Alternative to Special Relativity

chroot,

Gravitational fields can move, space cannot.

Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In relativity theory, space can.

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

omg...thank you

Yes, space can move. Y'know, I thought so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

chroot,

That's only because scientists assume that space is light's medium. Once they discover that gravitational fields are light's mediums, and not space, they'll start whistling a different tune.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

One more thing, if space does move, what does it move through? Space??:bugeye:

Tom

 

Time.

As I already said, your theory really just replaces "space" with "gravitational field." This is not too big of a stretch really, since general relativity can be said to consider the "field" to be the curvature of space itself, and thus space is the "field."

All you're doing it just rephrasing relativity in a form that makes it less intuitive.

- Warren

 

chroot,

Yes, I know. I just recently I ran across a link that claims that scientists now think that the Earth is dragging space (in my case, the gravitational field) around as it spins.

Regardless of whether the Earth is dragging it's gravitational field around, and light's medium is the gravitational field, or if the Earth is dragging space around, and light's medium is space, wouldn't that mean that the lack of interference patterns in the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained without length contraction and time dilation????

Tom

 

Pro..

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17015

This thread is just for Prosoothus really. But, if it's wrong, chroot. I'll ask JR to take it off the site.

Time-dilation, gravity, speed, and space-time are implicitly connected. In the illustration above, time is 'stiff,' in reality, it is not.

 

Isn't it amazing what happens when you shut your mouth and read? You learn things.

No. General relativity encapsulates special relativity as a special case.

- Warren

 

chroot,

Think about my question again. If Earth is dragging space around, then the Michelson-Morley inferometer won't be able to detect the motion of the Earth's rotation, the motion of the Earth around the Sun, or the motion of our solar system around our galaxy.

Tom

 

You are clueless.

- Warren

 

Hi Tom,

"As far as I know, relativity explains when time dilation occurs, but it doesn't explain why it occurs. If I'm wrong, please explain."

Unfortunately, it is the answer you don't want to hear

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Any theory explains everything from its first principles. In the relativity scenario, time dilatation occurs because of two reasons:
- The Galilean principle of relativity (we've been over this already, this basically states that there is such a thing as "a frame of reference" but this is simply necessary to be able to do something mathematical (since maths require an origin etc etc). Just this principle alone basically gives you absolute Newtonian-like kinematics.

- The speed of light in vacuum is c for all observers (this is what Einstein added to the Galilean principle of relativity). It is this postulate that adds all the relativistic effects to the theory.

Where does time-dilatation come in ? Well, from the two principles above, you can derive that it *must* occur (in the theoretical framework) since the two statements above directly give rise to the Lorentz-transformations (or more specifically, the Boost transformation). Once you have those, you have time-dilatation and length contraction. There are 100 other ways of deriving that time dilatation occurs without going into details of Lorentz transformations, but all ways have the same first principles in common.

Unfortunately, what you would like to see is an intuitive explanation of some physical effect that gives rise to time dilatation. I think there is none, or at least not known to us at this time. Asking "why is c a constant for everybody" is -- for me at least -- the same as asking "why is the electron charge e for everybody". We cannot explain *why* it has that specific value, all we can say is that it simply is that way. You can rightfully call this a gap in physics, and believe me, many people are trying to directly or indirectly figure out why all constants have these values (for every observer I should add) ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

"I see that you've been reading this thread, but you still didn't share your opinion about my theory. Do you think that it's possible that the omnidirectional speed of light is only c in the gravitational field that the light finds itself in at the moment??

Unfortunately, to answer this question, I would need to know what a gravitational field is exactly, i.e. I should know more than I do at the moment on general relativity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... Also, since you are trying to reformulate special/general relativity, you should clearly specify what you mean by gravity (saying that it is a curvature of spacetime is acknowledging that GR is right btw

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

I don't understand what you mean by "the field that the light finds itself in at the moment" --- are you suggesting that the speed of light is dependent on the "strength" of the "gravitational field" ? For what field strength would the speed be c = 3*10^8 m/s then ? I suppose you are indeed refering to variation according to field strength, because otherwise, the speed would be c, regardless of the gravitational field you are in

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

"Wouldn't this explain the lack of interference patterns in the Michelson-Morley experiment without having to introduce two new phenomena into physics (time dilation and length contraction)??"

I think I lost you somewhere along the road... The MM experiment was originally to show the existance of aether. It did not detect a predicted interferencepattern. So you are now saying that aether does in fact exist (as an absolute frame of reference) because the MM failed to detect the motion relative to the aether. This failure to detect originates from the fact that the speed of light is is only locally constant = c, something like that ?

If this is your line of reasoning, then I can only reply with a philosophical remark: if everybody measures c locally, then I can put observers everywhere, who will all locally agree that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c. Doesn't this make it a global constant then ?

Just some thoughts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bye!

Crisp

 

Crisp,

At the beginning of this thread, I explained that a gravitational field is a less dense form of matter. But the actual nature of the gravitational field has no significance to my theory.

Generally, the strength of the gravitational field has no effect on the speed of the light.

The speed of light would be 3*10^8 m/s relative to the gravitational field that the light finds itself in at the moment, regardless of the speed of the gravitational field through space.

For example, let's say that we have a planet (with it's gravitational field) moving at .90c through space. If I were to shine a flashlight in the planet's gravitational field, I would find that the omnidirectional speed of the light is always equal to 3*10^8 m/s, relative to the planet's gravitational field (and the planet itself, since the gravitional field moves with the planet). However, the speed of the light relative to space would not be 3*10^8 m/s, it would be much slower or faster depending on the direction I'm pointing my flashlight.

These are the differences between relativity and my theory:

In Relativity:

a) The omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c in all frames of reference.

In my theory:

a) The omnidirectional speed of light is only equal to c in the local gravitational field that the light finds itself in at the moment.

b) If the light is in a gravitational field that is moving through space, the omnidirectional speed of light will remain c relative to the gravitational field that it is in, but the light's speed will NOT be c relative to space.

My theory simply states that the speed of light is not influenced by space, it is only influenced by the gravitational field that the light finds itself in at the moment. In other words, light uses gravitational fields, and not space, as its medium of travel.

The Michelson-Morley experiment wrongfully assumed that the speed of light is constant in the aether. I am saying that the speed of light is independent of the aether; the speed of light is only dependent on the local gravitational field. Since the M-M apparatus is stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field, it will never show interference patterns regardless of how fast the Earth is moving through the aether. Only if you move the M-M apparatus through the Earth's gravitational field will it show interference patterns. The omnidirectional speed of light is constant relative to the local gravitational field, but it is not constant relative to the aether.

Everyone locally will measure that the omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c only if they are stationairy relative to the gravitational field in which they are in. However, if they start to move, relative to the local gravitational field, then they will witness a change in the speed of light. The change in the speed of light will be based on how fast they are moving through the local gravitational field, and not how fast they are moving through space (or aether).

Tom

 

chroot,

Stop avoiding my question. The Michelson-Morley experiment was done to detect the speed of the Earth through the aether. If the Earth is dragging aether around, then the Michelson-Morley apparatus, on the surface of the Earth, will never show interference patterns regardless of whether length contraction and time dilation exist, or not.

Tom

 

He's not avoiding your question. He's pointing out your question is clueless. ie. does not apply.

There is no aether to drag around. Spacetime is not aether. Geddit_{probably not}?

 

James,

I have no idea. I think that you are asking how would I figure the sum of the speed of all gravitational fields in a certain location. I think that wouldn't be that difficult:

First, I would pick a point. Then I would find the strength of all the gravitational fields created by large masses relative to that point (I would use the classical formula for gravity). Then I would compare the movement of those masses with the point to figure out how fast their gravitational fields are moving relative to that point. Finally, I would average out the speeds giving the strongest gravitational fields priority over the weaker ones.

It sounds complicated, but it's not. Let me give an example using a point on surface of the Earth as a reference, and only the gravitational fields of the Earth and the Sun:

First, I would find out how strong the gravitational field of the Earth is on that point, and compare it to the strength of the gravitational field of the Sun on that point. If you do the calculations, you'll find that the Earth's gravitational field is around 1650 times stronger than the Sun's gravitational field on that point (on the surface of the Earth).

Next I would look at the speeds of the Earth's and Sun's gravitational fields relative to that pont. Since the point is moving with the Earth, the speed of the point relative to the Earth's gravitational field is 0 m/s. But because the speed of the Earth around the Sun is 30,000 m/s, the speed of the point relative to the Sun's gravitational field is 30,000 m/s.

Finally, since the strength of the Sun's gravitational field is 1650 times weaker than the Earth's gravitational field on the point, the motion of the Sun's gravitational field will be 1650 times less significant than the motion of the Earth's gravitational field. So we take 30,000 m/s and we divide it by 1650. We get as a result 18.18 m/s. Since the Earth's gravitational field is stationairy relative to the point, we can make the assumption that the total gravitational field (the Earth's and the Sun's) is moving at a speed of around 18.18 m/s (or less) relative to that point. In other words, the point is moving through it's local gravitational field at a speed of around 18.18 m/s. Unfortunately, this speed is way to slow for the Michelson-Morley inferometer to pick up.

The math I have given is a rough approximation, and it is simplified, but I'm pretty sure that the actual experimental results won't be much different.

One more thing, it's probably the easiest to look at the universe as a current of gravitational fields of different strengths moving at different speeds through a static space, similar to water currents moving through the oceans. Using this model, you can easily visualize the motion of gravitational fields at any single point.

Tom

 

Hi Tom,

I think James is refering to the following contradiction in your theory: if the speed of light is independent of the strength of the gravitational field, then it can only be dependent on a gravitational field being present or not. If it depends on the velocity of the field, this implies that it is sensitive to variations to the field (i.e. of field strength), but this is not the case according to you. Since the earth's gravitational field stretches out to infinity, i.e. is present everywhere, everybody measures c = 3*10^8 m/s as the speed of light.

In your previous post, you started averaging fields. Why ? What is the fundamental reason to look at the average gravitational field and not at the "real" gravitational field present ? If it is to ease calculations, then you are making approximations (and we don't like those, do we

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

" In other words, light uses gravitational fields, and not space, as its medium of travel."

Then what is space ? You use it as an absolute frame of reference without specifying it, we could just aswel call it aether then, no ?

Comments are ofcourse appreciated...

Bye!

Crisp

 

Crisp,

Think of it this way: If a photon is traveling through a gravitational field at a speed that is slower than c, relative to the gravitational field, then the photon will absorb energy from the gravitational field untill the photon's speed reaches c in the gravitational field. If a photon is traveling faster than c in a gravitational field, then the gravitational field will absorb energy from the photon so that the photon slows down to c. As you can see in this example, the speed of the photon will always be c in the local gravitational field regardless of the strength of the field. However, it may be that the time it takes for the photon to accelerate or decelarate to c in a gravitational field may be related to the strength of the field. But this is probably not the case since I assume that the energy needed to change the speed of the photon is so little that even weak gravitational fields can do it (almost) instantly (remember photons have no mass, or very little mass).

That would be the case if the Earth's gravitational field was the only gravitational field in the universe. However, that is not the case. (see my explanation below).

If the omnidirectional speed of the photon is equal to c in a gravitational field, what will the speed of the photon be if there are multiple gravitational fields, with different strengths, moving at at different speeds, overlapping each other in the same space? Obviously, the photon can't pick-and-choose one gravitational field and ignore the rest. In this case, as I explained above, the photon will absorb and transmit energy to all of the fields at the same time, but the stronger gravitational fields will have more influence over the photon than the weaker fields. In other words, the gravitational fields will be playing a tug-of-war on the photon, each one trying to make the photon go the speed of light in only their field. As a result, the photon won't be traveling at c in any of the fields. You would have to average out the speed and strength of all the gravitational fields at a certain point (as I did in my previous post) to figure out the actual speed of the photon relative to that point.

In my theory, space is aether that has a small amount of mass (gravitational field). Aether, in my theory, only has two properties:

1) It is static (it doesn't move, curve, or stretch)

2) It is a medium for matter and gravitational fields to travel through.

Aether may be real or it may be hypothetical. I use it in my theory as a coordinate system for the movement of matter and gravitational fields. However, since it doesn't appear to influence anything (not even photons), it may not physically exist.

Tom

 

Prosoothus,

Why must the photon, in your theory, absorb energy from the gravititational field if its speed is slower than c and vice-verca if its speed is faster than c? What principle is it adhering to?

 

1119,

With my theory, I'm attempting to establish a link, between photons and gravitational fields, which explains the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment without having to introduce time dilation or length contraction into the equation.

Before I can try to figure out why there is a relationship between photons and gravitational fields, I must first prove that there is a relationship. However, I have an assumption that a photon is a gravitational dipole. This "assumption" would explain why photons travel at the speed of light, and why they are influenced by local gravitational fields.

Tom