[General] The Properties of Spacetime

[Adam K]

Thanks John M,

It might take me a bit of time to get around to these but I promise I'll
try. If you haven't heard from me in too long feel free to bug me!

Adam

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:46 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Adam,
>
>
>
> You have asked for more information about my model of electric fields and
> photons.  I have attached two technical papers and two chapters from my
> book.  This is probably more than you wanted to know, but I decided to give
> you key parts of the information and let you decide what you wanted to
> read.
>
>
>
> As introduction, you will see that this is completely different than the
> arm-chair theories which make no predictions which can be checked. My work
> is quantifiable and makes predictions which can be checked.  My model of
> electric and magnetic fields generate the correct energy density in
> addition to generating the correct force.  Most surprising to me was the
> fact that my model of a photon produces a distortion of spacetime which
> implies that there should be a maximum possible intensity for a given
> wavelength and focus volume.  When I calculated this counterintuitive
> prediction, I found that it perfectly corresponded to the condition which
> would make a black hole. If a focused laser beam could have its power
> increased at will, it would hit a condition where the properties of
> spacetime reached 100% distortion of spacetime and prevented further
> transmission through this volume.  It is possible to check this prediction.
> Similarly my model of an electric field indicated that there was a
> prediction of a maximum  possible voltage which would produce 100%
> distortion of the properties of spacetime. Both of these limits are correct
> because they correspond to the conditions which would produce a black
> hole.
>
>
>
> If you are mainly interested in learning about electric fields and
> photons, but you are not sure if you want to invest the time, I suggest
> that you read section 5 starting on page 13 of the “Foundation” paper.
> This section is only 3 pages long. You will not be able to understand all
> the symbols or terminology.  However, you will pick up the flavor and be
> able to determine whether you want to read the entire paper.  Gravity is
> intimately connected to the electrical properties of matter, so this paper
> has a heavy dose of gravity and the connections to electrostatic force.
> Really, I highly recommend reading this entire paper from the beginning.
>
>
>
> The “New Aether” paper was just published, but it has already created a
> lot of attention.  It has already been downloaded over 100 times in about 6
> weeks.
>
>
>
> Chapter 9 from my book is devoted to photons and electric fields.  It
> gives additional details not contained in the previous two papers.  Chapter
> 10 is included because the first 10 pages of this chapter gives important
> details concerning wave amplitudes and distortions of spacetime produced by
> electric and gravitational fields.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> John Macken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=
> macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:36 PM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] The Properties of Spacetime
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151017/0afe4b77/attachment.htm>