[General] Stiffness of space

[Andrew Meulenberg]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew
>
>
>
> One thing which we may have overlooked is the possibility that
> longitudinal displacement of space is faster than light, just as
> longitudinal displacement of any medium is faster than transverse waves.
>
>
>
> The only direct manifestations we have of longitudinal displacement of
> space are electric charge and gravity.  If circulating transverse
> displacements create particles, then the fields are longitudinal
> displacements, with their geometric origin at the particle center.
>
>
>
> So it is my opinion that longitudinal displacement is much faster than
> light.
>
> I also feel that what we sense as transverse waves, are actually caused by
> the mechanism which creates momentum in the spinning longitudinal
> displacements of particles.
>
>
>
> While I agree that the phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge
> cannot be turned on or off instantaneously. It must be 'moved' from place
> to place…
>
> I do not feel that it is caused by standing waves or anything else which
> travels at c. But I do feel that the center of the phenomenon that leads to
> gravity, mass, and charge of any particle cannot move faster than c.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Monday, October 09, 2017 7:13 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
>
>
> Dear Chip and all,
>
> Could you comment on my view of superluminal velocities?
>
>
>
> The phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge cannot be turned on
> or off instantaneously. It must be 'moved' from place to place. Their
> infinite-range consequences precede and follow along this motion. This
> means that any 'changes' in the source of these effects are propagated thru
> a region that already has 'excess' energy 'embedded' (probably as a
> standing wave). Therefore, the disturbance can move thru the region as a
> phase change that can propagate at greater than the speed of light. "New'
> energy transfer is still limited to c. The difference in phase vs group
> velocities could be the cause of 'inertia'.
>
>
> Andrew M.
> _ _ _
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam
>
>
>
> Due to information from experiment, and calculations by Feynman, there is
> significant evidence that electric charge “propagates” much faster than
> light. (References available)
>
> When we carefully study binary stars, and compute their orbital changes,
> it becomes clear that gravity is also a faster than light phenomenon. (Take
> a look at this for yourself, I think you may be surprised.)
>
>
>
> In any medium, longitudinal displacement propagates through the medium
> significantly faster than transverse waves propagate.
>
>
>
> So it is a reasonable avenue of inquiry to address the possibility, in
> fact probability, that longitudinal displacement propagates through space
> much faster than light.
>
>
>
> When we combine that premise with the premise that space is a two
> component tension medium, we can easily explain the cause of electric
> charge, gravity, the strong force, the quantization of charge, the
> mechanism which creates momentum, the mechanism which creates mass, and the
> list goes on. (I have written, or am writing papers on each of these
> subjects due to the fruitfulness of this research.)
>
>
>
> I have not found any place in the literature which has explored this
> possibility (space as a two component tension medium, and longitudinal
> displacement faster than light).  But many important things can be resolved
> using such an approach.  There is then no need to resort to extra
> dimensions, or magical explanations, to explain what we observe.
>
>
>
> If this is the reality of nature, then Maxwell’s equations are a partial
> description of the behavior of the momentum created in this scenario, and
> we can recreate Maxwell’s equations by expressing part of the momentum
> operators generated by this approach.
>
>
>
> BTW, this approach also explains magnetic fields, shows why more energetic
> particles are smaller particles, explains why light (photons) have a spin
> of 1 hbar and electrons have a spin of ½ hbar… etc.
>
>
>
> So, after much work to find out if this could be the way it actually works
> in nature, I have found that the answers to most of the puzzles of physics
> emerge naturally from this scenario. Including pilot waves and the
> appearance of entanglement.
>
>
>
> Therefore my current opinion is that this is much more causal than
> assuming that nothing travels faster than light.  In fact, since we have
> never found a medium in which longitudinal displacement propagation is as
> slow as transverse displacement propagation, it is starting to seem quite
> naive to me that we assumed that transverse “waves” were the only form of
> displacement, and naïve to assume that longitudinal displacement of space
> would be the same speed as transverse “waves”.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 08, 2017 10:51 AM
>
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20171009/abef6a87/attachment-0001.html>