You know what the impact parameter means. You haven't explained anything. There is no evidence that your Gravistar exists as natural phenomena in this universe. You want to make believe the Gravistar would be unobservable. You want to believe light wouldn't be able to escape the surface of your Gravistar. Your analysis is bullshit. There!s a good reason nobody gives a crap about your ether model. Models can be self consistent and wrong. Your ether model is one of them. Your atomic ether is nonsense. It's nonsense because it has nothing to do with reality. The predictions reveal this.
An ether theory of gravity compatible with modern physics
- Thread starter Schmelzer
- Start date
It makes different predictions than GR. So it doesn't correlate with GR. For instance string theory recovers GR in four dimensions. That means it recovers all it's predictions. Schmelzer likes to talk about correlation but he doesn't seem to know what it means in science.
It's been falsified in my opinion and apparently in the opinion of others. You want to avoid this which is your perogitive. Nothing I've said to you doesn't make sense. The experimental part of science is a big deal to me. You're pretty big for avoiding 'atomic'. Posting all your references is just a form of obfuscation to me. I'm really not interested in reading more than I already have.
Schmelzer,
Your attempt is quite ambitious, that is linking SM, Gravity and kind of proposing a Quantum Theory of Gravity. In the process you hit few problem areas of GR, while still maintaining that your theory predictions are same as that of GR....First get rid of this GR clinging.......as soon as you take flat spacetime as background you have done away with GR.
1. Flat Spacetime to get rid of Quantization Problem with GR
But as I said Flat Spacetime of yours has no role to play in your theory of Gravity, except providing Background office Desk. Its superfluous in your theory.
2. Gravastar to get rid of BH/Singularity
Pl give the equation of state of Gravastar matter. Since your Gravastar is larger than Schwarzchilds radius, its a physically existent object, so it must have EOS and also it must have observational signatures. Stabilise it with your maths.
3. Convoluted Ether Concept
To understand your ether, first you have to completely explain Ether SM, you are doing that in a separate thread, but thats a difficult read, moreover you have given non materialistic kind of properties to your ether. One simple question is that in a empty spacetime if you put a mass, how your ether having density will be displaced? Are you bringing in Archimedes here and if not why not?
4. GR considers both mass as well as EM energy as the components for impacting curvature of spacetime, how your ether gets distorted by the EM energy in a flat space background.
5. Why the light should follow the path of distorted ether, why not straightline path under all circumstances, thus bunking many predictions/observations of/under GR.
Your attempt is quite ambitious, that is linking SM, Gravity and kind of proposing a Quantum Theory of Gravity. In the process you hit few problem areas of GR, while still maintaining that your theory predictions are same as that of GR....First get rid of this GR clinging.......as soon as you take flat spacetime as background you have done away with GR.
1. Flat Spacetime to get rid of Quantization Problem with GR
But as I said Flat Spacetime of yours has no role to play in your theory of Gravity, except providing Background office Desk. Its superfluous in your theory.
2. Gravastar to get rid of BH/Singularity
Pl give the equation of state of Gravastar matter. Since your Gravastar is larger than Schwarzchilds radius, its a physically existent object, so it must have EOS and also it must have observational signatures. Stabilise it with your maths.
3. Convoluted Ether Concept
To understand your ether, first you have to completely explain Ether SM, you are doing that in a separate thread, but thats a difficult read, moreover you have given non materialistic kind of properties to your ether. One simple question is that in a empty spacetime if you put a mass, how your ether having density will be displaced? Are you bringing in Archimedes here and if not why not?
4. GR considers both mass as well as EM energy as the components for impacting curvature of spacetime, how your ether gets distorted by the EM energy in a flat space background.
5. Why the light should follow the path of distorted ether, why not straightline path under all circumstances, thus bunking many predictions/observations of/under GR.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
If a theory is falsified or not is not a question of opinion, but quite objective. In particular, that for $$\Upsilon<0$$ the theory does not predict stable gravastars is a simple scientific fact. And so it is also a simple fact that for $$\Upsilon<0$$ the theory does not predict any observable difference for black holes.
The same holds for very small values of $$\Upsilon >0$$. Ok, in this case you may object that the argument is too complicate for you, and think that they may be errorneous. But this is irrelevant, given that you have no argument.
As long as there are no valid scientific arguments, opinions are irrelevant. And my wishes are irrelevant as well. If some argument would show that my theory predicts something different from what we see in reality - as is the case for sufficiently large values of $$\Upsilon >0$$ - then my theory would be dead. Actually, only sufficiently large values of $$\Upsilon >0$$ are dead.
If you are interested or not is your free decision. Feel free to be interested in whatever you like, from Astrology to Zen-Buddhism.
If one makes such claims, one would better give evidence for this, with some quotes. Else, this only proves the own impoliteness.brucep said:
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Of course my theory is different from GR, and this is in no way hidden. But it does not follow at all that it is easy to distinguish them by observation.
No, it isn't. It is the base for interpreting $$\rho= g^{00}\sqrt{-g}$$ as the ether density. It is the base for a preferred frame which is necessary in every realistic interpretation of violations of the Bell inequalities. It is a necessity for quantization. It is necessary to rule out solutions with closed causal loops.
A gravastar appears only for $$\Upsilon>0$$, and its appearance does not depend on the particular equation for matter. Math is nothing I own and could use for manipulations. All I can manipulate is the free parameter of the theory, which is $$\Upsilon$$, and I can use it to obtain gravastars with $$\Upsilon>0$$ and something indistinguishable from a black hole with $$\Upsilon<0$$.
Mass is nothing external to the ether. Not only the EM field is described by some wave of the ether, but also all the fields which describe massive particles. This is similar to standard field theory, in this sense, there is nothing new relative to the SM. There are simply equations for massless particles, which have to travel at speed of light, as well as equations for massive particles, which have the speed of light as an upper bound and can move slower.
The mathematics for this is the same as for GR. The Lagrangian for the properties of the ether characterized as "matter fields" has to be covariant, thus, should not depend on the preferred coordinates. Why? Action equals reaction, and the equations for the preferred coordinate, which are the Noether conservation laws of energy and momentum, and also the continuity and Euler equations of the ether, depend only on density, velocity and the stress tensor (pressure), and not on all the other properties of the ether. So, the action equals reaction symmetry gives the Einstein Equivalence Principle. Only the equations for the gravitational field, described by the properties of the ether which appear in the continuity and Euler equations, can depend on the background coordinates.
Because light, as well as all other matter waves, are waves of the ether, similar to sound waves, and, therefore, will be influenced by the properties of the ether like density, velocity and stress.
Qualitatively in GR the Gravity is distortion in the fabric of spacetime...you know blah blah.
1. How do you define Gravity in 'Schmelzer Gravity' ?
2. How do you give velocity to ether? When an object is moving how it shares its energy with ether?
3. What gives a negative pressure to ether (apart from mathematics)?
4. Why a Gravastar should not have equation of state?
5. Water Waves do not have density in the traditional sense, but water has, so Ether wave need not have density but ether must have. So anything which has density, will provide drag to all other celestial objects, it must interact, unless and untill you are claiming that your ether is Dark Ether.
6. there is some argument on Gravitational Lensing in another thread which you are following, how does your theory explain Gravitational Lensing?
7. Your free parameter < 0 Gravastar and > 0, BH......this is the question of life and death, giving two distinct and nature changing results. How can you have such a free parameter in your theory? pick one pl?
8. Since you claim quantizations, so how is life at Plancks scale or more reasonably at Quantum Level ?
9. Don't you think use of GR equations is oxymoron? Please note that GR equations are primarily for the curvature of spacetime in the presence of stress. But your background has no such thing called curvature of spacetime, so left hand of the EFE is meaningless for you. I can understand you may be talking about change in your ether distribution profile, but where is metric, where is the geometry of spacetime ?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The gravitational field defines the most important properties of the ether, namely its energy-momentum tensor, the fields used in the energy and momentum conservation laws. These properties are the ether density, its velocity, and its stress tensor.
I take a look at what I have guessed to be the continuity equation, namely $$\partial_m (g^{0m}\sqrt{-g} = 0$$, and compared this with the continuity equation $$ \partial_t \rho + \partial_i (v^i \rho) = 0$$. This gives $$v^i = g^{0i}/g^{00}$$. Then, there is nothing but the ether. Matter are waves of the ether. If a water wave is moving, how does it share its energy with water?
(The difference between water and ether is that we see only one type of water waves. If water has an thin oil film on the top, you can see also some color waves. The ether has, in this sense, much more properties, all fields of the SM are such properties.)
Essentially they are nothing but mathematics.
He has, of course, an equation of state. And for different types of material, the state will be different, and even the resulting radius of the gravastar will be different.
But this does not really matter, because for the qualitative prediction if there will be a stable gravastar or not nothing changes. For $$\Upsilon>0$$ there will be a stable gravastar, for arbitrary equations of state, and for $$\Upsilon<0$$ there will be none. And the radius of the gravastar will be, for values small enough to fit BB observations, in any way of type Schwarzschild radius + something very very small, something like Planck length or smaller.
Of course, the ether has a density, and this density is defined by $$\rho= g^{00}\sqrt{-g}$$. But matter does not have to swim through the ether like a swimmer in the water, but moves through the ether like a sound wave.
In the same way as GR, the equations are in no way different. If you want an informal explanation, think about sound waves in an inhomogeneous medium.
I have a derivation, but this derivation does not fix it. A similar effect we have for the cosmological constant. There the derivation also tells us, that above signs are possible, in agreement with the Strong Equivalence Principle.
If I had to choose, I would choose the most beautiful universe, which would be the one with $$\Xi, \Upsilon > 0, \Lambda<0$$. The universe would be periodic, and there would be a unique vacuum state for the ether. But I see no reason to make such a choice. Most of the good properties of the theory are independent of this choice.
I don't understand the question. The Planck length is some combination of various natural constants, inclusive Planck's constant, and is seen as the length where to ignore quantum effects of gravity is no longer possible. That's all. What my ether theory cares about is that quantization is possible without the conceptual problems of GR quantization. Here, the main issue is that I have a fixed background. The Planck length plays no role in these conceptual quantization problems.
The "geometry of spacetime" is anyway only an inaccurate analogy. A metric has to be positive definite, the spacetime "metric" is not. It is some purely mathematical analogy, which does not go very far even in mathematics.
The mathematical expression for "curvature" of the spatial part of the "metric" has a well-defined meaning. This spatial part of the "metric" is the stress tensor. Now one can ask if the stress is only the result of deformation from an undistorted stress-free reference state or not. If not, this is named "inner stress". And the mathematical formula for this inner stress is that for curvature.
The four-dimensional "curvature tensor" defines also similar properties with taking into account the change of the stress tensor, the changes in velocity and density too. So, it answers the question if the whole history of the ether can be simply described by a deformation of the same stress-free reference state during all the time.
Last but not least, I use a variant of the GR equations because the derivation of the theory tells me that I have to do this. (Ok, not completely fair, I have found the derivation later, after I have already known the equations, and the initial motivation was to have equations in agreement with observation. But so what, this history is not what counts, but the theory which has been obtained, and this includes the derivation which has been found.)
The crux of the matter is [1] the ether is not needed, and [2] Michelson/Morley showed it didn't exist. Add that to the fact that the duel nature of light [particle and wave] means that light does not need any medium to travel in, [light acting as a particle would not need any medium] and in effect just needs to do exactly what spacetime tells it to do.
The belief in any universal cosmic fluid goes back to ancient times. Didn't our ancient Greek friends believe that the ether was the "special air" breathed by the Gods?
I believe we have come a long way since those times.
The belief in any universal cosmic fluid goes back to ancient times. Didn't our ancient Greek friends believe that the ether was the "special air" breathed by the Gods?
I believe we have come a long way since those times.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The first part of this has been answered in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...f-particle-physics.153207/page-2#post-3344280
What the old Greeks have thought about the ether was irrelevant already for old ether theoreticians and Lorentz, it is even more irrelevant for us now.
What the old Greeks have thought about the ether was irrelevant already for old ether theoreticians and Lorentz, it is even more irrelevant for us now.