[General] The Properties of Spacetime

[Adam K]

Hi John M.,

I had an idea that might spur some discussion. You said before that you
reduced the electrostatic field to spacetime. I am curious about what this
means, how you did it, etc. Care to share? It might also be of interest to
those on this list who think about everything (or at least the electron) in
terms of electromagnetic fields and patterns of EM oscillation.

Cheers,

Adam

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:57 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Hi David M. and John D,
>
> So far, I have had two interesting responses to my challenge.  First,
> David M. says, “Fundamental constants can be derived. However, it's nice
> to have a direct measurement.  For Zs = c3/G, how do you propose that Zs be measured
> directly?”
>
> It is beyond our current technology to do a physical experiment to
> directly measure the impedance of spacetime experienced by gravitational
> waves.  The effect would be about 1025 times more difficult than
> measuring the gravitational constant because of the c3 term. Also it
> would require a high frequency rotation of matter. However, that does not
> mean that there is no experimental evidence if we are willing to look at
> the stars and perform a calculation. The 1993 Nobel Prize was awarded to
> Hulse and Taylor for proving that a binary neutron star system was slowing
> down because it was emitting gravitational waves. The observed slowing is
> within 0.2% of the amount predicted by GR.  The same gravitational wave
> equations from GR used to predict the slowing of the rotation that should
> occur also are used to determine the impedance of spacetime is: Zs = c3/G.
> While I independently derived this impedance of spacetime, it appears to be
> broadly accepted by the inclusion in two books on gravitational wave
> detection.  In particular, the chapter in the book* Advanced
> Gravitational Wave Detectors*  that discusses the impedance of spacetime
> has the following 6 expert authors:  D. G. Blair, L. Ju, C. Zhao, H.
> Miao, E. J. Howell, and P. Barriga
>
> Besides the previous mainstream reasoning, I propose that my own work also
> supports the validity of the impedance of spacetime.  I will give 3
> examples, but there are actually many more in my book. When I assume that
> spacetime has waves which modulate the distance between points by Planck
> length and combine that with the impedance of spacetime, I am able to
> derive the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law equation
> for Planck charge. Furthermore, I show that the impedance of free space Zo
> ≈ 377 ohms converts to the impedance of spacetime times 4π. This is totally
> reasonable and has far reaching implications.
>
>
>
> John D. - You say, “I share your sentiment, *b*ut would say that the
> stiff stuff is space. Not spacetime. See Baez
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html> : ”Similarly, in
> general relativity gravity is not really a ‘force’, but just a
> manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of
> space, but of *spacetime*. The distinction is crucial.”  A gravitational
> field is described as curved spacetime, but it isn’t curved space. Instead
> it’s inhomogeneous space.”
>
>
>
> You do not directly bring up any scientific reasoning which proves your
> point and disproves my points. For example, I can offer other quotes by
> experts which disagree with the Baez quote.  Their argument is that if you
> prevent a mass from following a geodesic, then the mass experiences a real
> force.  Saying that it is just a manifestation of the curvature of
> spacetime lacks causality.  How does curved spacetime physically exert a
> force?
>
>
>
> In my paper *Spacetime Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and General
> Relativity* I give several equations which show a previously unrecognized
> connection between the gravitational force between particles and the
> electrostatic force between particles. (Eq. 15 to 22 and figure 1).  In
> particular, I show that when the distance between the particles is
> expressed in the particle’s natural units of length (their Compton
> wavelength), then the gravitational force can be expressed as a square of
> the electrostatic force.  If the electrostatic force is a “real force” then
> the gravitational force must be a closely related real force.  Also, if the
> gravitational force is generated by some vague result of the curvature of
> spacetime, then why should it show a square exponent connection to the
> electrostatic force?
>
>
>
> My answer is that both forces are associated with waves in energetic
> spacetime which requires that spacetime has energy density and impedance.
> The electrostatic force is a linear effect which scales with wave amplitude
> to the first power. The gravitational force is the result of spacetime
> being a nonlinear medium for wave propagation. To a first approximation
> this nonlinearity scales with wave amplitude squared.  This is all
> explained in the papers and to a greater extent in my book.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=
> macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Duffield
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 11, 2015 3:33 AM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] The Properties of Spacetime
>
>
>
> John:
>
> I share your sentiment, but would say that the stiff stuff is space. Not
> spacetime. See Baez <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html> : ”Similarly,
> in general relativity gravity is not really a ‘force’, but just a
> manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of
> space, but of *spacetime*. The distinction is crucial.”
>
> A gravitational field is described as curved spacetime, but it isn’t
> curved space. Instead it’s inhomogeneous space. See Einstein
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22>
> along with the attached.  IMHO this distinction really is crucial. As to
> how crucial, try to imagine a photon travelling through a gravitational
> field. For an analogy, imagine you’re standing on a headland looking out
> over a flat calm sea. You see a single wave coming towards you. After a
> while you notice that the path of this wave curves to the left. When you
> look to your left, you see nothing unusual. But when you look to your
> right, you see an estuary. You work out that the wave curves because
> there’s a salinity gradient. The wave curves because the sea is
> inhomogeneous, not because the sea is curved. But now look at the surface
> of the sea where this wave is. *It is curved. *
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Macken
> *Sent:* 10 October 2015 23:03
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* [General] The Properties of Spacetime
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I am attempting to see if it is possible to reach some concrete
> conclusions regarding the nature of spacetime.  Therefore, I have started a
> new title but also included my last post for reference.  Below I make 3
> statements about the nature of spacetime to stimulate debate. In the past I
> have only been able to get vague expressions of disagreement without any
> scientific clash.  For example, Mark has said, “You have taken a dogma on
> board (about the total energy in the universe), and from there you claim to
> derive a lot. In my view, the dogma is already one assumption too many and
> is in contradiction with observation…”  Albrecht has said, “When we talk
> about the basic units in physics (particularly with respect to relativity),
> we should talk about periods and fields rather than about time and space.”
> These and other comments do not contain debatable reasons why my concept of
> spacetime is provably wrong.  Therefore to stimulate a debate. I claim:
>
> 1)     Spacetime is a very stiff elastic medium capable of propagating
> gravitational waves.
>
> 2)     The impedance of spacetime experienced by gravitational waves is Zs
> = c3/G.  If we compare this impedance to the acoustic impedance of a
> cubic meter of tungsten, then spacetime has impedance about 1025 times
> greater impedance than the acoustic impedance of tungsten.  Therefore,
> spacetime meets the definition of being “stuff”.
>
> 3)     To achieve this elastic impedance property, spacetime needs to
> contain a type of energy density that interacts with gravitational waves.
> If we compare a gravitational wave equation to an acoustic wave equation,
> the implied energy density of spacetime is given by the equation  *U*s =
> *k* ω2c2/G = *k F*p/*λ*2 where ω is the angular frequency of a
> gravitational wave, *λ* is the reduced wavelength of a gravitational wave
> and *Fp* is Planck force. There is a maximum possible frequency
> obtainable from quantum mechanics, but that is temporarily beyond the
> bounds of discussion.
>
>
>
> I obviously am pushing the point that spacetime is a physical medium with
> a type of energy density that differs from fermions and bosons.  The reason
> for pushing this point is that the general consensus of the group is that
> electromagnetism is the fundamental building block of electrons.  I am
> claiming that the reason that electron-positron pairs can be converted to
> photons is because both are built from a common building block which is
> energetic 4 dimensional spacetime.  I claim that all aspects of
> electromagnetism can be explained by quantifiable distortions of
> spacetime.  However, that discussion will have to wait for another day.
> Are there any takers willing to dispute one or more of the above 3 points?
>
> My previous post is included below since it covers some additional
> information on the same subjects.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> It has been a long time since I have posted anything. I have been working
> on other projects, but I also concluded that many of the participants in
> the discussion group are in love with their own model.  That is fine and I
> must admit that I have similar feelings. However, I believe that I am able
> to accept and modify my thoughts if someone can prove a logical flaw in my
> model.  The dissertation by John Williamson below has given me hope that
> perhaps the discussion has progressed to the point that I can challenge the
> group to get down to the real fundamentals of physics and build their
> models on space and time rather than starting with photons, charge and
> electric fields.  My contention is that it is possible to understand
> photons, charge and electric fields as quantifiable distortions of
> spacetime.  If I am right and these three can be completely explained using
> spacetime, then any theory that does not start with spacetime is like
> building castles in the air – there is no fundamental foundation and they
> are doomed to failure. If I am wrong, then it should be possible to point
> out the logical flaw in my model.  If you say that you do not agree without
> offering concrete logical reasons, then this is just an opinion not based
> on reason.
>
> Now that I have your attention, I will present a few key points which I
> challenge anyone to refute. These points are explained in more detail in
> the two attached papers.  If I really do get into a serious discussion, I
> will reference particular parts of my book for further explanation and
> support.  These two papers have received a lot of attention recently.  On
> ResearchGate the Aether paper has been downloaded about 70 times in about 6
> weeks.  In 2015 the “Foundation” paper has been downloaded about 140 times
> on ResearchGate and about 150 times from my website.  Here are the key
> points:
>
> 1)     Spacetime is not an empty void.  As John Archibald Wheeler said,
> “Empty space is not empty.” Spacetime has quantifiable constants of: c, ħ,
> G and εo. However, these constants do not give insights into the
> fundamental properties of spacetime.  One constant of spacetime that does
> give an insight into the properties of spacetime comes from the
> gravitational wave research. It has long been known that spacetime is an
> elastic medium capable of transmitting gravitational waves. In 1991, D. G.
> Blair was the first to determine that gravitational wave equations imply
> that spacetime has an identifiable impedance which is:  Zs = c3/G = 4x1035
> kg/s.  The most recent conformation of this was in the 2012 book *Advanced
> Gravitational Wave Detectors* published by Cambridge University Press.
> Five coauthors including Blair discuss the implications of spacetime having
> such a large impedance in chapter 3 of this book.  To help the reader
> understand the difference between the impedance of spacetime and what we
> think of as high impedance of physical materials such as tungsten and
> osmium, they say, “The highest acoustic impedance in a detector (∿1010
> kg/s) is still about 25 orders of magnitude below the impedance of
> spacetime ∿ 1035 kg/s.” They also emphasize that the reason it is so hard
> to detect gravitational waves is that spacetime is an incredibly stiff
> medium for gravitational wave propagation. My explanation is that spacetime
> is so stiff because the gravitational waves are interacting with the large
> energy density of spacetime. I show that the impedance of spacetime enters
> into all wave equations in the wave-based model of the universe.
>
> 2)     The energy density of spacetime can also be obtained from
> gravitational wave equations.  As explained in my “Aether” paper, the
> energy density encountered by gravitational waves is frequency dependent
> because of a mismatch which scales with frequency. The equation is: Ui =
> k ω2c2/G = k (ω2/ω2p)Up where Ui is “interactive energy density”. which
> is the energy density experienced by a gravitational wave at angular
> frequency ω. Also, Up is Planck energy density ≈ 10113 J/m3, ωp is Planck
> angular frequency ≈ 2x1043 s-1.  In this short note it is not possible to
> fully explain this but the point is that general relativity confirms that
> spacetime has the energy density required by zero point energy and field
> theory.  The energy density of the vacuum is Planck energy density, about 10
> 113 J/m3.  The details are in the papers.
>
> 3)     A new constant of nature is proposed which converts the unit of
> coulomb (all electrical properties) into a distortion of spacetime with
> units of meter.  This conversion of coulomb into length sounds strange but
> it is not ruler length.  Instead, it is an asymmetric distortion of
> spacetime which exhibits a different distance proceeding from + to –
> compared to proceeding in the opposite direction.  The round trip distance
> is unchanged. The distortion of spacetime produced by a photon is also
> given.  Experiments are considered but the effects are too small to be
> measurable with current technology.  However, some surprising predictions
> are made which can be checked theoretically.  Spacetime has physical limits
> which should affect the maximum intensity of light that spacetime can
> transmit.  A calculation shows that this limiting condition corresponds to
> the intensity which would make a black hole.  Therefore the prediction
> based on the energy density of spacetime is correct.  If an actual
> experiment could be made, the maximum possible intensity would make a black
> hole and no further radiation would be transmitted through this volume.
>
>
>
> The impedance of spacetime has only been mentioned in the first point.
> However, the impedance of spacetime enters into all the calculations. When
> I hear the group discussing spacetime, photons, electrons and forces
> without mentioning wave amplitudes, frequencies, energy densities and the
> impedance of spacetime, etc., I think of castles in the sky which lack a
> foundation.  If you disagree, then prove me wrong.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.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/20151015/06cb5e22/attachment.htm>