The Gravitational Aether

[Dubbelosix]

here are so many aether theories that fail, in my mind, this is the only one that makes sense. It is an extract from my essay, but before I post it, I want to quote Einstein, ''General Relativity is unthinkable without an aether.''

 

A Gravitational Aether

 

Excellent arguments exist now for the existence of the gravitational permittivity and permeability with the discovery of gravitational waves. The constancy of the speed of light only holds in a vacuum - but the density of gravitation varies between celestial objects and therefore the speed of light does technically vary.

 

In fact, authors Masanori Sato and Hiroki Sato in their paper ‘’Gravitational wave derived from fluid mechanics applied on the permittivity and the permeability of free space’’ suggests that gravitational waves are simply fluctuations of the medium, which appears as the product of the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. That is, the gravitational wave is an acoustic wave in the medium - the proposal shows how the phase velocity of the fluctuation relates to the speed of light [math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math].

 

The model has some interesting consequences, first being that permittivity and permeability are allowed to vary. A second is that the speed of light is variable in gravitational fields. Another interesting property is that while both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theories predict the confinement of light by gravity, neither theory defines the escape velocity or the Schwarzschild radius; in fact, the actual speed of light can only approach zero but never reach it - so in effect light is allowed to escape from a black hole.

 

Let’s be clear about something - I do not believe that the thickness of space (the medium) is an aether made from any particle. In fact there cannot be any motion associated to this aether because it would violate the first principles of relativity. In fact you can argue as I have already done, that any true quantization of gravity would be at odds concerning how we actually think about the roles of pseudo forces. But then physics tends to throw uncertainties into the mix, what if it was possible to violate the third law? We will investigate this in the next part, but first an anomaly…

 

Many experiments have been performed to measure the value of the Newtonian G but has come up with varied results and up until this year another measurement has cast a shadow over settling why we keep measuring different values for the constant. Since in this aether theory I have chosen, both permittivity and permeability will depend on G ~

 

[math]\frac{1}{\epsilon_G} = 4 \pi G[/math]

 

[math]\frac{1}{\mu_G} = \frac{c^2}{4 \pi G}[/math]

 

This leaves open a question of whether the deviations in the value of G has something to do with variations spacetime permittivity and permeability. This particular theory of the aether, as a dynamical ''thickness'' of space due to varying gravitational density, the refractive index for radiation is proportional to [math]\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}[/math] (permittivity and permeaility) and is represented as:

 

[math]n = \sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_G \mu_G}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/math]

 

A high refractive index for the equation [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}}[/math] causes a low speed of light (such as found round strong gravitational fields of black holes). It has been argued in literature that the refractive index is more intuitive than curvature; this suggestion is probably quite true, since curvature is the presence of a dynamic metric but we know not what causes this ''dynamic feature'' other through the presence of matter - which is well-known to tell spacetime how to curve, but still doesn't explain why the dynamic phenomenon exists. In a sense, the gravitational explanation for a refractive index supposes a type of mechanical explanation to curvature.

 

I proposed that the Von Klitzing constant may be subject fundamentally to the permittivity and permeability of space:

 

[math]\frac{\mathbf{J}}{e^2} = \sqrt{\epsilon_G \mu_G}[/math]

 

How to make any sense from this hypothesis so far as shown to be difficult. 

Edited December 26, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Vmedvil2]

This is much like the permittivity for a electromagnetic field.

 

[Dubbelosix]

This is much like the permittivity for a electromagnetic field.

 

 

Yes they have to be identical for a gravitational wave to move at lightspeed. 

[quiet]

Maybe someday you have free time to test a hypothesis, which has the following advantages.

 

1. The gravitational link between two bodies is a set of stationary electromagnetic waves, with wavelength equal to the distance between bodies.

 

2. These waves are quantized. In fact, each wave of the set is expressible as the sum of two photons propagating in opposite directions, resulting in a standing wave.

 

3. The basis of the scheme is the analysis of the complex solution of the wave equation in the vacuum, specifically, the electric displacement wave. It is the field that Maxwell was forced to include in the analysis of a capacitor with the vacuum as a dielectric, to formulate a complete, coherent and consistent theory. The complex solution of the plane wave of electric displacement in vacuum, expressed vectorially, has a transversal component equal to the field E multiplied by epsilon zero, plus a longitudinal component equal to the polarization of the vacuum. Why longitudinal polarization? Because polarization, in terms of local results, presents collinear symmetry. That is, within a region of finite size, it presents a pair of equal and opposite vectors that balance each other. Colinear symmetry would be impossible with transverse polarization, since two P vectors corresponding to different values ​​of the x coordinate could not be collinear. The complex exponential solution of the electric displacement wave in the vacuum has divergence other than zero, because P is longitudinal. That means that there is density of electric charge, with the sign corresponding to each half cycle. The gravitational link covers an entire cycle between both bodies. Then one body is close to the negative charge density and the other close to the positive charge density. The bodies reorder their internal charge densities due to the effect of the wave. The situation is equivalent to two electrically polarized bodies, equivalent to two dipoles, which attract each other.

 

4. In this scheme, the definition of a constant like G. is inadmissible. The scheme, in its detailed proposal, leads to three different gravitational cases, attractive gravity, repulsive gravity and gravity equal to zero. If we make approximations that are reasonable in particular cases, such as the Moon orbiting the Earth, the scheme leads to a formula with the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance, but the multiplying factor that takes the place of G is a combination of variables, which in special cases varies little and, in first approximation, can be treated as constant. The error of the approximation can be calculated, which is in the order of the divergences detected in the experiments of Eötvos and other scientists. The G factor depends, for example, on the chemical composition of each body. It also depends on the conditions of the environment where the bodies are present, because the intense fields significantly affect the G factor.

 

5. Just as the propagation of light in a vacuum is proposed without the ether hypothesis, this scheme poses gravity in a vacuum without the ether hypothesis. It also offers the opportunity to adequately formulate the effects of epsilon sub zero permittivity and mu sub zero permeability.

 

6. The radio astronomers were intrigued when they detected electromagnetic waves with lengths in the order of distance between astronomical objects. In the aforementioned scheme, these waves are the components of the gravitational link.

Edited October 21, 2018 by quiet

[marcospolo]

So why are you guys thinking about this? It flies in the face of your religious beliefs.

 

So the speed of light may NOT be so constant after all? Well if so, that destroys Special Relativity, and General Relativity and E-mc2, and Maxwell.

 

And of course, LIGO did NOT PROVE they detected 'Gravitational Waves", the may have, but its not proof.  OR more likely they fudged the results because too much money was at stake, and reputations, and the religion.

 

SO now you think there may be an Aether, despite being violently opposed to it for 100 years. I thought it was PROVEN that there can not be an Aether, oh well someone was wrong....

 

G is not a constant?  

 

Epsilon Zero and Mu  Zero are NOT constants?, so they also destroys Einstein and Maxwell.

 

Without General Relativity you don't have an expanding Universe, so you don't have 13.8 billions years, you don't have the Big Bang, you don't have Space-time, you don't have bending light by gravity, and you don't have the mythical Black Hole, you don't have Gravitational Waves, meaning LIGO is either reporting lies or is seeing back ground noise computer enhanced.

 

SO my advice is that you better get of this line of thought, as its a destroyer of everything you have been indoctrinated into, but thats not too bad as this new theory is probably also as wrong as your current theories.

 

You guys are clearly chasing around from one poor assumption to the next, and none of your theories ares solid or make any sense.

I don't get why you are even pondering this new theory about an Aether, when it would destroy everything you currently believe is set in stone.

 

Also, as the theory hangs off prior assumptions and "laws" that can't be true now if light is not constant or G is not constant, kinda means that the new theory actually destroys itself anyway.

 

It all just shows that none of you have a clue what you are talking about, its all just big scratch pad of math equations that bear no resemblance to reality, which of course you now claim is just an illusion anyway.

 

Best thing to do is give up on foolishness and spend quality time fishing.

[Vmedvil2]

Ya dude A) science is not a religion unlike religion where you can call to God where nothing happens when something is scientifically understood it happens every time.

[marcospolo]

Ya dude A) science is not a religion unlike religion where you can call to God where nothing happens when something is scientifically understood it happens every time.

Yep, I should be more specific.  

Science is not a religion, but science cant prove there is not a god, that question lies outside the realms of scientific endeavour.

 

But there exists withing the confines of Science, an inserted foreign pseudo science, which is based squarely on nothing more than faith based religious concepts.

 

These psuedo or mystical based branches of real science include:

 

Anything Einstein said,

The belief that numerology is science, (math is science),

Quantum Mechanics,

"Laws"  exist which probably include at least in as much as they may only be rough approximations, not precise definitions.-, Maxwell's Equations, Hubble constant, Plank length, etc.

so that means that most of cosmology is more akin to astrology, Particle Physics is akin to divining tea leaves, Quantum is akin to Alchemy, and magic.

 

So we don't know the age of the universe, how far away galaxies really are, there are no Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, CMB is myth, no curved spacetime, detected Gravitational waves were caused by a gnat farting outside the detectors (simultaneously for both detectors, as the odds are great, given the number of gnats, and their preponderance for farting) and 

 

And you eggheads are just playing around with ideas, pretending that you are important.

and we don't really understand basic things like, how magnetism works, how light works, how gravity works, how the earths tides really work, our theory on Evolution is not solid as we pretend, in fact its nonsensical. Plate tectonics is garbage, we don't know anything about mans early history but those sheep skin clothed, rock bashing, half ape men sure could work the stone eh? We cant replicate their work today even with our abilities. Plus seem that the Earth was almost only half the size it is today in the past, according to some evidence, which could explain how the dinosaurs were able to actually live, stand up and breath in less gravity, as they sure as hell could not have done those things in the current gravity. (of fly around, like those big bird things could do, despite not being physically possible according to aerodynamics based on current gravitational levels.

 

It requires faith to believe those irrational things that modern science teaches as if its all fact. 

In that way, some branches of modern science are like a religion.

 

The one thing we can be sure of, which is based on a long history, and has been shown to be true many times, is that Scientists and scientific institutions are men, and are controlled by men.   Men with political, financial and reputation biases. Men that use knowledge as a tool to manipulate and guide others, control others, keep certain things private, use deception to keep other people chasing wild geese.   Knowledge is power.  Knowledge is power.  Why wouldn't any self respecting elitist ruler type make full use of knowledge to keep his power, to enhance his power and to restrict the chances of others gaining power? Of course they all would.  And they all have been since Adam was a boy. Or maybe a bit later...

[Dubbelosix]

So why are you guys thinking about this? It flies in the face of your religious beliefs.

 

So the speed of light may NOT be so constant after all? Well if so, that destroys Special Relativity, and General Relativity and E-mc2, and Maxwell.

 

 

 

No it doesn't destroy relativity, I know you are desperate to find a crack in it. Relativity only states that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but when you introduce new media, more specifically gravitational fields, then yes, light does vary. 

[Dubbelosix]

One thing is for sure though, if you want to find cracks in the physics, this theory is greatly at odds with inflation. Inflation doesn't explain anything, and in fact as shown by Penrose, to have inflation requires a fine tuning that is even ''more special'' so in effect, it doesn't answer a god damn thing. A varying speed of light was suggested to explain how the background temperatures became uniform, and in fact, by allowing light to move much faster in the past than it did now, requires adjusting permittivity and permeability. The issue is: There are extremely strong gravitational fields during the first epoch, light would have been much slower in this theory during the first stages, This is probably why we need a new model for inflation in my eyes, and other mechanisms to allow a universe to get exponentially large in a very short time. A universal rotation may be one factor towards that unification. 

[Dubbelosix]

Rotation causes a centrifugal force capable of expanding an early universe - the new key to explain homogeneous radiation has been shown through work by Hoyle and Narlikar who have shown that a steady ''release'' of matter (through some creation process) could also explain how matter becomes distributed in a uniform fashion. 

[marcospolo]

No it doesn't destroy relativity, I know you are desperate to find a crack in it. Relativity only states that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but when you introduce new media, more specifically gravitational fields, then yes, light does vary. 

And you and other scientists are saying that there is no such thing as a vacuum.  Remember those virtual particles popping in and out of existence? So the one thing you can say about light, is that its speed is never the same because anything it travels though changes constantly and unpredictably.  So light cannot be claimed to be a constant, its a variable, and we perhaps not yet discovered all the conditions that effect it.  Gravity is EVERYWHERE, in constantly changing proportions, as bodies are always on the move, Space-time is full of ripples, waves like an angry sea,  so light never never ever gets the chance to ever go in a straight line, does it? And so its speed is varying constantly, that's the defining thing about light speed, its always changing!  (according to Einstein's General Relativity)

 

And i'm not looking for cracks, i'm wondering how you guys can bridge the gaping chasms in relativity theory.

[Dubbelosix]

Ok, this appears partially a valid question... the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum - whether zero point contributions affect it, cannot be tested. All we know in that what is called a ''free vacuum'', that being, something quantum mechanical fundamentally, may couple to photons or it may not due to it's short life expectancy. This does not indicate a breakdown of any theory, just really a question of interpretation and how to implement physics. 

[Dubbelosix]

Besides... a long existing assumption is that there is such a thing as space, one good example is how it is often claimed that 99% of an atom is only space, but as Sean Carrol rightly pointed out, this is clearly wrong, because this thinks about it in terms of classical physics, not one in which an electron can take up more than just one position in space due to a wave function. 

[Dubbelosix]

If a gravitational aether does exist like I suspect, a wave function could in fact be interpreted as a gravitational wave on the quantum scale. 

[marcospolo]

One thing is for sure though, if you want to find cracks in the physics, this theory is greatly at odds with inflation. Inflation doesn't explain anything, and in fact as shown by Penrose, to have inflation requires a fine tuning that is even ''more special'' so in effect, it doesn't answer a god damn thing. A varying speed of light was suggested to explain how the background temperatures became uniform, and in fact, by allowing light to move much faster in the past than it did now, requires adjusting permittivity and permeability. The issue is: There are extremely strong gravitational fields during the first epoch, light would have been much slower in this theory during the first stages, This is probably why we need a new model for inflation in my eyes, and other mechanisms to allow a universe to get exponentially large in a very short time. A universal rotation may be one factor towards that unification. 

Or the other more rational way to think about it all, is that there is no generally expanding universe, the red shift is evidence of some other process.

So that removes the dilemma. It also matches what we see every night in the heavens, and have done since man decided to look at the stars. Fairly stable up there is what the conclusion is.

(for the record, I think we got it totally wrong with the measurements and conclusions about the constancy of permittivity and permeability of "free space".)

[Dubbelosix]

Again,experimental evidence is at odds with your thinking. The very least that certain updates confirm is that the universe is definitely expanding, we are just not sure any more it is doing so at an accelerated rate. This would be in conjunction with a rotary property of a universe (which as shown again by Hoyle and Narlikar) has to decay as it linearly expands. ie. Centrifugal weakens with larger scale factor

[marcospolo]

Rotation causes a centrifugal force capable of expanding an early universe - the new key to explain homogeneous radiation has been shown through work by Hoyle and Narlikar who have shown that a steady ''release'' of matter (through some creation process) could also explain how matter becomes distributed in a uniform fashion. 

Except that the assumption that the early universe was some tiny spot that must have expanded is simply stupid.  ALL the mass of the material and all the energy of the whole universe compresses into one dot?  You are mad.  (the big-bang theory is mad, is what I mean.)