Theory of Space-time,gravity,energy,magnetism

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, trevorhbj said:

In my theory, the force spreading out from the small particles of super dense space-time is similar to thermal energy. Like an ice cube cooling a drink. Density in space time is a reaction to the density of the super small particles of matter. Between two gravity fields, space-time latches and pulls two objects together as a result of this force.

In actual fact, the ice doesn't give cold to the drink, it takes the heat from the drink. Ice having the more slowly moving molecules and all.

Just sayin' 

[cluey]

According to the best theory of Gravitation,which is contained by Albert Einstien's  general theory of relativity.a gravitational field represents a curvature of space time rather than a distortion of it....so in one way in which a charge or a magnet will distort space time is by virtue of it's matter....

[cluey]

i'm cooking dinner......so this is easier to add to this conversation.............

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

[cluey]

actually warm water freezes faster than room temp or cold water

[Merc14]

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

In my theory, the force spreading out from the small particles of super dense space-time is similar to thermal energy. Like an ice cube cooling a drink. Density in space time is a reaction to the density of the super small particles of matter. Between two gravity fields, space-time latches and pulls two objects together as a result of this force.

  OK I am with ChrLzs, close this one down please as it appears the adults have given up explaining reality to this child. Unfollowing regardless.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Merc14

[Frank_Hoenedge]

@Trevorhbj have you ever seen, or read about, a solar flare collapse? 

 

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

3 hours ago, Frank_Hoenedge said:

@Trevorhbj have you ever seen, or read about, a solar flare collapse? 

 

 

You mean if a solar flare knocked out the power grid?

[Frank_Hoenedge]

nah, was too short hand. Sometimes solar flares form in the sun's atmosphere, they have been tracked forming their plume and have subsequently been absorbed back into the sun.

 

 

[sepulchrave]

On 2017-08-09 at 1:50 AM, trevorhbj said:

I think Lorentz invariance is based on sound waves moving across an atmosphere being related to light waves moving across an ether. Light waves move across space-time not an ether which would absorb the light waves. LIGHT WAVES NO MATTER THE SPEED OF THERE SOURCE WILL TRAVEL OUTWARDS THROUGH SPACE-TIME AT 186,000 MPS. A light wave is always going to travel in space unaffected by other fields at light speed. If you were to move at light speed and shine a flashlight in the direction of the light you would be continuously catching up to the light coming from the flashlight. I don't see how the movement of the earth through the universe is any different. The earths movement does distort the speed of light. What exactly does the Lorentz invariation say about this? Does the light from the flashlight in the experiment move at double the speed of light?

[Emphasis mine] To address the emphasized part, NO YOU WOULD NOT. This is the crux of Lorentz invariance: Light travels the same speed in all reference frames. No matter what you are doing, and how you are moving, light - either generated by a device you are holding or coming from an external source - always appears to travel at exactly the same speed.

This is the reason for Doppler shifting in waves. It applies to sound waves as well, as for many types of waves the speed of the wave depends only on the medium the wave is travelling through and not the motion of the source. In other words, if the source of the wave is moving towards you the waves are ``blue shifted'' (wavelength is shorter than normal), while if it is moving away from you the waves are ``red shifted'' (wavelength is longer than normal). [But don't mix light waves and sound waves too freely, see response to second part of post below for more details.]

Because of the speed of light's special relationship to space-time (such that it is probably more correct to say 186 000 mps is just the ``maximum speed in our universe'', and that light is one of the many things that travels at this speed), this requirement is also the origin of time dilation in moving objects.

On 2017-08-09 at 1:50 AM, trevorhbj said:

Other wise I'd have to say the conductive grid is a hollow and not an atmosphere. The energy acting upon it moves around at light speed regardless if the grid it moves around on is moving. But I think in the early experiment using an interferometer to measure for the ether, they were looking for changes in the speed of light so small they were undetectable. has anyone repeated the experiments since then? It doesn't make any sense that in one example the speed of light slows down in relation to your reference point, and then in the Lorentz variation The speed of light is constant in all directions regardless of your reference point. Which is it? your the doctor.

If light travels through a physical medium (originally the ether, but in your case a conductive grid) that has an absolute state that can be unambiguously defined by all observers (originally ether is a substance that permeates the Universe, in your case a undistorted portion of the grid at rest should be identifiable by all observers, if I understand your theory correctly), then the speed of light should be observer dependent.

If I understand your theory correctly, the conductive grid is at rest. Therefore the original ether experiments would NOT disprove your theory, since in the original experiments they believed the ether would be carried along with the Earth (sort of like water swirling along with a boat).

However in that case moving observers should measure a different speed of light than observers at rest relative to this grid. This is not the case, as has been demonstrated countless times directly and indirectly by experiments in space, airplanes, and in accelerators.

The speed of sound (in calm air) is the same in all directions relative to a source of sound at rest in air. An observer travelling past at a constant rate will measure different speeds of sound depending on the direction of the sound wave - namely the observed speed of sound will be + or - the observer's speed.

This does NOT happen with light. Light (in a vacuum) travels at the same speed in all directions and is always observed to be travelling at this constant speed regardless of the motion of any observer.

On 2017-08-09 at 1:52 AM, trevorhbj said:

Could you please point out what exactly is wrong with what I said. again your name dropping and not explaining.

[Emphasis mine] See above. I hope you can appreciate that fully explaining Lorentz invariance requires understanding of special relativity, which requires understanding of classical relativity and electrodynamics, both of which requires understanding of calculus, which requires understanding of geometry... none of which I am confident that you have.

``Appeal to authority'' is not a rhetorical fallacy if the authority in question is genuinely accepted as an expert on the subject.

On 2017-08-11 at 1:41 AM, trevorhbj said:

If light travels as a wave, and its speed is constant, then motion of the earth through the universe would definitely distort someone standing on earth's perspective of it.

[Emphasis mine] Yes, your perspective of the light would be distorted: The wavelength of the light may be different for you then for another observer somewhere else. The speed of the light will be exactly the same for you as for the other observer.

The subsequent stuff in your post about black holes and travelling at the speed of light is false as explained above.

On 2017-08-11 at 1:41 AM, trevorhbj said:

 Einstein said light moves at a constant speed regardless of the speed of the source of the light. From this we get the Lorentz invariation experiments.  However if the speed of the light source is catching up to the light it emits then one side would seem slower and the other faster. If you were to go faster then the speed of light you would begin watching the universe in reverse as you would be in the field of light that was previously shed by objects. The conductive grid allows for what Einstein said and for the obvious nature that gravity AND momentum slow down and bend light. So philosophically speaking I think both of these statements are true by observation and light along the conductive grid is the same as a car down the road past some church bells causing the doppler effect. I don't know how Lorentz showed that there was no ether do you?

[Emphasis mine] First of all, Lorentz did his work before Einstein. Lorentz *almost* reached special relativity - he worked it all out for electricity and magnetism but just didn't make the leap to applying it to moving objects as well. Skim Lorentz's biography; he was Einstein's hero. So there is no need to ``name drop'' Einstein in this situation - he may have made such a statement, but he would have just been repeating something previously found by others. (Not just Lorentz, Larmor independently reached similar conclusions at roughly the same time after studying electrons; there were probably others as well but I don't recall.)

Your statement about Einstein also trivializes and/or misunderstands the situation, by omitting the key clause ``and regardless of the speed of the observer''. Without this clause light waves can be misinterpreted as behaving the same as sound waves.

It is clear that omitting or not understanding the statement is a problem for you, because the emphasized part is (again) wrong.

Lorentz actually believed in the ether, he was attempting to find ways of proving its existence. However the Doppler effect for light is subtly different than for sound; as noted above the speed of sound depends on the speed of the observer relative to the air. The speed of light is always the same, for any observer; this is the single biggest clue that there is no ``structure'' to the medium (vacuum) that light travels through.

[Frank_Hoenedge]

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

On 8/15/2017 at 3:20 AM, sepulchrave said:

However in that case moving observers should measure a different speed of light than observers at rest relative to this grid. This is not the case, as has been demonstrated countless times directly and indirectly by experiments in space, airplanes, and in accelerators.

I think I understand this from an experiment I heard about. All I can say is that it confuses me because it defies logic. So if you were moving near light speed away from a light source The light would have to take more time to reach you thereby making the light source slower in time similar to the bells of a church becoming longer and slower in sound as you pass by in a car. 

 

On 8/15/2017 at 3:20 AM, sepulchrave said:

[Emphasis mine] To address the emphasized part, NO YOU WOULD NOT. This is the crux of Lorentz invariance: Light travels the same speed in all reference frames. No matter what you are doing, and how you are moving, light - either generated by a device you are holding or coming from an external source - always appears to travel at exactly the same speed.

So a light source traveling at a reference frame near light speed is going to travel out in front of the ship at near double light speed? See that was my problem with the experiments that disproved the ether. It makes it sound like the universe has no overall reference frame and that movement inside is insignificant. That's why I question the instruments used to measure it. The light that reaches us from other stars is many years old. If you moved in the direction of the star you would move into the field of squeezing that reflects time sooner then someone stationary on earth. It's just logical. Is time dilation somehow cancel out the fact that the light would have to travel double the speed of light for it to be true that reference frame is unimportant? Doesn't the length the wave of light has to travel to catch up to moving reference frame going to increase the amount of time it takes the light to reach the ship?

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by trevorhbj

[sepulchrave]

7 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

So a light source traveling at a reference frame near light speed is going to travel out in front of the ship at near double light speed?

No, the light always travels at light speed to all observers. This does defy our common-sense expectations. This is the reason why we have relative dilation of time and contraction of distances depending on relative motion.

In our everyday experience we are used to distances and time spans being invariant - which is to say, the same to all observers. If I am standing in a field and you are driving past in a car, we would both agree that it took a butterfly 1 minute to fly 20 feet between two trees.

However this is not true: One's observation of a distance or a time span depend on one's motion. The true invariant is something called a ``space time interval'' (a combination of both the time span and the distance), which is roughly equivalent to saying ``the speed of light is the same for everyone''. If your car was travelling near light speed you would make a different observation about the time the butterfly took to fly, and about the distance between the trees - and your observations may be different than those of another person travelling at the same speed but in a different direction.

7 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

See that was my problem with the experiments that disproved the ether. It makes it sound like the universe has no overall reference frame and that movement inside is insignificant. That's why I question the instruments used to measure it.

The Universe does not have an overall reference frame; according to all of our observations and all of our theories that successfully predict and/or explain those observations.

No matter what you do, you can never determine whether you are stationary or moving smoothly at a constant speed. You can only determine whether you are moving relative to other objects.

7 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

The light that reaches us from other stars is many years old. If you moved in the direction of the star you would move into the field of squeezing that reflects time sooner then someone stationary on earth. It's just logical. Is time dilation somehow cancel out the fact that the light would have to travel double the speed of light for it to be true that reference frame is unimportant? Doesn't the length the wave of light has to travel to catch up to moving reference frame going to increase the amount of time it takes the light to reach the ship?

If you moved towards the star then the colour of the light would shift towards the blue end of the spectrum (i.e. the wavelength of the light gets shorter according to your observation).

Lots of relativity does defy logic - IF your logic is based on everyday perception (technically described as ``Euclidean geometry'').

The apparent paradox about how can light always go the same speed for everyone is only confusing because we are used to thinking of time and space as separate things.

Relativity is all about perspective. If you see a blue car on your left hand side, close your eyes, and turn around, you will now see the car on your right hand side. Of course you don't freak out and think that the Universe somehow twisted itself while your eyes were closed - you recognize that ``right'' and ``left'' are NOT universal descriptions; they depend on the direction each person is facing.

Relativity just adds the concept that ``5 minutes'' and ``20 feet' are also NOT universal descriptions; they depend on the relative speed each person is moving.

Somewhere on this forum I previously posted a detailed description, with diagrams, of the so-called ``twin paradox'' frequently mentioned in special relativity. It has the all the math for time dilation and length contraction, if you are interested.

[trevor borocz johnson]

2 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

The apparent paradox about how can light always go the same speed for everyone is only confusing because we are used to thinking of time and space as separate things.

A part of my theory is that density of space-time in a gravity field above a black hole takes so long for the light to reflect back out of the the event horizon that it appears stuck, even though energy does escape. by continuosly looking at the same light thats stuck you're looking at a moment frozen in time. Light carry's with it the visible history of an object. could time dilation be connected to the effects of gravity specifically if it is density of space-time that causes light to get stuck and appear as one moment?

[sepulchrave]

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

A part of my theory is that density of space-time in a gravity field above a black hole takes so long for the light to reflect back out of the the event horizon that it appears stuck, even though energy does escape. by continuosly looking at the same light thats stuck you're looking at a moment frozen in time. Light carry's with it the visible history of an object. could time dilation be connected to the effects of gravity specifically if it is density of space-time that causes light to get stuck and appear as one moment?

I don't understand what your concept of ``density of space-time'' is, so I can't really comment on that directly. Gravity does create time dilation, this has been observed using sufficiently precise clocks at different altitudes in Earth's gravitational field (see Wikipedia).

The event horizon of a black hole is an extreme example of this time dilation, wherein the gravitational field is strong enough that the time dilation is infinite.

[CeresExpo2000]

On 7/25/2017 at 3:47 PM, trevorhbj said:

Space time is made up of an inactive energy field in a grid structure, it only becomes active when energy acts on it. A second component of space time are blocks that line the energy grid. These void blocks, as I call them, are also made of an energy grid much smaller and only become active when acted upon by matter. 

 

The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight.

 

Electrons and energy are also a squeezing force on space-time. Electrons get caught in electron shells around atoms. They add weight to matter by squeezing on space time and giving the impression of gravity. When they convert into light there weight converts into momentum and the become a stress only on the energy grid, not on void blocks. Magnetism is a flowing of space time and its field doesn't create gravity either. A magnet acts like a fan for the energy grid of space, seen by the repulsion of two north or south ends. The electrons in the magnet all circle in the same direction which acts as the fan for empty space.

It's too bad Albert Einstein is not here to help us out.

[CeresExpo2000]

On 8/7/2017 at 3:26 PM, Sundew said:

Since we are on the subject of particle physics, I was talking with a friend last night and we were discussing, among other things, that science has shown something that is faster than the speed of light. This may not be the precise evaluation of the phenomenon, but I am referring to entanglement of two particles, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." I think the process is that if you reverse the charge (or spin?, I don't remember which) of one of two entangled particles, the other instantaneously reverses. And this entanglement does not seem to be affected by distance. It has already been done over some distance (a few miles I believe) but if, let's say, you had one particle on Earth and the other on the Moon and changing one caused an instantaneous change in the other, you have in some way "broken" the light speed barrier, because I believe it takes just over two seconds for light to travel from Earth to the Moon, and the entanglement happens instantaneously. Extrapolate this to Mars, or Pluto, or the nearest star system and you have a real mystery as to how one particle "knows" how the other particle has been altered over vast distances. 

I've read a bit of Hawking, but I don't pretend to understand this or much of the various theories postulated today, but it's a fascinating puzzle. 

Faster Than Light Drive System

[trevor borocz johnson]

3 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

I don't understand what your concept of ``density of space-time'' is, so I can't really comment on that directly. Gravity does create time dilation, this has been observed using sufficiently precise clocks at different altitudes in Earth's gravitational field (see Wikipedia).

The event horizon of a black hole is an extreme example of this time dilation, wherein the gravitational field is strong enough that the time dilation is infinite.

What I mean by density of space time is if you took a block of Space time one light year in dimensions and crammed it into a block with one inch dimensions, that light would travel across that block one inch in a year. Evidentally this appears as a darkness to the naked eye as seen on a black hole. So when we say that were looking at a moment frozen in time when we look at a black hole we mean that the light is almost at a standstill and the object its reflecting doesn't let you see that light until it wiggles free at the event horizon. So its the density of space that appears black outside a black hole not the object itself 

[Frank_Hoenedge]

15 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

No, the light always travels at light speed to all observers. This does defy our common-sense expectations. This is the reason why we have relative dilation of time and contraction of distances depending on relative motion.

I...

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/speed-of-light-slowed

The speed of light travelling through free space has been slowed down for the first time, breaking what was thought to be a constant physical measurement.

A team of physicists at the University of Glasgow sent photons through a mask to change their shape and then raced an altered photon against an unaltered one. Over a distance of one metre the team observed that the altered photon was slowed by up to 20 wavelengths, demonstrating for the first time that light can be slowed in free space. "The results give us a new way to think about the properties of light," said professor Miles Padgett from the University of Glasgow's optics group. The research was carried out in conjunction with Heriot-Watt University with the findings being published in the journal Science Express.

[trevor borocz johnson]

On 8/17/2017 at 10:52 PM, sepulchrave said:

If you moved towards the star then the colour of the light would shift towards the blue end of the spectrum (i.e. the wavelength of the light gets shorter according to your observation).

does this explain why some of the stars in the sky appear bluish? because they are moving away from or towards us? 

You're a supporter of the no ether theory, Does that mean you think movement through the universe doesn't effect the speed of light? Isn't that what the no ether belief is that the universe just is?

but velocity between the observer and the star they're looking at does visibly cause either a red shift or blue shift in light in? right?

It must be the experiments that are flawed or it defies logic. Of course the waves of visible light reflected from an object reach your eyes slower as its distance increases towards or away from you, hence effecting when specific waves reach your eyes. That's what can be understood by blue shift. 

How can you say that  from a moving reference point light would expand out equally in all directions at the same speed? this is the proof of the no ether experiments isn't it? I mean I understand its speed is constant but it still exists as a something that has refence to other things.

 

I thought of light being a squeezing on the ether or conductive grid based on the force a magnet puts on empty space without anything to do with gravity. Waves of squeezing on this same grid that creates the magnetic field is what I mean by light. and they always move at the same speed through the universe but can travel at different speeds in regards to reference point. Light and time are the same thing. to look backwards in a waves history would be to expand outside of it faster then its moving or looking back in light time. You could theoretically look backwards in sound time by speeding ahead of the waves in a jet and listening for something and hear it in reverse and forwards by adjusting your speed. Just like riding waves on a surfboard.

Edited August 19, 2017 by trevorhbj

[Frank_Hoenedge]

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

How can you say that  from a moving reference point light would expand out equally in all directions at the same speed? this is the proof of the no ether experiments isn't it? I mean I understand its speed is constant but it still exists as a something that has refence to other things.

 

Indirectly, this reminded me of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmquist_bias [1] (Inverse square law) and the corrections that lead to detection and measurement. It's quite surprising reading about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_090423 and the density of rays, as Gamma radiation retains ray count regardless of the distance between emission and detection.

 

1. The ideal situation is to avoid this bias from entering a data survey. However, magnitude limited surveys are the simplest to perform, and other methods are difficult to put together, with their own uncertainties involved, and may be impossible for first observations of objects. As such, many different methods exist to attempt to correct the data, removing the bias and allowing the survey to be usable. The methods are presented in order of increasing difficulty, but also increasing accuracy and effectiveness.

[sepulchrave]

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

does this explain why some of the stars in the sky appear bluish? because they are moving away from or towards us?

Sometimes, I suppose. Sometimes stars are actually blue in colour.

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

You're a supporter of the no ether theory, Does that mean you think movement through the universe doesn't effect the speed of light? Isn't that what the no ether belief is that the universe just is?

but velocity between the observer and the star they're looking at does visibly cause either a red shift or blue shift in light in? right?

Yes, that is what I think. The speed of light is the same for all observers (Frank_Hoenedge's interesting link notwithstanding, see below). Whatever space-time is ``made of'', it does not have any preferred frame of reference.

Relative velocity always causes red/blue shift, the amount is usually not visible to our eyes unless the relative velocity is an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

It must be the experiments that are flawed or it defies logic. Of course the waves of visible light reflected from an object reach your eyes slower as its distance increases towards or away from you, hence effecting when specific waves reach your eyes. That's what can be understood by blue shift. 

How can you say that  from a moving reference point light would expand out equally in all directions at the same speed? this is the proof of the no ether experiments isn't it? I mean I understand its speed is constant but it still exists as a something that has refence to other things.

[Emphasis mine] Why should the distance travelled by light affect its wavelength?

If you are looking at a moving source, the light expands out in all directions at the same speed but it does not expand out equally. See here for a nice picture from Wikipedia. The closer the source is to moving at the speed of light, the greater the fraction of light intensity that is emitted directly in front of, or directly behind, that source.

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

I thought of light being a squeezing on the ether or conductive grid based on the force a magnet puts on empty space without anything to do with gravity. Waves of squeezing on this same grid that creates the magnetic field is what I mean by light. and they always move at the same speed through the universe but can travel at different speeds in regards to reference point. Light and time are the same thing. to look backwards in a waves history would be to expand outside of it faster then its moving or looking back in light time. You could theoretically look backwards in sound time by speeding ahead of the waves in a jet and listening for something and hear it in reverse and forwards by adjusting your speed. Just like riding waves on a surfboard.

It is true that light has little to do with gravity. Light is, however, definitively and absolutely NOT a purely magnetic phenomenon. And, by all of our most accurate theories and most precise experiments, light does NOT travel at different speeds depending on the reference point.

Light and time are NOT the same thing. By theory and our most precise experiments, time stops at light speed.

Your analogy with sound works, because it is possible to travel faster than sound by conventional means. This analogy does not hold for light; travelling faster than light would allow you to arbitrarily travel backwards in time, not just ``see'' backwards in time.

*****************************

For those interested, the article pointed out by Frank_Hoenedge addresses what happens if a beam of light has a cross-sectional structure. Basically the velocity of all parts of light must be ``the speed of light'', but if your beam has a weird cross-section that reorganizes itself as it travels, then necessarily some of the velocity of light within this beam must be partially directed in sideways directions. This means that the total velocity of the beam in the forwards direction will be a little bit slower than the speed of light.

The link mentioned above addresses this obliquely by pointing out that it is ``only applicable over short distances''. Eventually the light beam stabilizes and this effect is lost.

[NChSh]

This is at best a hypothesis, not even close to a theory. Formulate everything mathematically, then start testing it. At that point, you'll be on your way to creating a theory. 

[trevor borocz johnson]

On 8/19/2017 at 10:21 AM, sepulchrave said:

[Emphasis mine] Why should the distance travelled by light affect its wavelength?

It wouldn't. I was saying a thought experiment. You seem to think that I don't think the speed of light is constant. I do think its constant. But it s effect on space time is relative to the movement of other objects. otherwise its illogical to think that its constant. Light would travel the speed of the reference frame and its own speed if the movement through the ether didn't make light speed constant in all directions which from what I understand Moorley experiments with an interferometer show. 

 

On 8/19/2017 at 10:21 AM, sepulchrave said:

Whatever space-time is ``made of'', it does not have any preferred frame of reference.

Isn't the visible zone of the universe the frame of reference for galactic movement? so what if you expand that further? That doesn't prove the universe is infinite and you can't just throw infinity at the reason why there is no frame of reference to our one universe. I believe there are walls to the universe, They would make a reference frame for everything in the universe and be made out of one solid thing,creating the conductive grid.

I'm seeing some really quizzocal answers , Einsteins gravity/light wave speed, the ether doesn't exist and everything is in a pointless reference frame, the fourth dimension, have been laid out by science that just plainly defy logic. Whatsup with that science?

[sepulchrave]

On 2017/08/22 at 4:52 AM, trevorhbj said:

It wouldn't. I was saying a thought experiment. You seem to think that I don't think the speed of light is constant. I do think its constant. But it s effect on space time is relative to the movement of other objects. otherwise its illogical to think that its constant. Light would travel the speed of the reference frame and its own speed if the movement through the ether didn't make light speed constant in all directions which from what I understand Moorley experiments with an interferometer show.

Then I am afraid I don't understand how these three aspects of your theory (as I understand it) can be reconciled:

1. The speed of light can be constant for all observers,
2. Light is a distortion to a conductive energy grid filling all space,
3. This conductive grid is at rest in the natural reference frame of the Universe

All of our theories and experiments tell us that it is impossible to know whether you are ``at rest'' or ``moving with a constant velocity''; thus making the very concept of ``at rest'' only a relative term. Since light obviously travels through space, and can be easily observed, this tells us that whatever ``space-time'' actually is, it can't have any structure. Otherwise this structure would appear different for observers moving at different speeds, and thus allow someone to deduce whether they were moving or not.

On 2017/08/22 at 4:52 AM, trevorhbj said:

Isn't the visible zone of the universe the frame of reference for galactic movement? so what if you expand that further? That doesn't prove the universe is infinite and you can't just throw infinity at the reason why there is no frame of reference to our one universe. I believe there are walls to the universe, They would make a reference frame for everything in the universe and be made out of one solid thing,creating the conductive grid.

The visible zone of the Universe is obviously dependent on who is doing the observing. My visible zone is slightly different from yours, since I am not in the same place as you are - I will see light from some distant stars a few nanoseconds before you do and others a few nanoseconds later.

For beings on different planets or galaxies the visible zone is obviously quite different than ours.

Our planet is not at the centre of the Solar system, our Solar system is nowhere near the centre of our galaxy, or galaxy is neither the most significant nor the most central of our local group of galaxies, and subsequent larger scale structures also seem to be more-or-less typical and lacking any unique or special qualities.

The only unique thing about our planet is that, so far as we know, it is the only one to support life.

Taken together this suggests the philosophical viewpoint that our point of observation is not special. If you agree with this, then you cannot take the visible zone of the Universe as a valid Universal frame of reference - it is only our particular frame of reference and thus is no more or less special than any other frame of reference.

You may believe there are walls to the Universe, and if so this would provide a framework for defining a Universal frame of reference. The idea that the Universe has a boundary is rejected by most scientists because:

1. It is considered philosophically awkward;
2. There is no observable evidence for an edge of the Universe, although if there were an edge it would obviously have a major effect on the motion of nearby galaxies;
3. It is mathematically difficult to account for an edge in the Universe.

These reasons are hardly binding (especially #3), so it is valid to hypothesize an edge to the Universe.

So I agree with you that having walls to our Universe define an absolute, Universal reference frame, provide a context for the conductive grid. I will even go further: In quantum mechanics any boundary (or any sort) sets up well-defined levels. So the walls of the universe would also provide a measure of the allowed energy levels and spacings in the your conductive grid (i.e. walls + quantum mechanics gives you theoretical justification for calling it a ``grid''; the grid-shape is determined based on the shape of the walls).

BUT I still don't see how having a finite or infinite Universe has bearing on the issue of relative reference frames and the constant speed of light, as I explained above.

On 2017/08/22 at 4:52 AM, trevorhbj said:

I'm seeing some really quizzocal answers , Einsteins gravity/light wave speed, the ether doesn't exist and everything is in a pointless reference frame, the fourth dimension, have been laid out by science that just plainly defy logic. Whatsup with that science?

I was once like you; I had my own theories that would fix all the problems in modern science. However as I studied physics in University, and as I learned what modern physics is really saying - not hacked analogies like gravitational rubber sheets, or raisin bread, or the even more tortured analogies used to try and explain quantum mechanics - but what was actually meant by the sublime equations, I increasingly appreciated the beauty of it all.

I still remember my slack-jawed response when my undergraduate statistical mechanics teacher derived the ideal gas equation (originally determined based on experimental data in the early 1800s) from some simple assumptions about random motion of small particles.

Maybe all those young idealists hoping to rewrite modern science leave University as mainstream conformists because Universities are really good at brainwashing and suppressing dissent.

Or maybe... maybe they leave as mainstream conformists because the mainstream scientific position is the closest to the truth that humanity collectively knows.

(And maybe learning this takes 4 years of advanced study, and isn't something that can be completely conveyed in a few posts on an internet forum?)

[trevor borocz johnson]

7 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Otherwise this structure would appear different for observers moving at different speeds, and thus allow someone to deduce whether they were moving or not.

What do you mean the grid would appear differently? 

 

How would you define magnetic repulsion if it wasn't a force in empty space alone? and does that not mean it has some structure to it that is acted upon by a magnet?

8 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

The only unique thing about our planet is that, so far as we know, it is the only one to support life.

I  believe there is proof of other intelligent life in the galaxy here on earth. The angels that spoke to different prophets of the bible, I believe to be from an alien culture many millions of years beyond this point in evolution. I believe it took them a long time to get here. They are in some sort of death state that communicates through the vestibular and can leave messages in arbitrary background like white noise or painting.  I believe an angel wrote on my wall that I painted a light color over a dark color. The streaks of darkness in the white form pictures, a few of them are accurate predictions to all of Cleveland's major sporting events in 2016. I accuaratley predicted the Browns record halfway through the season. Any ways I think the shaping of galaxy's and nebulae and jets into detailed artistry like a sculptor is something alien technology of gravity is capable of, and that it takes along time meaning they've had the invention for a long time.