# Alternative to Special Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Feb 1, 2003.

1. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
There have been basically two explanations for the lack of interference patterns in the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The most common one, and the one that is accepted by the scientific community, is that a moving frame of reference experiences time dilation and length contraction which, in turn, results in the speed of light remaining constant in that frame of reference (and in every other frame of reference).

The other explanation is that the lack of interference in the M-M experiment is the result of "dynamic aether". This theory suggests that aether is attracted to gravity, and sticks to large objects (like the Earth). Since, according to this theory, large amounts of aether are "stuck" to the Earth, the M-M apparatus won't detect movement because the apparatus is stationairy relative to the aether.

Both of these theories make the same mistake. They both assume that the speed of light must somehow be dependent on the aether (or in the case of a relativity, an absolute coordinate system). What if the speed of light is not dependent on the aether, but is dependent on something moving through the aether?? Let me explain:

What is gravity? Some would say that it is the result of curved space-time, while others would say that it results from an exchange of particles (gravitons). What if gravity is just an extension of matter, and not something completely different? What if a gravitational field is just a less dense form of matter?

If a gravitational field is a less dense form of matter, then it, and regular matter, should have some similarities. One of these similarities is that they both obey Newton's first law of motion. If matter, or a gravitational field, is in a state of motion, it will remain in that motion unless acted upon by an external force.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that aether exists. Let's also say that aether is static (it does not move). Now, let's say that when a planet moves through this aether, it's gravitational field (remember, the gravitational field of the planet is part of the planet) moves with it. Both the planet, and it's gravitational field, obey Newton's first law of motion.

Now, let's assume that you have a Michelson-Morley apparatus sitting on the surface of the planet. Will the beams of light in the M-M aparatus slow down, or speed up, based on the rotation of the planet, the revolution of the planet around it's sun, the revolution of it's solar system around it's galaxy, etc??? It would, if the speed of light was dependent on the aether. But what if the light didn't care about the aether? What if the light only cares about gravitational fields??

I am suggesting that:

1) Aether is static.

2) Mass, along with it's gravitational field, can move through the aether.

3) The omnidirectional speed of light is only c in a gravitational field that the light is in at that specific moment, regardless of the speed of the gravitational field through the aether.

My theory states that a photon, somehow, uses gravity as propulsion. As a result, the photon will travel at the speed of light only in the gravitational field it finds itself in at that moment. The speed of the gravitational field through the aether is irrelevent to the photon, since the photon doesn't interact with any of the properties of the aether. The photon only cares about one thing, and only one thing can influence the photon: the gravitational field it is travelling through at that moment.

In the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the reason that there were no inteference patterns is because the M-M apparatus was stationairy relative to the Earth's gravitational field. Since the light in the apparatus is influenced by the gravitational field of the Earth, and not the aether, it's speed did not change based on the speed of the Earth relative to the aether.

So how would I test my theory?? The way to test it would be to move the M-M apparatus relative to the gravitational field it is in at the moment. For example, if you put it in an fast moving airplane, relative to the spin of the Earth, you would see interference patterns. (Remember, the Earths gravitational field spins with the Earth). Along with the interference patterns, the time would appear to slow down on the plane as well. However, this "time dilation" would not be the result of time actually slowing down, but would be the result of reactions slowing down since the speed of light would slow down relative to the airplane.

Tom

Last edited: Feb 1, 2003

3. ### FluidityRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
594
Why there are limits - What we haven't seen

Awesome topic. Gravity is not a constant based on mass alone. Gravity is also a function of energy; in fact, it is a function of energy alone, but all normal matter emits energy at a constant. It goes without saying that unstable matter emits energy in a radical fashion--Stars.

The reason errors are made in current gravitational calculations is because the equations for gravity do not calculate energy per volume of space as the sole cause of gravity. The composition of stars and planets is varied. The exact temperature, volume, density, mass and quantum radiation of the space occupied by a body must be known to calculate the exact gravitational pull of that body. The quantum values of energy have have not been taken into account in the simple formulas in use today. They are good enough for close approximations, but not nearly accurate.

Space is composed of a dense, very low energy-mass super-fluid. It is without friction or heat loss--truly adiabatic.

This super-fluid is under extreme adiabatic pressure. This pressure is the force that bonds atomic nuclei, causes gravity, and is sufficient to crush large solar masses into black holes.

Matter and energy cannot exist without space.

Explaining Gravity:
As energy passes through the superfluid of space, it causes a reduction in the adiabatic pressure of space in direct relation to the amount of energy per volume of space. Surrounding any body of sufficient mass or energy (as the two are the same), there is a low pressure zone in the superfluid surrounding these objects, hence gravity. As in any fluid at a constant pressure, the fluid seeks equilibrium. If two objects are close enough, and they are of sufficient mass, the adiabatic pressure of space will squeeze them together into a single sphere to minimize the surface area of the volume they occupy.

In the paper at the link below, I describe the transfer of matter into energy at the speed of light...among other things.

5. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
I think I'm missign something... why use super-fluid or aether? It just complicates light calculations.

7. ### FluidityRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
594
Missing?

Well, Persol, Light equations need not change at all. Space is not relative to energy, because the energy is not in motion. The energy is a wave in the super-fluid of space. No complications at all.

Matter is relative to space, which is why time stops. Time stops because matter is transformed into energy at the speed of light.

The kinetic limit of space is defined by the absolute speed of light.

All energy travels through space at the speed of light. (well, almost all)

Help any?

8. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Nah... but that's ok...
I just don't see why energy has to be a wave in super-fluid. Nothing is gained by this assumtion.

I also don't see why time stops because matter is converted to energy. Energy and matter both vary with time.

9. ### FluidityRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
594
Big difference...

Energy is a wave in space; forget what space is made of.

Whatever space is made of, it limits energy to travel at the speed of light. And I do understand that energy can change phase over very great distances of travel, so whatever space is made of, it has some ordinal value of resistance to energy, but it is very close to zero.

Matter is energy. Little bundles of it, in a distinct order.
Those little bundles, including the electron, are ordered wave forms of energy. If we approach the speed of light, the little bundles that make up matter lose three dimensional relativity to space. They become one-dimensional energy waves.

Matter has no "substance" in its own right. It is energy, but it is like the difference between a data stream and a computer program.
They can both add up to the same thing, but a program has a specific function, and a data stream is a one-dimensional translation of binary code. Just as we have to translate data into streams to move it across the internet, we have to translate matter into energy to move through space at the speed of light. It is the limit of the media that matters.

Incidently, defining what space-time is and how it functions will determine our immediate success in detecting gravity waves, how we produce energy, how we travel through space...et al.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2003
10. ### FluidityRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
594
Stoppage of time...

Time stops at the speed of light because matter is converted to energy at the speed of light.

Time is a function of atomic cycles. Without matter, we have no atomic cycles. If an object is converted into analog waves in space at the speed of light, we are asked to consider whether or not that object continues to function as it did before, or not. We might also suggest that the object ceases to exist, because it is now a collection of vastly different energy waves.

If a hydrogen atom is traveling at the speed of light, having been translated into energy, what is the probability it could decellerate at all, or be translated back into matter? If there is more energy in a proton than an electron, and over the distance traveled by waves the energy diminishes over time, the electron wave will dissipate or degrade at a faster rate than the proton's energy wave.

Here, the question is, how far can we let it travel, and what do we "catch" it with?

Last edited: Feb 2, 2003
11. ### letheRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,009
man.... where is chroot when you need him....

12. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
I'm here lethe... but I'm not really sure what to say exactly. I don't think I have the stamina to really sink my teeth into this one at the moment.... alcohol makes me so friendly...

- Warren

13. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
It appears that my thread has been hijacked.

The nature of the gravitational field was not the intended topic of my post. I was attempting to show that gravitational fields move through aether, and that light moves through gravitational fields. In other words, aether is not light's medium, gravitational fields are. This means that the omnidirectional speed of light is only c relative to the gravitational field that the light is in at that moment.

Let me try to explain it using an analogy:

Let's say you have a fishtank in your apartment or house and there is a fish in it. Let's also say that it takes your fish 2 seconds to swim from one end of the tank to the other.

Now, let's say that you put your fishtank (with the fish) in an airplane that is traveling at 500 mph. How long will it now take your fish to swim from one end of the tank to the other??

The answer is that it will take the fish the same amount of time. Why?? Because the medium that the fish uses for propulsion is the water in the tank. To the fish, it doesn't matter how fast the tank is moving relative to the ground, because the fish doesn't use anything outside of its tank as propulsion.

Now replace the air outside of the airplane with aether, the water in the tank with gravitational fields, and the fish with a photon. The speed of the photon, just like the fish, is dependent on the medium it is traveling through (which, for the photon, is the gravitational field). The photon's speed is not influenced by the aether because the photon doesn't use the aether for propulsion. This would mean that while the speed of the photon relative to the aether can be higher or lower than c, the speed of the photon relative to the gravitational field in which it is in at the moment, will always be c. This would explain the lack of interference patterns in the Michelson-Morley experiment without the need to introduce time dilation or length contraction into the equation.

Tom

Last edited: Feb 2, 2003
14. ### FluidityRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
594
I do understand...

The fabric of space flows through solid matter much like water through a fishing net.

If one body is inside another body, and the outer body is traveling at the speed of light, the body within is traveling at the speed of light.

Matter is relative to space, like the wheels of a car are relative to the ground. Where the difference lies is in the fact that space flows through all atoms, the ones that make up the outer body of the vessel and the ones inside.

In this scenario, all the atoms are like wheels on the ground. Space is flowing through the entire vessel.

Energy is not relative to space in the same way matter is. Space could be "flowing" in different directions, transverse to the direction of travel or in line, and energy will always travel at the speed of light relative to space because energy is a wave in the kinetic fabric of space. Energy, so far, is one-dimensional.

A lightwave has only length. Its wave is the frequency in which it changes direction, or oscillates as it travels. Light oscillates transvere to its direction of travel, like waves on the ocean, but a wave has no up or down in space, no width or height.

When matter travels at the speed of light through space, it is converted to energy--waves. If we were playing tennis in the USS enterprise when our ship reached the speed of light, we would suddenly be translated into energy. There would be no tennis ball, no USS Enterprise.

There are theories about opening a tunnel in space to travel through. Unfortunately, it is more complicated than it sounds.
The tunnel will have to be a corridor of space that is in motion relative to the space around it. We, in that tunnel, could surpass the speed of light relative to the space around the tunnel...

15. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,257
Tom,

You've made a mistake right at the start:

<i>Both of these theories make the same mistake. They both assume that the speed of light must somehow be dependent on the aether (or in the case of a relativity, an absolute coordinate system).</i>

There is no absolute coordinate system in relativity - indeed, that is the whole point of the theory. Nor is there any aether.

16. ### FluidityRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
594
True..no absolute coordinate system

Space is not a solid.

17. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
But according to your thoery it's a fluid?

what exactly is the definition of 'super-fluid'?

18. ### FluidityRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
594
Thank you...

We can now chill helium3 to very near absolute zero. It has been defined as a superfluid. There is much conversation on the properties of superfluids, going back to the 1930s with Chandrasakar and Lev Landau...<SP>

A superfluid is frictionless. That is probably the most important aspect clearly defined in superfluids.

I didn't suddenly come up with this hypothesis. It isn't easy to grasp. But, it explains many of the laws of physics, and it only denies those theories which I believe are still conjecture, such as the existence of a "singularity" at the core of a black hole. In fact, so far, this concept is the only theory my model betrays, that I can find anyway. Well, you have to also accept in this model that a black hole has no mass, and that the source of gravity in the black hole is a complete loss of spatial pressure, adiabatic pressure... Einstein seemed to understand that there are differences in relativity for mass and energy. I am not in left field here.

19. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
But if all 'empty' space is filled with super-fluid such as 3He, that would cause all kinds of obvious problems. For one F=MA would no longer hold because items would slow down as they moved through the super-fluid. (Friction is not needed in this case because movement would generate a pressure difference.)

20. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Thank you...

Do you really THINK you understand anything about physics?

- Warren

21. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Everybody is the hero of his own story.

22. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
James,

There is no absolute frame of reference in relativity. However, the Lorentz transformations give results in a coordinate system that matches the aether (relative to an observers frame of reference).

How do you know?? My theory states that light is not affected by the aether, but is only affected by gravitational fields. That means that you can't detect aether using light. Did you find another way of detecting aether without using light????

Think about it, James. If a fish that is swimming in the ocean is not affected by the Earth's motion through the aether, why should a photon traveling in the Earth's gravitational field be affected by it?

If you think about it, my theory not only explains why there were no interference patterns in the Michelson-Morley experiment, but it also describes how, why, and when perceived time dilaton occurs. It also explains the Twin Paradox. I'm happy to say that this theory is the most complete theory (and probably the only valid one

) I have ever posted on sciforums that explains why and when relativistic effects occur.

Tom

23. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Persol and Fluidity,

Let's say you have two cells of aether, one right next to each other. Let's say that cell A has 10 units of matter and cell B has 2 units of matter, and the matter that is in A is moving towards B.

Now if the 10 units of matter in A has to push the 2 units of matter out of B so that it can move into B, then there would be friction.

However, if 10 units of matter from A are not transferred to B, but only 8 units are transferred (because B already has 2 units) then there is no friction since nothing has to be pushed out of the way. In this case, the whole matter isn't transferred, only the excess matter is. This could explain why aether is frictionless.

Tom