[General] Stiffness of space

[Adam K]

Hi Chip,

I did not gather that you want longitudinal waves to travel faster than
light. I don't understand how that idea explains things causally. It seems
to be the opposite of causality.

I agree that Maxwell's equations are incomplete (a "torso" as Einstein
called them) and need to be derived from properties of a CTF. The way to do
this, in my opinion, is to discover the structure of a single electron
within the CTF, and show how placing two of them side by side gives rise
immediately to the electrostatic force.

I did not see any derivations of fundamental equations in your paper.
Perhaps I missed them. Did you have an equation yourself, which describes
the behavior of objects in the CTF? It would be good to see how Maxwell's
equations result from that.

Adam



On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Adam
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> I agree that gravity is a refraction.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I have not written the paper in a manner which gets the ideas
> across well.
>
>
>
> I have not started with anything more than a tension medium of space,
> Planck’s action, the force of electric charge, the mass energy equivalence,
> and experimental data, to derive the model of space discussed in the paper.
>
>
>
> I did not start with GR, but GR is a result, I did not start with
> Schrodinger’s or Dirac’s equations, but they are results.
>
>
>
> My view and Chandra’s of space are quite similar, but that I feel that
> longitudinal displacement of space is much faster than light.
>
>
>
> I also feel that Maxwell’s equations are a good mathematical expression
> for the momentum which is created by the mechanisms mentioned in the
> paper.  But that Maxwell’s equations are not to be considered complete
> because they do not address spin.  But in addition to not being complete, I
> think Maxwell’s equations are just an expression of one of the artifacts
> (momentum) of the reaction of energy with space, and that the reactions are
> at a deeper level than these equations by themselves can disclose.
>
>
>
> So I do not think that a stiffness of space which is derived from
> Maxwell’s equations alone will be accurate either.  Just as I do not think
> that a stiffness derived from the speed of light will be accurate.  One
> concept that I wanted to get across in the paper is that the speed of light
> and Maxwell’s equations are a study of certain observables, but that
> evidence seems to suggest that these observables arise from a set of
> circumstances which is not just a transverse wave in space.  There is more
> than that going on.
>
>
>
> If space is a tension medium and, if we accept that longitudinal
> displacement of space propagates much faster than light, it solves so many
> of the puzzles in a simple causal natural manner, that I feel we cannot
> ignore this possibility.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 08, 2017 2:59 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
>
>
> Chip,
>
>
>
> I think you would do well to follow Chandra's way of thinking here. There
> are a few reasons:
>
>
>
> 1) It is much simpler.
>
>
>
> 2) The vacuum fluctuations are not without their problems. They give rise
> to a prediction that is the worst in all of physics:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
>
>
>
> I was talking to Carver Mead about this issue and he pointed out that the
> vacuum catastrophe has come about through explanation of the Lamb shift,
> which is a tiny discrepancy in the energy levels of hydrogen. In his
> opinion, we should be humble and admit we have not figured out the Lamb
> shift yet, rather than accept the current explanation, which gives rise to
> a prediction of the cosmological constant at least 10e40 times, ie
> 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times larger (and possibly even
> another 10e60 times greater!!) than what is observed. Maybe John M has an
> opinion about this.
>
>
>
> 3) In my humble opinion, you are on the right track to think about gravity
> as the refraction of a wave. This is how I think about it, and I believe
> this is clearly correct. (I could not tell if this is how you think about
> gravity, really, because in the paper you sent out you use different terms
> to explain it). Whatever theory you are looking for needs derive the
> Einstein equation (as well as the Maxwell equations and Schrodinger
> equation), not start from there. General Relativity is so profound, and
> wonderful, it is because of it that you and I and Chandra et al. are
> searching for a solution to the question in terms of an underlying ether,
> fabric, CTF, what have you. However, GR only describes the reaction of that
> fabric to mass and energy, it does not explain how mass and energy emerge.
> These quantities are expressed by the stress energy tensor T_{\mu\nu} in
> the right hand side of the Einstein equation, and Einstein called this
> tensor an 'asylum ignorantiae'. It seems to me that you are looking to
> explain the origin of energy and mass, which is what you should be doing,
> so your explorations should be one level deeper than GR.
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>
> Chip, Macken:
>
>
>
> I have a different approach to the stiffness of the space.
>
> *Just look at the Slide#12 in the attached document.*
>
> I conclude Ether as the Complex *Tension* Field (CTF) based on the fact
> that this CTF allows the perpetual velocity “c” for light *WAVES *through
> it*,* same everywhere. Therefore, from Maxwell’s equation “epsilon” and
> “mu” are the most important determinants of the space stiffness. These two
> constants have been measured repeatedly since the beginning of physics. I
> have presented this approach in my 2014 book (“Causal Physics”) and many of
> my earlier papers. Fortunately, math is accessible to undergraduate
> students (Slide #12).
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> PS: The attached document is a cut out version of my1-hr. seminar today to
> our graduate students.
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.
> edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John Macken
> *Sent:* Friday, October 06, 2017 1:30 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>; 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
>
>
> I do have an answer for your question about the stiffness of space.  I
> have been working on this for a long time and I believe that I have come up
> with some amazing results.  Attached is my latest version of a paper I have
> been writing on this subject.  Here is the abstract from this paper.
>
>
>
> *Abstract: *Gravitational waves (GWs) have some characteristics of
> acoustic waves. For example, GWs have amplitude, frequency, intensity,
> propagation speed and encounter spacetime as having a quantifiable
> impedance.  These characteristics permit GWs to be analyzed to obtain the
> apparent “acoustic” properties of spacetime. The result is that GWs
> encounter spacetime as if it is an extremely stiff elastic medium with a
> large energy density. The energy density encountered by GWs scales with
> frequency squared and equals Planck energy density (∿10113 J/m3) at
> Planck frequency. This matches the vacuum energy density predicted by
> quantum field theory at this frequency. This finding makes a new
> contribution to one of the major mysteries of physics known as the
> cosmological constant problem. An analysis of the GW designated GW150914
> is also given as a numerical example. A model of vacuum energy is proposed
> to be Planck length vacuum fluctuations at Planck frequency.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* Friday, October 06, 2017 8:16 AM
> *To:* 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles
> - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
>
>
> Hi John H
>
>
>
> Not like inertia.
>
>
>
> Chandra and I both feel that space is comprised of a tension medium.
>
> But if that is the case then it seems that medium must be very “stiff”.
>
> So that it would take a large force to displace space a small amount.
>
> But the stiffness would be due to the tensor strength of the medium.
>
> Space would then be “frictionless” for all practical purposes. But would
> oppose displacement with a force.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Hodge John
> *Sent:* Friday, October 06, 2017 9:57 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
>
>
> "Stiff" like inertia?
>
> Hodge
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 6, 2017 7:22 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi John M
>
>
>
> Earlier, while reading your work, I noticed you discussed the stiffness of
> space.
>
>
>
> I am looking for some insight into how to quantify just how “stiff” the
> medium of space is.  Hoping to relate fundamental force to fundamental
> displacement.
>
>
>
> Do you have any thoughts on how to address this issue?
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171008/471f98d0/attachment-0001.html>