speed of gravity

[Solar]

Gravity. like the electrical force, exists throughout the entire universe. It is a field that exists, period. I do not know the origin of the field or the extent of the field, only that it exists to the maximum extent that we can presently measure.

Gravity, like the electrical force, extends throughout the ether. The ether is created by particles, some as widely spaced as 1 particle per cubic meter, but with a field around it. There is no such thing as a vacuum. Every bit of the universe is either a particle or a field.

In these lightly populated areas, the field makes up most of the ether. In other areas, where the particles are more dense, then naturally, the particles, or the more congregated masses, like the asteroids, or the planets, or other celestial bodies make up the majority of the mass.

But in the end, it's either the mass or the field, or a combination of the two, that makes up the physical universe.

Generally agreed.

There are far to many over complicated unnecessary layers being thrown into the mix. The big bang theory itself is a theory that, at the height of its deduction, resolves into some sort of "particle"-like "singularity" that supposedly exist in what appears to be an undefinable realm of "Space" aka "fields". Its basically the Atomist thinking of Democritus applied to the large scale Universe. A dense "particle"-like mass situated within some sort of a "field" of infinite extent. The theory can't go anywhere from there save to escape into other dimensions(?) (the Multiverse).

Once someone(s) have figured out the totality of this Universe; just make another one, or two, or four? Before they go can someone advise what to do with this "List of unsolved problems in physics"?

I feel abandoned.*cries*

[seasmith]

Kell1990 wrote:
But in the end, it's either the mass or the field, or a combination of the two, that makes up the physical universe.

Define your term "field" please.

[Zyxzevn]

The ether is created by particles, some as widely spaced as 1 particle per cubic meter, but with a field around it. There is no such thing as a vacuum. Every bit of the universe is either a particle or a field.

Just curious. How do you explain the experiments that support special relativity?
Especially the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Proposal for a grid-like aether

I have an aether in mind that is more esoteric:
I am able to feel and see auras, I can experience them as multidimensional fields.
These fields themselves contain small grid-lines, like a net.
A bit like this:

But much finer in structure.

Such grids are connected with all physical bodies, giving crystals their shape.
In connection with earth it would look a bit like this:

But again the structures are much finer (millimetre level) and not so regular.

With only the earth you would get something like this:

But again these structures are not so regular, and much finer.

These images are only interpretations of people of something that is very hard to draw
(because the structures are very fine and irregular).

Now let's go back to the physical world, where we can see similar structures.

In atom structures we see:


In biological cells we see:


In electric systems we see this:


And in cosmological systems we see this:


These pictures are just illustrations of a universal grid-system.
This grid system can support a form of aether. Particles are the grid-points of this aether.
The "ropes" can transfer forces and light, and create the structures of everything in the universe.
This type of aether can also work with special relativity, because everything is connected.

[jeremyfiennes]

Zyxzevn wrote:

"Just curious. How do you explain the experiments that support special relativity?
Especially the Michelson-Morley experiment."

The Michelson-Morley experiment very definitely DID NOT support Special Relativity. They obtained mean aether speeds of 8.8 km/s at midday and 8.0 km/s in the evenings (when the Earth's rotation is perpendicular to its orbital motion). Since the two sets of values were distinguished, the experimental error must have been less than the difference between these and the mean. Even if it were half of it, say 0,2 km/s, the mean aether speed of 8.4 km/s would still be more than FOURTY TIMES the experimental error. It very definitely WAS NOT a null result.
Since Special Relativity predicts that two clocks can each run slower than the other, it is logically incoherent. And no amount of experiment can support a logical incoherence. See my website <http://www.einsteinsterribletwins.com>

[Zyxzevn]

The Michelson-Morley experiment very definitely DID NOT support Special Relativity. They obtained mean aether speeds of 8.8 km/s at midday and 8.0 km/s in the evenings (when the Earth's rotation is perpendicular to its orbital motion).

There are some very fine-tuned versions of the experiment.

But you suggest a moving aether, I guess?

[jeremyfiennes]

Zyxzevn wrote:

"There are some very fine-tuned versions of the experiment."

Dayton Miller's, for instance. Interferometers measure differences in the speed of light. Waves have to be waves on/through something: on the sea, sound through the air, etc. Define the aether simply as "that which light propagates through", whatever it may be. Reginald Cahil has shown that a whole range of aether speed measurements -- Michelson Morley, Miller and a load of others -- all give the solar system's speed through it to be some 350 km/s in an approximately southerly direction. Michelson Morely's value was apparenty low because they didn't take into account 1) the FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction; 2) the refractive index of air. The first was not known at the time, but by Einstein's time it was. Einstein in his General Relativity was also a firm supporter of the aether (I gave a quote above). To say that space has physical properties, for instance that light propagates through it at 300 km/s, is simply to call it "space" rather than "aether".

[Solar]

To say that space has physical properties, for instance that light propagates through it at 300 km/s, is simply to call it "space" rather than "aether".

Well said methinks. The statement deserves serious reflection. Unfortunately, so called "fields" which themselves demonstrate qualities indicative of different 'configurations' of "Space" have become givens with nary a thought beyond the implications. Hidden in plain sight.

I don't understand how "space" as an ineffectual "emptiness" still gets dragged about. The concept is dead. The scope presents a picture reminiscent of a scene from the movie "Gravity" when the crew member was flung from the Shuttle arm into space grappling for something, anything, to hold onto. That is what watching individuals trying (or not) to come to terms with The Aether (aka "Space") is like.

Which version of it? Who's ideas of it? What source can be relied on to speak of it? How to test it? Is it the current "physical vacuum" concept? Quantum foam? Maybe the 3d Space of R. Kahill? A Sea Neutrinos? The Sea of Energy from T. H. Moray? Eisenstein Spacetime Fabric, Dark energy & Dark Matter? Paul Stowe? Perhaps the ZPE concept? Harold Aspden? Tesla? Dirac Sea? Inadvertent detections like that of Roland Dewitt? Perhaps Maurice Allais?

Maurice Allais, initially, carried out his own experiments which led him to observe the existence of phenomena incompatible with the commonly accepted theories. He drew from them his own conclusions according to which the velocity of the light does not have a constant value but varies (slightly) according to the direction. What led him to show the existence of " aether " and of the anisotropy of space. - Maurice Allais

Or, are the still reverberating older concepts and ideas without a hint of todays high tech wiz bang more reliable?:

"the infinite underlying substance of things is air - when it is rarifies is becomes fire, when condensed it becomes wind and then cloud, and if condensed further becomes the earth and stones. This with eternal motion is the cause of all change." ANAXIMENES

Maybe "Flavors of Nothing" helps??

Despite the confusion It is an existent, It is emergent, and It endures. I think interested individuals are trying to find something reliable but as of yet; they haven't. Even if, and/or when, they do - a language barrier erupts due to the need to have concepts expressed in preferential terms. Work, work, work people. Sometimes, its by way of contrasting them all that one's very own resonant 'sense' of supporting evidence arises. That is the most important aspect.

[JouniJokela]

I believe that most efficient way to solve this whole Gravity issue is to find out the physical limit of wavelength.
We allready know the speed of light. But It might be, that everything is combined togehther like the information is delivered with radioawaves;

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

What is the longest wavelength there is?
100 000 km is allready easily observed;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

But this is surely not the physical limit for a wavelenght.
-Is it 1 Hz x "c"; 299792458 m ?
I don't know. But I have an intuition that it might be c^2,
this would mean a wavelenght of ~ 600 780.8 AU
or 9.5 Light years or 2.912 parsec's.
But this still seems too low value for me.
Numerology supports the idea of c^3,,,, but I don't like numerology.

Any ideas?

[kell1990]

Kell1990 wrote:
But in the end, it's either the mass or the field, or a combination of the two, that makes up the physical universe.

Define your term "field" please.

A field is a zone that is occupied by a force. It can either be a gravitational force or an electrical force. (The electric force has been rectified with two of the other fundamental forces--the strong nuclear force and the weak force, so now we have one force to deal with--the electric force, plus gravity, of course).

And herein lies the rub. Does a field have a speed? No, it does not. Neither the electric field nor the gravitational field have a speed. It is nonsensical to even suggest that it does.

No wonder that Anthony Perratt has disavowed any connection to the Electric Universe.

That's a shame really, because both parties have the same goal in mind: To find a better explanation for the behavior of the Universe. All 2 trilliion+ galazies of it.

Everything in the Universe consists of two things: particles and fields.

Sadly, this enterprise to determine the "speed of gravity" is nonsensical.

[kell1990]

The ether is created by particles, some as widely spaced as 1 particle per cubic meter, but with a field around it. There is no such thing as a vacuum. Every bit of the universe is either a particle or a field.

You are on to something here. Not everyone can do what you can do. You are not the only one who can do this. If a measurement were taken of those who can do what you claim you can do, it would probably result in an output of less than 1 in a thousand, or probably even higher.

Others can also do this. And have done it!

Several years ago, the CIA ran an experiment that involved this exact thing, except that they called it "remote viewing". No one knows what the exact outcome was, but if I were a betting man, and I am, I would say that the results confirmed that it was not only possible to view an event remotely, but could be done at will. Like someone looking over your shoulder...

[seasmith]

Kell1990 wrote:
But in the end, it's either the mass or the field, or a combination of the two, that makes up the physical universe.

Define your term "field" please. -s

A field is a zone that is occupied by a force. It can either be a gravitational force or an electrical force. (The electric force has been rectified with two of the other fundamental forces--the strong nuclear force and the weak force, so now we have one force to deal with--the electric force, plus gravity, of course).

It seems you are defining your fields as populated by “forces”, which is ok, as forces can be described by vectors, and vectors can be plotted in a (3D) grid, a la Zyxzevn’s post.

A “grid” is a geometric construct or graphic device and can be used to portray so-called fields; like electric, magnetic or even the auric field; by those who have a developed auric sense.
As you said, others have done it, or at least seen all the stars as connected; even if only under some acute viewing circumstance (a good OBE can work).

The idea of particles being wound up, or knotted up line-nodes, as a starter is fine as well.
So grid is good, but at the Aetheric end of the physical spectrum,
matrix may be a more accurate and comprehensive concept to work with.

A grid is a spatial system of lines and points, while the concept of matrix is more complex and dynamic. It would include all possible flows (mechanical analogies might include extension, torque, tension, contraction, progression & etc.), as well as the density-of-states in a volume of space; all connected, correlated and in resonance.

The various ‘fields’ you mention are, some would maintain, derivative effects; just as are the various particles••• and waves~~~

just a suggestion

[saul]

Wow, great ideas and great thread, thanks

Which version of it? Who's ideas of it? What source can be relied on to speak of it? How to test it? Is it the current "physical vacuum" concept? Quantum foam? Maybe the 3d Space of R. Kahill? A Sea Neutrinos? The Sea of Energy from T. H. Moray? Eisenstein Spacetime Fabric, Dark energy & Dark Matter? Paul Stowe? Perhaps the ZPE concept? Harold Aspden? Tesla? Dirac Sea? Inadvertent detections like that of Roland Dewitt? Perhaps Maurice Allais?

And a great list! To this I would add Frank Meno's gyrons. And of course, HA Lorentz and the Lorentz Aether models which survive to this day as the default standard model. For me the news came from Frank Meno, Paul Marmanis, and Friedwardt Winterberg, amongst others. Whittaker wrote the definitive history long ago.

What is a field?

A field is a moment (or average) of an underlying distribution. The canonical example is the velocity vector field in a fluid, which is not the velocity of any particle but of an average of a specified subset of them. Temperature is a scalar field. Using the word "field" implies the existence of an underlying distribution, though it need not be made explicit. In other words, one can do gas dynamics with empirical formulas like pv=nRT without having heard of Boltzmann. (pressure is another field, in this case taken as a scalar).

Personally I have never been convinced by Cahill, Miller, and many re-anlyses of the Michelson-Morley experiment that anything other than the null result predicted by gauge invariance and Lorentz aether models (aka special relativity) was found, though some colleagues don't want to hear this. I'd sure love to be proven wrong on that score. Breaking gauge invariance in a verifiable way would be monumentally huge.

[kell1990]

Let me try this another way. Suppose that the entire universe was composed of either a) particles [or a conglomeration of particles] or b) a field [an area that is has the property imposed on it by its inhabitants.]

Now we are left with two things: particles and fields.

Particles make up the mass of the universe, which as can nearly be determined make up about 4% of the known universe. The particles exude gravity, one of the two remaining forces in the universe. The mass of the particles cause gravity.

On the other hand, if it's an electrical field, which makes up about 96% of the universe, then the rest of the universe must be made up of this force. It is caused by the charge of the particles. The origin of this charge is a mystery to me. But this force can take many forms, as has been demonstrated here on Thunderbolts.com. The twisting forces that winds throughout the universe, which stretch and twist for light-years through the heavens, are all part of a field that is instituted by particles.

The yin and the yang are probably the closest description we have to reality that works.

[upriver]

Kell1990 wrote:
But in the end, it's either the mass or the field, or a combination of the two, that makes up the physical universe.

Define your term "field" please.

A field is a zone that is occupied by a force. It can either be a gravitational force or an electrical force. (The electric force has been rectified with two of the other fundamental forces--the strong nuclear force and the weak force, so now we have one force to deal with--the electric force, plus gravity, of course).

And herein lies the rub. Does a field have a speed? No, it does not. Neither the electric field nor the gravitational field have a speed. It is nonsensical to even suggest that it does.

No wonder that Anthony Perratt has disavowed any connection to the Electric Universe.

That's a shame really, because both parties have the same goal in mind: To find a better explanation for the behavior of the Universe. All 2 trilliion+ galazies of it.

Everything in the Universe consists of two things: particles and fields.

Sadly, this enterprise to determine the "speed of gravity" is nonsensical.

The speed of gravity is any change in the gravitational force felt by one object from another object. The impulse time of flight.

A field is any area where a particular type of particle is accelerated. A field has no measurable properties aside from imparting kinetic energy to mass.

[willendure]

The yin and the yang are probably the closest description we have to reality that works.

I feel so scientifically enlightened by this ground-breaking insight.