[General] Answers to Some Objections

Fri Apr 17 12:20:51 PDT 2015

Millette (2012) http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2012-10.pdf

ABSTRACT    We develop the Elastodynamics of the Spacetime Continuum (STCED) based on the analysis of the deformations of theSTC within a general relativistic and continuum mechanical frame-work. "We show that STC deformations can be decomposed into amassive dilatation and a massless wave distortion reminiscent of wave-particle duality. We show that rest-mass energy density arises fromthe volume dilatation of the STC. We derive Electromagnetism fromSTCED and provide physical explanations for the electromagnetic potential and the current density. We derive the Klein-Gordon equationand show that the quantum mechanical wavefunction describes longitudinal waves propagating in the STC. The equations obtained reflecta close integration of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions."    

Furthermore,
    "In this paper, all constants are retained in the derivations, to provideinsight into the nature of the equations being developed."
David    
      From: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 12:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Answers to Some Objections

John

> because the speed of light is the same for all frequencies (Zs = c3/G)

Perhaps I should ask a question here...is this a valid assumption? 
No, not in the sense of a GRT violation. GRT should be valid in any new proposed model. 
This leads to a bubble of spacetime where GRT clearly defines a limit of propagation as c. However....
c(outside) < c(inside)
which implies a GRT gradient.
Zs = c3/G 
is valid both inside and outside the bubble even though the Zs  is a different value.
As a result of these bubbles in spacetime, at the Zs  may not be a universal value where one size fits all. 
Zs may not be constant when comparing the inside of a particle (electron, photon, quantum) to outside the particle or to the zero vacuum.
David

   From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:01 AM
 Subject: [General] Answers to Some Objections

#yiv0090462344 #yiv0090462344 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv0090462344 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0090462344 p.yiv0090462344MsoNormal, #yiv0090462344 li.yiv0090462344MsoNormal, #yiv0090462344 div.yiv0090462344MsoNormal {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:106%;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0090462344 a:link, #yiv0090462344 span.yiv0090462344MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0090462344 a:visited, #yiv0090462344 span.yiv0090462344MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0090462344 span.yiv0090462344EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv0090462344 .yiv0090462344MsoChpDefault {}#yiv0090462344 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0090462344 div.yiv0090462344WordSection1 {}#yiv0090462344 Hello Everyone,  Over the last week I have generated a lot of criticism which until now I have ignored.  It is not possible to answer every objection in a short post because a one line objection can take several paragraphs to rebut.  Therefore, I have selected some of the most critical comments from David M., Chip and John D to attempt to set the record straight.  David Mathes says: “Impedance is frequency dependent. There are other dependencies as well but frequency plays a prominent role.”  This is correct for acoustics, but not for waves in spacetime. There are several important differences between waves in spacetime and acoustics.  For example, the amplitude of acoustic waves is usually given as the displacement of particles which has units of length (L).  For unit compatibility, it is necessary to express acoustic impedance with units of M/TL2 (mass/time length2).  Therefore, one type of acoustic impedance is Za = ρca where ca is acoustic speed of sound.  This has the correct units.  The amplitude of gravitational waves is often given as ΔL/L, but the more accurate expression is ΔL/λ which is dimensionless and expresses the maximum strain (maximum slope).  In this case the impedance term must have units of M/T for compatibility.  The impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G has the correct units to be paired with a dimensionless amplitude term.   With this as background, it is now possible to answer the criticism that impedance is frequency dependent. Acoustic impedance is somewhat frequency dependent because the acoustic speed of sound (ca) has some frequency dependence (Za = ρca).  However, waves in spacetime have no frequency dependence because the speed of light is the same for all frequencies (Zs = c3/G).    John D. says: “Waves move through space, not spacetime.”.  It is true that gravitational waves distort only the spatial dimensions, not the time dimension.  If a gravitational wave propagates past a spherical volume of spacetime, the spherical volume will be distorted to becoming a vibrating ellipsoid.  The ellipsoid has no change on volume compared to the original spherical volume because an elongation of one dimension is accompanied by an offsetting contraction of another dimension.  There is no change in volume and the gravitational wave does not modulate the rate of time.  There is a slight effect on the rate of time due to the fact that the gravitational wave has energy density, but there is no modulation of the rate of time at the frequency of the gravitational wave.   If you read my ‘foundation” article you will see that I am building the entire universe using “dipole waves in spacetime”, not gravitational waves. I explain in this article that dipole waves in spacetime are forbidden on the macroscopic scale described by general relativity, but they are permitted by quantum mechanics on the sub-microscopic scale governed by quantum mechanics.  The article explains that dipole waves modulate both the rate of time and the space dimensions. These are actually the most fundamental type of wave that could exist in spacetime.  The modulation of both space and the rate of time makes it possible for my model to generate the curvature of spacetime produced by a fundamental particle. For a fundamental particle, this equation is accurate to better than 1 part in 1040.  Furthermore, there are other nonlinear terms and other considerations that I believe will eventually result in generating the complete equations of general relativity.  Therefore, dipole waves in spacetime modulate both space and the rate of time.  Chip says: “I find that using gravitational waves, … (has a) problem. That is it seems to be building on a still undefined and unknown foundation. … If gravity waves travel faster than c for example, it completely changes the “stiffness” of space, impedance of space, and the whole foundation.”    Gravitational waves do exist even if they are very hard to detect. Gravitational waves transfer energy and angular momentum. In 1993 the Nobel Prize was awarded to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor for the proof that a binary neutron star system was slowing down its rotation because it was emitting gravitational waves. The amount of slowing was exactly the amount predicted by general relativity. The emission of gravitational waves produces a retarding force on the rotating binary stars, thus producing an observable slowing of the rotation (loss of energy and angular momentum). If it was possible to reverse the direction of these gravitational waves, the gravitational waves would return energy and angular momentum to the binary neutron star system.  Gravitational waves also propagate at the speed of light.  If they propagated faster than c, the universe would have many different laws than it actually has.  You are welcome to doubt that gravitational waves propagate at c, but you will be forced to doubting many aspects of physics.    I obviously have skipped many questions.  For example, John D. has 9 objections.  I believe that I can answer any objection that I have seen, but it is necessary to be selective since the answer is much longer than the objection.  Therefore, if there is a particularly important objection that I have not addressed, please state it in the next email.  John M.  
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at dmath777 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150417/844dffa0/attachment-0001.htm>