[General] Non-symmetric Relativity ('Subjective Relativity')

Dr Grahame Blackwell grahame at starweave.com
Mon Jul 10 04:00:26 PDT 2017


Albrecht,

I'm so very glad that you also see the illusory (subjective) nature of (perceived) inertial frame symmetry - if there are two of us then that doubles the possibility that ultimately scientists everywhere will see the illusion of the false barrier that they have imposed on themselves!  For me it is like one of those 'optical illusions' - a picture that at first looks like one thing but is actually something else: once you see the true picture then you cannot NOT see it!

My book is available in hard copy only at present (I have plans to convert it to e-book format, but that will take some while), at:
http://transfinitemind.com/atomsindex.php
[I haven't put it on Amazon as they want most of the payment for doing almost none of the work!]
It is deliberately written in a form that's accessible to non-technical readers, with more technical detail for those who can handle it.  Just as Relativity itself has been popularised, I believe that this insight into the mechanisms behind Relativity should also be available to all - without any loss of scientific stringency.

With regard to gravitation: In my book I show in detail how gravitation can be fully explained as an artefact of the gross electrical charge on every material particle.  I say 'gross' as opposed to 'net' since, for example, a neutron which carries a net zero charge actually carries a combination of positive and negative charges in its constituent quarks.  If one takes every subatomic particle right down to its formative electromagnetic (photonic) energy, then in general that energy will be a combination of clockwise and anticlockwise circularly polarised components (as every photon is).  If, as seems very likely, one of these gives rise to positive residual charge and the other to negative residual charge, then it follows that the total gross (unsigned ) charge on any material charge will be directly proportional to its total energetic content - and so also to its total mass.  The fact that, for example, a proton has far greater mass than an electron but equal net charge is then explained by the principle that the proton is formed from almost equal proportions of clockwise and anticlockwise polarised photonic energy, giving positive and negative charges that largely cancel each other out - so giving a net charge that appears small in relation to its mass.

This is all explained in my book, also in my video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdTIb06zEQ
(Presented in a non-technical style, but fully authentic scientifically with simple supporting maths.)

There's also an article on my website at:
http://transfinitemind.com/gravworks.php
(You'll need to login.  Username: xxxxx  ,  password: xxxxx)

My fundamental premise re gravity is that the unit attractive force between unlike charges is marginally greater than the unit repelling force between like charges - that marginal difference is what we refer to as 'gravitation' [Note that this is NOT the difference between positive and negative, but the difference between attraction and repulsion; I see very good possible reasons for this].  I show mathematically how this would generate the appearance of equal and opposite attractive/repelling effects (proportional to net charges) plus a separate 'gravitational' effect (proportional to masses), less by many orders of magnitude.  I propose that these are in fact mutual interference effects between non-linear time-varying electromagnetic fields, the spatially extended fields of the electromagnetic waves (photons) forming material particles of which we perceive/experience only the localised 'cores'.

The mathematics involved are quite simple; I don't attempt to show mathematically how those electromagnetic fields produce precisely the values of g as measured - any more than others have attempted to illustrate how material particles produce exactly the charge effects that they do.  Neither do I seek to express this in the tensor calculus of GR, not least because that calculus implicitly assumes frame symmetry (Chip appears to consider my maths lacking because of this - one might similarly berate Copernicus for not framing his heliocentric view of our solar system in terms of the mathematics of epicycles.)  In my view the mathematical rationale that I have laid out provides a full and coherent proof-of-concept for this perspective on gravitation.

I describe how this would create a 'texture' to the fabric of space, varying dynamically with the motion of massive bodies - hence gravity is a 'spacetime' phenomenon.  That 'texture' consists of varying densities of electromagnetic field according to proximity of massive bodies - that variation in density (with its associated tiny predominance of attraction over repulsion) gives the effect of 'curvature', i.e. gradients in the fabric of spacetime.

In an article I published around 10 years ago I refer to electromagnetic energies (light and massive particles) moving in some sort of 3-dimensional 'substrate' beyond our direct perception; this would correspond, of course, to what has been referred to as the aether/ether.  In fact, my earliest article, written almost 20 years ago (before I had worked out the fine detail) was titled 'Return to the Luminiferous Aether'.  [This may correspond to what's referred to in some esoteric literature as 'subtle matter' or 'subtle energy', I can't say.]

Absolutely definitely my view of gravitation is based on a fixed frame.  Of course this is out of harmony with the concept of frame symmetry - but I also explain that of course, since frame symmetry is a perceptual illusion, an objective reality like gravity is not actually required to be frame symmetric (contrary to popular opinion)!


Best regards,
Grahame

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Albrecht Giese 
  To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
  Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2017 7:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox


  Grahame,

  so as you have explained 'reciprocity' here, it is also my understanding. 


  Sorry, I missed your book. Can you please give me a reference (if it is in the internet) or the exact title and editor, if it is only available as a hard copy?

  One question in advance: Does the book also cover GRT? And if this is the case, is it also based on a fixed frame, so that it assumes something like an ether? 


  Best regards
  Albrecht




  Am 08.07.2017 um 14:01 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:

    Albrecht,

    I'd agree with all that you say here.  I'd add just one reminder, of what we've talked about before.

    For the 'unique absolute rest frame' to fully stand up to scrutiny in the light of experimental findings of SR, it's not only necessary to show that an observer in a moving frame would be led to believe from observation that their frame is static - it's also necessary to show that this moving observer would perceive the SAME degree of (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely static frame as would be seen from that static frame in the observer's frame (those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the static frame, they are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence of their OWN motion).

    To show that the moving observer perceives themself as static is relatively (!!) easy; to show that they perceive an actually-static frame as subject to relativistic effects takes a little more thought - but it can be done, and shown to be so.  [This is what I have referred to previously as 'reciprocity'.]

    In addition, of course, it needs to be - and CAN be - shown how EVERY experimental finding that's considered to be evidence for frame symmetry can be fully explained without any need for, or reference to, frame symmetry.

    No paradoxes - just a little more thought than most physicists appear to have wished to put into explaining the 'how' of Relativity (which is what I always thought physics was actually about - explaining the 'how'?)

    All of this is shown in detail in my latest book, published last year.

    Best regards,
    Grahame
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Albrecht Giese 
      To: general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org 
      Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 9:06 PM
      Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox


      Chip,




      I also think that it is the easiest and most physical way to understand relativity in general and dilation in particular, if one assumes that there is an absolute frame of rest, and that the motion with respect to this frame causes (among other phenomena) dilation. But it is a specific property of relativity that every observer in any inertial frame can assume that his frame is the frame at rest. And in his observation the physical world behaves indeed as if his frame would be the absolute frame at rest.




      This sounds like a paradox at the first glance. But with a proper use of the Lorentz transformation it can be explained why it is this way. It is a bit of work to make these calculations, but it is possible and one may say that this work is a necessity to understand special relativity.




      Albrecht




     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170710/49c1c676/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list