H Lindner's flowing space substance theory

Crisp:

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Waiting

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Where Are You?

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.

 

Assume

James R.,

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

 

Source

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.

 

JamesR:

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

 

Error

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.

 

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

 

Yes

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.

 

But is it?

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

 

[sarcasm]
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...
[/sarcasm]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bye!

Crisp

 

Re: But is it?

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.