't say from where is originates (where's the faucet). All you are doing is attaching a different analogy to relativity. It may work in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's physically true.

Persol:Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of these aether theories exist. It is fairly impractically and pointless to disprove each and every one.
Linder:Any non-subjectivistic, physically plausible theory of physics MUST be an ether theory.
There is no reason to think that 'fluid space' is anything but another analogy. Relativity claims that space bends in 4D, but accepts that this may just be an analogy that works.

>Linder:Earth completely determines the motion of the surrounding space for many kilometers out, sweeping it along with it into its 30km/s uniform motion through the larger volume of space that is entrained by our Sun and Solar system.
Perso:He explains this, but doesn't explain why space is entrained by the earth's rotation. He fails to explain why one rotational motion entrains, and another doesn't.
Linder:As another member mentioned, the revolutionary motion of the Earth is a uniform translation--no rotation or acceleration relative to space (the space that's flowing into or out of the Sun).
Well yes, there is. We are constantly accelerating towards the sun.

The rotation of the Earth is accelerational and space appears to NOT be accelerated with mass but to resist mass's acceleration (inertia).
The rotation of the earth is also an orbit around the earths core.

Linder: Likewise, matter may be seen moving away from any space sources at velocities >c.Relativity excludes velocities > or < c in any frame
Persol: This has been explained by current science.
Linder: Relativity and QM explain nothing. They model measurements by the observer--period. When data don't fit their assumptions they add a fudge factor. Paradoxes and contradictions roam free. Here's just one other example of a problem requiring a fudge factor-- Why wouldn't an observer flying past our solar system at near-c see the heavier planets spiral into the heavier Sun?
Ok, I've gone into this with MacM for the last couple months. These fudge factors, paradoxes, and contradictions have not been shown.

"Ok, I've gone into this with MacM for the last couple months. These fudge factors, paradoxes, and contradictions have not been shown."

I would like to add to this that if you think you've found a paradox in relativity, then you better think again (you most certainly made a mistake)... I can't think of any paradox that cannot be solved in the theory of relativity; people just have to face the fact that relativity is self-consistent and that they will not be able to formulate a paradox that contradicts the theory from within its own framework.

Oh BTW... "How can that ever be true?" is not a paradox; it is a lack of understanding ;).

Bye!

Crisp

MacM,

The radial projection from the origin of a sphere inscribes the 1/r^2 function and would apply to any force I would think regardless of physical origin.

What you are implying is a model in which energy is emitted omnidirectionally from a single point, like a lightbulb emits light. As you pointed out, the 1/r^2 function would fit this model well.

However, if gravity is not the result of the "emitter model", but is instead the result of curved or flowing space, then it's a pretty big coincidence that the curvature, or flow, of space would give the same function as the "emitter model".

Tom

Crisp,

I can't think of any paradox that cannot be solved in the theory of relativity; people just have to face the fact that relativity is self-consistent and that they will not be able to formulate a paradox that contradicts the theory from within its own framework.

Of course relativity is self-consistant, it was made to be self-consistent. If you make a mathematical theory that states that a certain object always travels at a certain speed, and you're allowed to manipulate distance and time any way you deem fit to reach that goal, it's not hard to make your theory self-consistent. Of course, that doesn't mean that your theory would reflect reality.

Tom

Hi Tom,

"Of course relativity is self-consistant, it was made to be self-consistent. If you make a mathematical theory that states that a certain object always travels at a certain speed, and you're allowed to manipulate distance and time any way you deem fit to reach that goal, it's not hard to make your theory self-consistent. Of course, that doesn't mean that your theory would reflect reality."

I couldn't have said it better. I am particulary glad to hear this from you! Once you understood that it is self-constistent, the only way to attack the theory is to disprove the assumptions, in this case only one: the speed of light is constant for all observers... To put it very simple: all other discussions are irrelevant except for educational purposes ;)

Bye!

Crisp
(hoping to see less "relativity is crap because it is not consistent" messages now ;))

Persol,

One again, I think it failed to do this. There are problems with ether theory, and you have not fixed them. You can say that space flows, but don't say from where is originates (where's the faucet). All you are doing is attaching a different analogy to relativity. It may work in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's physically true.


ANS: As you already know I can't prove it but in my view energy is flowing into the universe from every planck ordinate (the Chiral Condensate). That energy creates space. Being attenuated back back into the Chiral Condensate producing gravity in the process and accounting for the accelerating expansion of the universe.


Prosoothus,

The above remarks also addresses the 1/r^2 view. It is both emmiting and absorbing via the geometry.

Prosoothus,

Of course relativity is self-consistant, it was made to be self-consistent. If you make a mathematical theory that states that a certain object always travels at a certain speed, and you're allowed to manipulate distance and time any way you deem fit to reach that goal, it's not hard to make your theory self-consistent. Of course, that doesn't mean that your theory would reflect reality.

Tom


ANS: Very on point, point.

Tom, I'm with you. In flowing space, the gravitiational field IS an entrained ether field. If a huge mass like the Earth is a powerful spatial sink--sucking the surrounding space into itself as it moves through that space, then it would pull the spatial fluid into motion with it. So everywhere the position and motion of space is a function of the mass and motion of matter. In this sense, all motion is relative---to concentrations of matter, not to any puny human observer.

So Stokes' interpretation of the null M-M experiment may have been correct--but Lorentz's may have been correct also. To test Lorent'z interpretation, we need to put an interferometer on an orbiting craft.

Gravity can be a flow of space, and EM can be wave/torsion/strain phenomenon WITHIN the flowing space. Since the flow is usually much slower than c, we would only detect subtle effects like the 2nd Doppler (atomic clocks). When the inflow into a large mass equals c, light can't propagate out and you get a black hole.

Henry


Originally posted by Prosoothus
Henry Lindner,

Welcome to sciforums.

I checked out your website, and found it interesting, but there are some things that I don't agree with.

First, why is it that all aetherists believe that the photon's propulsion, and travel, medium is the aether? Aetherists always assume that the gravitational fields drag the aether around, and the speed of light is always equal to c relative to this aether. I believe there is a simpler explanation.

Let's assume that aether is not the medium of travel for light, but that gravitational fields are. For example, if light uses gravitational fields for propulsion, then the speed of light would always be equal to c relative to the local gravitational field regardless of how fast the local gravitational field is moving through a static aether. So the near-null results of various aether-detection experiments (Michelson-Morley, Miller, etc) can be explained by the fact that those aether-detection devices were stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field. The small non-null results of those experiments would be caused by the small effects of the Sun's gravitational field on the light in those devices.

According to my model, time would slow down for an object moving through a gravitational field not because of time dilation, but because the roundtrip speed of light would slow down relative to that object, which would in turn cause the reactions in that object to slow down by the same amount.

The second problem I have with your theory is your assumption that gravity is the result of flowing space. If gravity was the only long distance force in the universe, I might agree with you. However, there are other long distance interactions (electrostatic and magnetic) that follow the 1/r^2 rule just like gravity. Since both the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions follow the 1/r^2 rule, it is very likely that the same mechanics are behind both of these interactions. You can't assume that gravity is the result of flowing space, because if you do, you then exclude any possibility of explaining the electromagnetic interaction since they both can't be caused by flowing space.

Tom

Crisp,


I couldn't have said it better. I am particulary glad to hear this from you! Once you understood that it is self-constistent, the only way to attack the theory is to disprove the assumptions, in this case only one: the speed of light is constant for all observers... To put it very simple: all other discussions are irrelevant except for educational purposes

Bye!


ANS: Yep. Very good response. Much better than being an absolutist about the issue.

Henry Lindner,

Tom, I'm with you. In flowing space, the gravitiational field IS an entrained ether field. If a huge mass like the Earth is a powerful spatial sink--sucking the surrounding space into itself as it moves through that space, then it would pull the spatial fluid into motion with it. So everywhere the position and motion of space is a function of the mass and motion of matter. In this sense, all motion is relative---to concentrations of matter, not to any puny human observer.


?: My view has been that of a dynamic energy field creating space itself. I saw the energy flow causing gravity and the accelerating expansion of the universe.

It seems to me we are seeing the same thing but are describing it differently.

Persol wrote,

I'm guessing that the paper I read was the first one. I do not see how you made it clear that objectivistic physics is better. Very obviously, we base our intelligence on what we see. Using relativity we can determine what have observer in the universe is seeing. There is no need (and no proof) of a steady point of reference. In this respect, your theory is also not objectivistic, as you still require the use of relative motion to gets results of any meaning.

I'm not advocating a static universal ether. The evidence tells us that all motion is relative--relative to the nearest, heaviest concentrations of matter. I'm saying we must relate motion to the celestial bodies instead of to any arbitrary frame or observer. The evidence is all on my side. Notice that the GPS system is based on an Earth-center stationary frame, not on your frame or the frame of a tumbling space ship passing nearby.

I wrote "Relativity is about what "appears" to be the case to the observer, not about what "is" the case in this Cosmos--most physicists do not realize this."

It is about both. Just as we can set the frame of reference to us sitting on earth, we can set it to a point in a galaxy far far away.

So tell me, is the Copernican heliocentric model NO BETTER than the Ptolemaic Earth-observer based model? If you say yes, you set physics back about 400 years.

One again, I think it failed to do this. There are problems with ether theory, and you have not fixed them. You can say that space flows, but don't say from where is originates (where's the faucet). All you are doing is attaching a different analogy to relativity. It may work in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's physically true.

Name the "problems" that I haven't already addressed in the online papers--or that you think I didn't solve and I'll give it a try. As for where space originates, I can only speculate--you don't expect me to explain everything do you? I suspect that reacting matter (fission and fusion) create space, whereas inert matter consumes space. If I'm right, stars might produce more space than inert matter can consume--and this gives us the Cosmic expansion since all stars and galaxies are net space producers

There is no reason to think that 'fluid space' is anything but another analogy. Relativity claims that space bends in 4D, but accepts that this may just be an analogy that works.

Relativity does not say that "space bends". Relativity says that "space-time" bends. Space-time is nothing but length and time measurements made by observers. Indeed, Relativists don't understand Relativity--which I demonstrate in my online papers.

Linder:As another member mentioned, the revolutionary motion of the Earth is a uniform translation--no rotation or acceleration relative to space (the space that's flowing into or out of the Sun).

Well yes, there is. We are constantly accelerating towards the sun.

The Earth is NOT accelerating relative to space. The Earth is accelerating Sunward WITH the Sun's ether field's acceleration. The Earth is in free-fall.

Lindner: The rotation of the Earth is accelerational and space appears to NOT be accelerated with mass but to resist mass's acceleration (inertia).

The rotation of the earth is also an orbit around the earths core.

The Earth's mass is not in free fall towards the Earth's center. Every point of mass in the Earth is accelerating relative to the entrained inflowing space due to the Earth's rotation.

Here's just one other example of a problem requiring a fudge factor-- Why wouldn't an observer flying past our solar system at near-c see the heavier planets spiral into the heavier Sun?[/b]
Ok, I've gone into this with MacM for the last couple months. These fudge factors, paradoxes, and contradictions have not been shown.

Hah, Hah. Why don't you start by showing me how you explain the "paradox" I've mentioned above--without some funny trick or fudge factor? I've got loads more where that came from. I deal with the twin paradox exhaustively in my paper "Etherism over Atomism". I demonstrate that every attempt to "resolve" it requires a third, Cosmic, objective frame.

Originally posted by MacM
Henry Lindner,




?: My view has been that of a dynamic energy field creating space itself. I saw the energy flow causing gravity and the accelerating expansion of the universe.

It seems to me we are seeing the same thing but are describing it differently.

Tom,

As far as I can tell, "energy" is just motion--as Francis Bacon concluded 350 years ago. So when you say "energy field" I ask, "what is moving?", "how is it moving"?

Henry

Henry Lidner,

As far as I can tell, "energy" is just motion--as Francis Bacon concluded 350 years ago. So when you say "energy field" I ask, "what is moving?", "how is it moving"?


ANS: As you said to Persol, "You don't expect me to have all the answers do you?":D

But no, I suppose it is possible to view space as a fabric (aether) of some sort but that in of itself still requires further description.

I have no more trouble viewing energy flowing as being space than I have seeing space as a flowing aether.

Either view lacks an ultimate conclusion. How can energy flow create space, if flow requires space and vice versa how could space flow in absence of energy.

I really think we need each other (me more than you though).:D

HAHAHAHAHA.....

Crackpot Convention.

Linder, Mac and Tom all in the same room discussing the origins of gravity and the universe.

Hey Linder, when did you stop being a physician, HAHAHAHAHA....
Thats the job you put down under member listing

HAHAHAHAHA.....:D

ryans,

HAHAHAHAHA.....

Crackpot Convention.

Linder, Mac and Tom all in the same room discussing the origins of gravity and the universe.

Hey Linder, when did you stop being a physician, HAHAHAHAHA....
Thats the job you put down under member listing

HAHAHAHAHA.....


ANS: Actually ryans, I think it may be tom and I that do some laughing. I got a feeling Henry here is going to give you a bit more run for your money than tom or I have.:D

MacM:

You said: "How can energy flow create space, if flow requires space...?"

What do you mean by "requires space"?

Henry:

Welcome to sciforums.

<i>Why wouldn't an observer flying past our solar system at near-c see the heavier planets spiral into the heavier Sun?</i>

How much general relativity do you know?

Presumably, you're aware that the rest mass does not increase with the observer's velocity, and that gravitational attraction depends on various momentum flows as well as on rest energy, as described by Einstein's theory.

I'm surprised you don't know the answer to this one.

Fairfield,

The main problem with my concept, as I see it, is that for something to move it must use space. Therefore claiming that space is being created by a moving energy field seems dualistic.

"Cart before the horse if you will.

Henry sez:

This rotational space drift (464m/s at the equator) was directly measured by the Brillet and Hall interferometer, casting doubt on the reality of the Fitzgerald length contraction. Various experiments in which light signals take different times to travel around the Earth in opposite directions are also consistent with a 464m/s rotational space wind at the Earth's equator.

Your analysis is flawed. In GR, using differential geometry, off diagonal time-space components occur in the rotating (earth) frame metric. For such a metric, time is not orthogonal to space, (for example: the spacetime around a star possessing angular momentum) and is referred to as non-time-orthogonality and implies an anisotropy in the speed of light in rotating frames – in other words, the principle of the constancy of c cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame.

The Brillet-Hall was the only test capable of monitoring any effect due to non-time-orthogonality of the rotating earth fixed reference frame – it is in complete agreement with all other known experiments.


Notice that the GPS system is based on an Earth-center stationary frame, not on your frame or the frame of a tumbling space ship passing nearby.

Non-time-orthogonality methodology leaves unchanged all analyses of systems in which time is orthogonal to space. Such systems comprise free fall frames in gravitational orbits and the vast majority of all other relativistic systems – GPS for example.

Indeed, Relativists don't understand Relativity

And a very big welcome to you too, Henry.

MacM:

You said: "The main problem with my concept, as I see it, is that for something to move it must use space."

Henry consistently fails to use the word "substance" after the word "space", leaving no way to discriminate between his hypothetical space substance and the usual metric space which in his theory would be just an illusion due to our practice of referring space measurements to rigid measuring instruments. In other words, it would be like measuring the length of a river but not the length of the river bed.

I don't know whether this was your difficulty or not. If not, try again.

Fairfield,

Henry consistently fails to use the word "substance" after the word "space", leaving no way to discriminate between his hypothetical space substance and the usual metric space which in his theory would be just an illusion due to our practice of referring space measurements to rigid measuring instruments. In other words, it would be like measuring the length of a river but not the length of the river bed.


ANS:I would not attempt to speak for Henry L. but in terms of your analogy I am saying UniKEF is the river.

....And according to relativists you are fighting an upstream battle:p

Why not just go with the flow?;)

Vortexx,

....And according to relativists you are fighting an upstream battle

ANS: YOu got that right.:D

Why not just go with the flow?


ANS: I refuse to drown with the rest. I choose to keep swimming to the other side where the grass is greener. :D

The grass is always greener on the other side. It's not until you get there that you realise that it is littered with the rotting carcuses of failed theories of the crackpot.

Even crackpots don't like crackpots. Wouldn't it be better to skip the perjorative and just say that someone is wrong and why? (Although I know that that can take a lot of patience if it's the tenth time around).

The trouble with the word crackpot is that it backfires so easily. For instance, from 'Principles of Meteoritics' by E.L.Kronov:

"During the period of vigorous scientific development which took place during the eighteenth century, scientist came to the conclusion that the falling of meteorites on the Earth is impossible; all reports of such cases were decllared to be absurd fiction. Thus for example...the Swiss mineralogist J.A.Deluc stated that 'if he saw a fall of meteorite himself, he would not believe his own eyes'. But especially astonishing is the fact that even the well known chemist Lavoisier signed a memorandum in 1772 with scientists of the Paris Academy of Sciences which concluded...that 'the falling of stones from the sky is physically impossible'. Finally, when the meteorite Barbotan fell in France in 1790 and the fall was witnessed by the mayor and the city council the French scientist Berthollet wrote:'How sad it is that the entire municipality enters folk tales upon an official record, presenting them as something actually seen, while they cannot be explained by physics nor by anything reasonable."

It was a long time ago but the dangers of dogmatism are unchanged.

It was Galileo's fellow astronomers who would not look through his telescope at Jupiter's moons, denying their existence as more than optical illusions.

Relativity and QM explain nothing. They model measurements by the observer--period. When data don't fit their assumptions they add a fudge factor. Paradoxes and contradictions roam free. Here's just one other example of a problem requiring a fudge factor-- Why wouldn't an observer flying past our solar system at near-c see the heavier planets spiral into the heavier Sun?

Would he be in an accelerating reference frame in such a case? Afterall, he is sitting within the local gravitational environment of the solar system, implying that he is 'following' the curvature of the local gravitational field. This is acceleration is it not? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Relativity says that an accelerating reference frame can be clearly identified, if i'm not mistaken.

Also, the fact that he is traveling at near c in a particular direction, only accounts for his relative velocity IN THAT DIRECTION. His velocity in other directions are much lower, and even if they were not much lower, he would still have to be 'accelerating' with respect to them in order not to fall into the 'heavier' sun. The things on the sides of the spaceship should appear quite normal. Only things directly along the trajectory would be affected by relativistic effects (shrinkage, expansion, mass changes, and so on). So long as he is not traveling towards or away from the planets in a straight line at near 'c', he would not notice any relativistic changes in the masses of nearby objects to his 'left' or 'right' so to speak.

So far, this 'paradox' only shows your lack of understanding of relativity, but does not falsify relativity. Even my own analysis is incomplete, but the fact remains that this reveals some potential loopholes in this entire argument relating to this apparent paradox that disproves relativity. :m:

The principle of relativity asserts that all reference frames are equally valid for defining the laws of physics. ALL reference frames. In Relativity--axiomatically speaking--all motion is purely relative to ANY chosen frame--as Einstein said "There is no such thing as an independent trajectory, but only a trajectory relative to a given frame of reference.

In Relativity, if a mass has a velocity near -c in the observer's frame, in any direction, its apparent mass-energy should increase.

As you deny the above axioms by your preference for gravitators, gravitational fields, and their special reference frames, you have abandoned Relativity. If you admit a unique, especially important reference frame relative to which motion must be described, then you are an ether model advocate, not a Relativist. Of course, this is the mess that Einstein himself found himself in as he admitted in 1920 that according to the GTR, there is an ether. GTR is thus itself a violation of the principle of relativity.

Thanks to Einstein--contradictions and confusions without end.

I suggest you read my analysis of the philosophical errors of Einstein in "Beyond Conciousness to Cosmos: Beyond Relativity and Quantum Theory to Cosmic Theory".

Henry
www.henrylindner.com


Originally posted by GundamWing
Would he be in an accelerating reference frame in such a case? Afterall, he is sitting within the local gravitational environment of the solar system, implying that he is 'following' the curvature of the local gravitational field. This is acceleration is it not? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Relativity says that an accelerating reference frame can be clearly identified, if i'm not mistaken.

Also, the fact that he is traveling at near c in a particular direction, only accounts for his relative velocity IN THAT DIRECTION. His velocity in other directions are much lower, and even if they were not much lower, he would still have to be 'accelerating' with respect to them in order not to fall into the 'heavier' sun. The things on the sides of the spaceship should appear quite normal. Only things directly along the trajectory would be affected by relativistic effects (shrinkage, expansion, mass changes, and so on). So long as he is not traveling towards or away from the planets in a straight line at near 'c', he would not notice any relativistic changes in the masses of nearby objects to his 'left' or 'right' so to speak.

So far, this 'paradox' only shows your lack of understanding of relativity, but does not falsify relativity. Even my own analysis is incomplete, but the fact remains that this reveals some potential loopholes in this entire argument relating to this apparent paradox that disproves relativity. :m:

Originally posted by ryans
The grass is always greener on the other side. It's not until you get there that you realise that it is littered with the rotting carcuses of failed theories of the crackpot.

Worst of all are the small-minded fools who adhere to dogmatic ideologies that they do not understand. Schools produce them by the thousands.

Henry

Q,

And all those rotational experiments including Michelson-Gale and Sagnac prove that there is an unique physical frame for rotation--there is an ether just as Einstein admitted. Increase the radius of the rotation and you approximate absolute straight-line velocity.

Now what you have to realize is that GTR is a completely subjectivistic system (the interval is based on the observers' measurements and experiences only)and as such is inappropriate for describing any objective spatial frame--or the objective Cosmos.

Henry


Originally posted by (Q)
Henry sez:

This rotational space drift (464m/s at the equator) was directly measured by the Brillet and Hall interferometer, casting doubt on the reality of the Fitzgerald length contraction. Various experiments in which light signals take different times to travel around the Earth in opposite directions are also consistent with a 464m/s rotational space wind at the Earth's equator.

Your analysis is flawed. In GR, using differential geometry, off diagonal time-space components occur in the rotating (earth) frame metric. For such a metric, time is not orthogonal to space, (for example: the spacetime around a star possessing angular momentum) and is referred to as non-time-orthogonality and implies an anisotropy in the speed of light in rotating frames – in other words, the principle of the constancy of c cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame.

The Brillet-Hall was the only test capable of monitoring any effect due to non-time-orthogonality of the rotating earth fixed reference frame – it is in complete agreement with all other known experiments.


Notice that the GPS system is based on an Earth-center stationary frame, not on your frame or the frame of a tumbling space ship passing nearby.

Non-time-orthogonality methodology leaves unchanged all analyses of systems in which time is orthogonal to space. Such systems comprise free fall frames in gravitational orbits and the vast majority of all other relativistic systems – GPS for example.

Indeed, Relativists don't understand Relativity

And a very big welcome to you too, Henry.

Canute,

"I would rather believe that scientist lie than rocks fall from the sky.

Thomas Jefferson"

Henry Lindner:

<i>The principle of relativity asserts that all reference frames are equally valid for defining the laws of physics.</i>

No. It asserts that all <b>inertial</b> reference frames are equally valid for defining the laws of physics.

<i>In Relativity--axiomatically speaking--all motion is purely relative to ANY chosen frame--as Einstein said "There is no such thing as an independent trajectory, but only a trajectory relative to a given frame of reference.</i>

That is true.

<i>In Relativity, if a mass has a velocity near -c in the observer's frame, in any direction, its apparent mass-energy should increase.</i>

Yes. Its rest mass doesn't change, of course.

<i>If you admit a unique, especially important reference frame relative to which motion must be described, then you are an ether model advocate, not a Relativist.</i>

Correct.

<i>Of course, this is the mess that Einstein himself found himself in as he admitted in 1920 that according to the GTR, there is an ether. GTR is thus itself a violation of the principle of relativity.</i>

Please provide the appropriate quote and reference for what and when Einstein supposedly "admitted" this.

<i>I suggest you read my analysis of the philosophical errors of Einstein in "Beyond Conciousness to Cosmos: Beyond Relativity and Quantum Theory to Cosmic Theory".</i>

Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher.

<i>And all those rotational experiments including Michelson-Gale and Sagnac prove that there is an unique physical frame for rotation--there is an ether just as Einstein admitted.</i>

No. Rotational experiments rely on the frames being non-inertial. They do not require an ether.

<i>Now what you have to realize is that GTR is a completely subjectivistic system (the interval is based on the observers' measurements and experiences only)and as such is inappropriate for describing any objective spatial frame--or the objective Cosmos.</i>

Surely, a theory is objective if everybody agrees on what different observers will measure, isn't it? Relativity certainly fits the bill in that respect.

Henry

And all those rotational experiments including Michelson-Gale and Sagnac prove that there is an unique physical frame for rotation--there is an ether just as Einstein admitted. Increase the radius of the rotation and you approximate absolute straight-line velocity.

Judging by your response, it is apparent you did not understand my post or else chose to ignore it.

The effect of the earth surface speed on the speed of light is NOT the result of an ‘ether wind’ but is due to non-time-orthogonality in a rotating frame. By transforming the rotating frame to the non-rotating frame, the coordinate time t in the rotating system is equal to the proper time of a standard clock in the non-rotating frame.

The results in the line element of the metric in the rotating frame implicitly imply that time is NOT orthogonal to space because the angular velocity (earth surface speed) does not equal zero, and when the angular velocity of the rotating frame is set to zero, time IS orthogonal to space and the physical speed of light is isotropic and invariant.

Now what you have to realize is that GTR is a completely subjectivistic system (the interval is based on the observers' measurements and experiences only) and as such is inappropriate for describing any objective spatial frame--or the objective Cosmos.

Really? Can you then explain why the above results completely agree with GPS data?

BTW – I would also like to see the quote where Einstein admitted an ether.

James,

Einstein imposed a specific ideology upon theoretical physics, an ideology that I expose completely in "Beyond Consciousness to Cosmos...".

Here's the fundamental issue--there are two and only two approaches to the nature of reality and of our mind's relationship to reality:

idealism: Consciousness exists. All that we know with certainty is that we are conscious—we passively experience and actively create ideas. The existence of anything apart from our ideas is uncertain and unknowable.

Cosmism: The Cosmos exists. It is the self-sustaining physical entity of whose evolution we humans and our language-enhanced consciousness are products. Our sensations and measurements result from the physical interaction of our sense organs and instruments with the rest of the Cosmos.

These mutually exclusive metaphysical postulates produce different epistemologies:

subjectivism: Knowledge consists only of our descriptions and models of our conscious experiences.

objectivism: Knowledge consists of our attempts to describe, model, and explain the Cosmos itself, as it exists and evolves and causes our experiences.

Which of these to you think is the path taken by Relativity and Quantum Theory? Why?

You wrote,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James R
[Henry Lindner:

<i>The principle of relativity asserts that all reference frames are equally valid for defining the laws of physics.</i>

No. It asserts that all <b>inertial</b> reference frames are equally valid for defining the laws of physics.

That's the restricted POR of STR. GTR was based upon the non-restricted POR as I've quoted it above. GTR was invented to "relativize" all motion--as Einstein put it:

“All Gaussian co-ordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of Nature.”

Note again that GR retained SR’s subjectivistic foundations: absolute c for every observer’s CS, time as the observer’s clock reading, and distance as the observer’s measuring rod. Where SR had related the “laws of nature” only to observers in uniform motion or free-fall, GR attempted to relate all “laws of nature” to any rotating, randomly accelerating reference “mollusk”.

<i>In Relativity, if a mass has a velocity near -c in the observer's frame, in any direction, its apparent mass-energy should increase.</i>

Yes. Its rest mass doesn't change, of course.

Is not gravity the product of an object's mass-energy? Are you saying that orthodox Relativists have decided that gravitation is caused by rest mass only and not by mass-energy? Do you realize that this is a violation of the POR? In fact, as I argue in my articles, just about everything we know about the Cosmos disproves the foundations of SR and GR.

<i>If you admit a unique, especially important reference frame relative to which motion must be described, then you are an ether model advocate, not a Relativist.</i>

Correct.

And do you deny that all the matter in the Cosmos creates such a frame? It is not Euclidean or homogeneous, of course, but it is THE FRAME.

<i>Of course, this is the mess that Einstein himself found himself in as he admitted in 1920 that according to the GTR, there is an ether. GTR is thus itself a violation of the principle of relativity.</i>

Please provide the appropriate quote and reference for what and when Einstein supposedly "admitted" this.

I'll just paste here a section from my paper in which the quotes are from Einstein's 1920 Leyden lecture. It has been published by Dover in a little book, "Sidelights On Relativity:

“the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitational potentials ), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. …But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach’s way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach’s ether not only conditions the behavior of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them…What is fundamentally new in the ether of general relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places…” ( )

Taking a page from Mach, Einstein related all motion to the unique frame defined in every location by the near and distant matter of the Cosmos. He admitted that this Cosmic, mass-influenced frame constituted an ether; yet he failed to admit that this contradicted his own Principle of Relativity that claimed that all motion could be equally well-described in any coordinate system whatsoever! He said,

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”( )

Einstein also realized that GR could not “work” at all unless Cosmic space had some underlying structure that caused inertia and that somehow mediated the propagation of light and affected the rates of clocks and lengths of rods. Notice, however, that Einstein here used the term “space” ambiguously, since according to the axioms of SR and his subjectivistic epistemology, space was nothing more than a number of rods counted by the observer. Einstein also spoke of gravitational/inertial and electromagnetic fields and stated that there was no space without a field.

We arrive here at the fatal inconsistency in Einstein’s physics—a man who admitted that he was an inconsistent philosopher. When he admitted that space had physical qualities, he introduced an objectivistic concept that was incompatible with his subjectivistic epistemology. SR can work as a purely subjectivistic model of motion any observer’s measurements in an imaginary “flat” matter-free space. However, when acceleration and matter-produced gravity are included, it is obvious that a unique physical frame exists—the frame of the near and distant matter! In the real space of the real Cosmos, motion is uniquely, causally affected by matter and must therefore be related to and not to any arbitrary observer’s frame. GR modeled this ether—but only indirectly—as it affected the experiences and measurements of observers in various states of motion in the Cosmos! GR’s space-time continuum, like SR’s, remains a model of the observer’s sensorium, but it includes the alterations caused by the presence of matter.
GR thus admits that there exists in any locale a unique physical frame that affects gravitational and inertial motion and affects the moving observers’ clocks and rods—there is an ether. Given this fact, shouldn’t Einstein have abandoned the subjectivistic method of SR and related all phenomena to the local, matter-influenced frame? Shouldn’t he have studied this ether and created theories about it nature and properties? Shouldn’t he have sought the causes of gravity and inertia? We find instead that when he faced this fatal conflict between his subjectivistic method and the existence of the ether, Einstein, like Newton, evaded the issue. He not only made no hypotheses about the ether, he actually prohibited all hypotheses about it:

“But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”( )

In other words, space is a substance but we must never think of it as a substance or theorize about it. Why the prohibition? Why did both Newton and Einstein affirm that space was a substance, and then try to ignore and evade the implications? Shouldn’t humans always follow the evidence wherever it leads and seek the causes of all physical phenomena?

<i>I suggest you read my analysis of the philosophical errors of Einstein in "Beyond Conciousness to Cosmos: Beyond Relativity and Quantum Theory to Cosmic Theory".</i>

Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher.

Well, in his own words, he was an "inconsistent philosopher"--and that is precisely the problem. Actually, he imposed a primitive, inadequate Idealistic/subjectivistic foundation on theoretical physics. A foundation he took wholesale from Bishop Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Mach. Are you aware that he stated that the conflict between the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems was "meaningless" since it was just a matter of a choice of coordinate systems? Do YOU believe that it was meaningless?

<i>And all those rotational experiments including Michelson-Gale and Sagnac prove that there is an unique physical frame for rotation--there is an ether just as Einstein admitted.</i>

No. Rotational experiments rely on the frames being non-inertial. They do not require an ether.

And please do tell me what in this Cosmos determines whether a "frame" is inertial or non-inertial? Are not "frames" just a convenient shorthand for free-fall motion caused by, and relative to the celestial bodies? What do these bodies DO to their surrounding space to cause all "inertial frames" to accelerate towards their own center? By talking about "frames" and not the Cosmos, you are dropping the context in which motion occurs.

Surely, a theory is objective if everybody agrees on what different observers will measure, isn't it? Relativity certainly fits the bill in that respect.

In Relativity, there is an "intersubjective" reality, not an objective observer-independent or Cosmic reality. The space-time interval between events is the ONLY thing that different observers can agree upon in Relativity--and Einstein admits that this agreement requires an ether. I expose this issue exhaustively in my paper. Relativists simply do not grasp the philosophical issues involved--that's the problem.

Henry

Q,

You wrote

The effect of the earth surface speed on the speed of light is NOT the result of an ‘ether wind’ but is due to non-time-orthogonality in a rotating frame. By transforming the rotating frame to the non-rotating frame, the coordinate time t in the rotating system is equal to the proper time of a standard clock in the non-rotating frame.

The results in the line element of the metric in the rotating frame implicitly imply that time is NOT orthogonal to space because the angular velocity (earth surface speed) does not equal zero, and when the angular velocity of the rotating frame is set to zero, time IS orthogonal to space and the physical speed of light is isotropic and invariant.

I have no interest in your space-time model or its language. I know what your space-time is, and I know, on simple philosophical principles, that your model and its language is invented to HIDE the fact that there is a unique frame in any region of this Cosmos relative to which rotation is physical, real, and absolute. I have discussed this all quite thoroughly in my paper.

Now what you have to realize is that GTR is a completely subjectivistic system (the interval is based on the observers' measurements and experiences only) and as such is inappropriate for describing any objective spatial frame--or the objective Cosmos.

Really? Can you then explain why the above results completely agree with GPS data?

Einstein was right, of course, about many things and Relativity includes many correct equations. The issue is about WHAT the equations mean, how they are applied, and what in this Cosmos is CAUSING us to measure such things.

The GPS data, for instance, presume an ether that is Earth-centered and co-moving with the Earth. If that ether also is flowing into the Earth radially from all directions with a=GM/r^2 and v=sqrt(2GM/r) then the GPS data are not only modeled but EXPLAINED. Clocks that are higher above the Earth run faster because they're exposed to a lesser spatial flow. Clocks that orbit the Earth are slowed by the motion in what frame--any chosen observer's frame? NO--the frame of the Earth. Herbert Ives published this model of gravity in the 30s and 40s, but I arrived at it independently.

This issue is this--is theoretical physics about mathematical models of the OBSERVER's experiences and measurements or is it about modeling the Cosmos itself and discovering the causes of inertia, gravity, light's invariant velocity, etc. Relativity and Quantum theory are merely subjectivstic measurements models. But physicists do not realize this--they use these subjectivistic models as tools for the description of the objective, matter-space Cosmos. It doesn't work.

Henry

Henry, your findings can also be explained using the holographic model of the universe

ryans,


Originally posted by ryans
Henry, your findings can also be explained using the holographic model of the universe


Ans: I think I know the answer to my next question before I ask it but I will ask just the same.

Question: Why have you posted a verbatum response to Mr Lindner as you have me regarding UniKEF Test Data?

1 - You see a parallel?

2 - You find your reply to be funny and it is not directly responsive to the issue?

3 - Both 1 & 2 above

Originally posted by Henry Lindner
Here's the fundamental issue--there are two and only two approaches to the nature of reality and of our mind's relationship to reality:

idealism: Consciousness exists. All that we know with certainty is that we are conscious—we passively experience and actively create ideas. The existence of anything apart from our ideas is uncertain and unknowable.

Cosmism: The Cosmos exists. It is the self-sustaining physical entity of whose evolution we humans and our language-enhanced consciousness are products. Our sensations and measurements result from the physical interaction of our sense organs and instruments with the rest of the Cosmos.

These mutually exclusive metaphysical postulates produce different epistemologies: Henry
Not to divert an interesting discussion but a small aside. These two approaches are only necessarily mutually exlusive at a fundamental ontological level, and I'm not sure that they must be necessarily contradictory even at that level. They may be two aspects of a single truth, their contradiction just an artefact of our dualistic conception of consciousness and cosmos, and each may be partly true and partly false, the real truth being a synthesis.

Henry sez:

I have no interest in your space-time model or its language.

Do you choose to ignore it or do you simply not understand it?

I know what your space-time is, and I know, on simple philosophical principles, that your model and its language is invented to HIDE the fact that there is a unique frame in any region of this Cosmos relative to which rotation is physical, real, and absolute.

Come now Henry, that is almost absurd in the extreme. Why would anyone want to hide something like that? Are you implying that relativity is some sort of conspiracy theory? And besides, we’re not talking philosophy.

I have discussed this all quite thoroughly in my paper.

Yes, I know, that’s why others and I are pointing out the flaws in your paper. Have you come here to simply state that you are right and everyone else is wrong, or have you come here to listen to reason?

The GPS data, for instance, presume an ether that is Earth-centered and co-moving with the Earth. If that ether also is flowing into the Earth radially from all directions with a=GM/r^2 and v=sqrt(2GM/r) then the GPS data are not only modeled but EXPLAINED.

Doesn’t this statement contradict itself? Where is the ether coming from if it is always “flowing” into the earth and at the same time co-moving with it? Does co-moving mean rotating with the earth or traveling along with the earth in its orbit around the sun, galaxy,etc.? Shouldn’t the ether flow faster on the side of the earth moving in the direction of it’s orbit around the sun and slower on the far side?

Clocks that are higher above the Earth run faster because they're exposed to a lesser spatial flow.

How does that work? Does the ether cause friction on the mechanics of the clock? Does it work both ways if the clock is right side up or upside down? Shouldn’t the clock tick slower as it climbs out of the ether and faster as it flows with ether towards earth even though the clock is moving at the same speed in both directions? Does the ether penetrate the earths surface and flow directly towards the center? If not, how does this affect a clock underneath the surface of the earth?

You see what happens when this shit is allowed to proceed. This CRACKPOT comes here to post his stupid theory, which is objected to by many on the forum on physical grounds to which he replies that he cares not of the opinions of the people who object his theory. This is crackpot science, it fulfils all the criteria and it is still allowed to continue.

This thread should be halted immediatly and moved to the psuedoscience forum.

Henry, are you just another one of those "scientists" who simply will never be able to understand the language of physics, mathematics, and so proposes that current theories are wrong and put forward your own theory which is presented in layman language, using only philosophical arguements.

ryans,

I am not taking sides here on the technical merits of either side. I merely want to point out what I have said before.

That is there are those here that choose to invoke existing theory as the sounding board against which you will consider anything rather than address the physics or mechanical concepts being presented.

It is the old "You can't prove a theory using a theory problem" in reverse.

That is you want to use one theory to disprove another without seeing if the other flows logically to a common conclusion. If it has common results that fit observation and experiment then the theory you are trying to use to disprove it disproves nothing.

In that regard I think Henry is correct to disregard what Relativity or anyother theory claims unless it can be shown independantly that the results of his concept fail to produce the proper results.


Over Simplified Example: If Relativity claimed an electron is GREEN. And a person enters a theory here that starts that an electron is bifurcated and is composed of a BLUE and YELLOW sub-component, you object immediately since Relativity says it is green. You will never realize that the blue and yellow components make it green also.

On the other hand if they said it is composed of Red and Blue components THEN you would have a rightful objection since it won't form green.

Henry:

<i>Here's the fundamental issue--there are two and only two approaches to the nature of reality and of our mind's relationship to reality...These mutually exclusive metaphysical postulates produce different epistemologies:

subjectivism: Knowledge consists only of our descriptions and models of our conscious experiences.

objectivism: Knowledge consists of our attempts to describe, model, and explain the Cosmos itself, as it exists and evolves and causes our experiences.</i>

This is an old debate in the philosophy of science. The extreme positions are often called instrumentalism (what you call "subjectivism") and realism ("objectivism"), with constructive empiricism somewhere in the middle.

<i>Which of these to you think is the path taken by Relativity and Quantum Theory? Why?</i>

Either position is equally tenable. Physical theories do not carry a particular philosophical stance with them. They simply match observations to theory. Whether, in so doing, they describe something objective or subjective is unimportant so long as they make testable predictions.

You need to separate philosophy from physics. They are two different things.

You: <i>The principle of relativity asserts that all reference frames are equally valid for defining the laws of physics.</i>
Me: <i>No. It asserts that all inertial reference frames are equally valid for defining the laws of physics.</i>
You: <i>That's the restricted POR of STR. GTR was based upon the non-restricted POR as I've quoted it above.</i>

No. It applies to both GR and SR. The only change is in the definition of "inertial reference frame". In GR, the definition is extended to include frames in gravitational free fall.

<i>Is not gravity the product of an object's mass-energy? Are you saying that orthodox Relativists have decided that gravitation is caused by rest mass only and not by mass-energy?</i>

In GR, gravitation is caused both by mass-energy and various momentum flows, as described by the energy-momentum tensor.

<i>Do you realize that this is a violation of the POR?</i>

No. It isn't. The energy-momentum tensor transforms according to the Lorentz transformations.

<i>And do you deny that all the matter in the Cosmos creates such a frame? It is not Euclidean or homogeneous, of course, but it is THE FRAME.</i>

The average motion of the universal centre of mass is a possible reference frame. It is not preferred to any other frame in the theory of relativity, however. The theory in no way refers to the existence of any such frame.

<i>“the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitational potentials ), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.</i>

I have no idea what you mean by empty space being neither homogeneous nor isotropic. Are you referring to curvature of spacetime? Curvature is not a substance or ether.

<i>Taking a page from Mach, Einstein related all motion to the unique frame defined in every location by the near and distant matter of the Cosmos. He admitted that this Cosmic, mass-influenced frame constituted an ether; yet he failed to admit that this contradicted his own Principle of Relativity that claimed that all motion could be equally well-described in any coordinate system whatsoever!</i>

Einstein was obviously using the term "ether" in a way quite different from how it was used prior to the special theory of relativity.

<i>“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”</i>

What comes immediately before this quote, in Einstein's words?

<i>Einstein also realized that GR could not “work” at all unless Cosmic space had some underlying structure that caused inertia and that somehow mediated the propagation of light and affected the rates of clocks and lengths of rods.</i>

If Einstein discussed this, it would have been as speculation on Mach's principle. Such speculation is far from a necessary part of the general theory of relativity.

<i>SR can work as a purely subjectivistic model of motion any observer’s measurements in an imaginary “flat” matter-free space. However, when acceleration and matter-produced gravity are included, it is obvious that a unique physical frame exists—the frame of the near and distant matter!</i>

Well, yes, that particular frame is unique, but there's no reason why we should be forced to use that frame in preference to any other frame.

<i>Shouldn’t he have sought the causes of gravity and inertia?</i>

This is not physics, but philosophy. Sure, Einstein sometimes mused on such things when in a philosophical frame of mind. But physics is descriptive; it does not concern itself with final causes (in the Aristotlean sense).

<i>Are you aware that he stated that the conflict between the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems was "meaningless" since it was just a matter of a choice of coordinate systems? Do YOU believe that it was meaningless?</i>

Yes. You can derive the motion of the planets around the sun frome an Earth-centred frame just as you can do so from a sun-centred frame. The former is more difficult, of course, because the Earth frame is non-inertial.

<i>And please do tell me what in this Cosmos determines whether a "frame" is inertial or non-inertial?</i>

Nobody knows. Maybe it has something to do with Mach's principle. :)

<i>Are not "frames" just a convenient shorthand for free-fall motion caused by, and relative to the celestial bodies? What do these bodies DO to their surrounding space to cause all "inertial frames" to accelerate towards their own center?</i>

They bend spacetime, as described in GR.

<i>By talking about "frames" and not the Cosmos, you are dropping the context in which motion occurs.</i>

Not really. All motion occurs in the cosmos, so the cosmos is always there in the background.

<i>In Relativity, there is an "intersubjective" reality, not an objective observer-independent or Cosmic reality.</i>

Yes.

<i>The space-time interval between events is the ONLY thing that different observers can agree upon in Relativity--and Einstein admits that this agreement requires an ether.</i>

It's not the only thing. There are many Lorentz invariant quantities apart from spacetime intervals.

I think you should perhaps specify exactly what you mean by "ether", and then I'll tell you whether Einstein admits something about your ether.

<i>I expose this issue exhaustively in my paper. Relativists simply do not grasp the philosophical issues involved--that's the problem.</i>

I think you'll find that some of them do grasp the issues, but they are able to separate the physics from the philosophy.

James R.,

If a theory were to provide an objective basis that fits observation and experiment of a subjective view from Relativity, would you still object to it?

In the holographic model, H Linders theory would be totally explainable.

The projection of physical reality from the subconsciousness of H Linders mind would mould the universal hologram according to the way he percieves reality. Thus he may have transcended a higher level of consciousness that enables him to see the universe as projected into a higher dimensional reality. In this model relativity would be subjective as the holographic projection onto our reality would be a result of the collective consciousness of all beings who percieve relativity to be correct.

ryans,

Originally posted by ryans
In the holographic model, H Linders theory would be totally explainable.

The projection of physical reality from the subconsciousness of H Linders mind would mould the universal hologram according to the way he percieves reality. Thus he may have transcended a higher level of consciousness that enables him to see the universe as projected into a higher dimensional reality. In this model relativity would be subjective as the holographic projection onto our reality would be a result of the collective consciousness of all beings who percieve relativity to be correct.

Since we are having this same discussion on another thread I'll not elaborate here but only comment that That also means relativity is merely a product of the mind and is also not reality. So why object to altering the mind set to an objective view that more humans could understand.?

Not a very persusave arguement.

Henry Lindner:

The highest judge could be or the person with the highest authority, or experiment. What is better for this case, seen by your eyes?
Emil

Emil,


Originally posted by Emil Smejkal
Henry Lindner:

The highest judge could be or the person with the highest authority, or experiment. What is better for this case, seen by your eyes?
Emil



ANS: Actually, I believe Henry suggests some experiments that could make the distinction. If they are valid experiments I would think science would be eager to do them.

Is it they don't want the answer?

Yeah that's it Mac, they don't want to know, it's a big cospiracy theory.

No they don't want to know how to get energy for nothing.

No they don't want to be able to transfer information at speeds greater than c.

ryans,


Originally posted by ryans
Yeah that's it Mac, they don't want to know, it's a big cospiracy theory.

No they don't want to know how to get energy for nothing.

No they don't want to be able to transfer information at speeds greater than c.


ANS: So then where is the experiment?

Why all the objection without the test?

MacM,
hoping we both are in one ship. I wish underline experiment. It very easy compile new theory (it is very enjoyable, too; do you agree?). But experiment should have greater weight. Henry L. wrote s. about observation, as confirming evidence. It is not experiment, I think.
Emil

If we went and tested all the theories of all the paranoid, delusional crackpots out there, we will still be testing if pythagorus' theory holds.

Don't you think that if there was a way to make information travel at faster than c, we wouldn't be investigating it? Do you know how much money could be made from this. I hardly doubt a multinational telecommunications company is going to care about the reputation of Einstein.

Ryans,
I don't agree, unfortunately. In cosmos there can exist cases with value of speed below c, but also above c. To believe in restrictions, to admire it, is not my opinion.
Emil

Emil,


Originally posted by Emil Smejkal
MacM,
hoping we both are in one ship. I wish underline experiment. It very easy compile new theory (it is very enjoyable, too; do you agree?). But experiment should have greater weight. Henry L. wrote s. about observation, as confirming evidence. It is not experiment, I think.
Emil



ANS: I would have to go back and read to see if what he has posted here states it also but I have read his work on the link provided and I do know that there was some mention of tests that could be done to differentiate the issue.

MacM,

There is no sense in wasting one's time with orthodox scholastic types who believe that physics is separable from philosophy, or that the Copernican Revolution was meaningless, or that a physical theory of gravity is unecessary. They are complete dupes of the system who are so proud they've learned SR and GR and just want to trash anyone who threatens there limited self-esteem.

I've learned all that I want to learn from such types a long time ago--they are irrelevant.

My time is much better spent working on the next revolution in physics, and communicating with others who realize the need for it. You can waste your time with them if you like--you'll give up eventually.

Henry


Originally posted by MacM
Emil,

ANS: I would have to go back and read to see if what he has posted here states it also but I have read his work on the link provided and I do know that there was some mention of tests that could be done to differentiate the issue.

<i>There is no sense in wasting one's time with orthodox scholastic types who believe that physics is separable from philosophy, or that the Copernican Revolution was meaningless, or that a physical theory of gravity is unecessary. They are complete dupes of the system who are so proud they've learned SR and GR and just want to trash anyone who threatens there limited self-esteem.</i>

I read this as "I cannot answer James's previous post, so I am resorting to insults."

Good luck with your revolution, Henry.

Henry’s latest qualifiers:

wasting one's time with orthodox scholastic types… They are complete dupes… want to trash anyone… limited self-esteem… waste your time with them … they are irrelevant…

High praise indeed! And I thought we were beginning to make some headway.

Sorry to have been so “irrelevant.”

Oh well – see you in the funny papers, Henry.

Originally posted by Henry Lindner
There is no sense in wasting one's time with orthodox scholastic types who believe that physics is separable from philosophy, ...
There are a number of people here that believe science is a completely different topic to philosophy. I'm slowly getting used to this view, but I'm afraid I still haven't rid myself of the idea that it's complete and utter stupidity.

As most true crackpots do, run away and say that we are all ignorant of the "real" reality when their theory is grounded by blatant inconsistancies.

Although we (I) give Mac a bit of stick, at least he believes in himself enough to stick around and deal with all critisims. I think he has even admitted to learning something from James regarding gravitational forces from non spherical bodies.

As said above Good luck Henry, a life in ignorance is bliss compared to a life dealing with reality.

ryans,

Originally posted by ryans
As most true crackpots do, run away and say that we are all ignorant of the "real" reality when their theory is grounded by blatant inconsistancies.

Although we (I) give Mac a bit of stick, at least he believes in himself enough to stick around and deal with all critisims. I think he has even admitted to learning something from James regarding gravitational forces from non spherical bodies.

As said above Good luck Henry, a life in ignorance is bliss compared to a life dealing with reality.


ANS: WOW, an off hand compliment from ryans! We must be making progress.:D

Actually, I don't want to give James R., all the credit. I have been starting to realize that my test (including the Remote Port Plug) didn't show the force as being different (as being local or externally generated).

I continued to let it play out to get confirmation.

I do want to note that it has been James R., that has sucessfully debunked me each and every time. Others have come close but drift off into enuendo and topic shifts vs remaining on point and slamming the door.

You really should study his style and give him more credit for his tolerance.

There are several others that have done well also. Persol, lethe, GundamWing, On RadioActive Waves. I'm sure I have forgotten somebody but these are names that come to mind this morning having coffee.

You and chroot seem to like to attack personalities and fail to address the issue or change the topic. That is not as effective at dealing with such errors. It leaves the error as an open question.

And all this hasn't been for naught. I am now one step closer to finding the right way to achieve my goals.:D

I don't have the patients of James. If I explain something once, I do not like to explain over and over again, it's like trying to get water from a rock, beating a dead horse, you know what I mean. I know what I am talking about when I give a response, and so do many others, so you should take responses more openly as discussions with you seem to drag out into pedantic arguements.

ryans,

We have partial agreement. However, I do think part of the problem of why you feel the issues continue on into pendanic strings is that your responses seem to lack detail. You are more prone to simply say "That is the way it is" and not provide any supporting formulas or references. If your answwer is not exclusively on point then that causes continued rejection of the answer provided.