New Discoveries in my Theory, Inertia, Acceleration, Gravitation

I sat down a couple of days ago to figure out exactly how the inertial force upon an accelerating object is created within the framework of my theory. For those of you who don't know, my theory has within it a medium in which energy is represented by density and spin. Waves within the medium can refract and interact according to density and spin, and from these arise the four fundamental forces. Anyways, after 3 hours of continuous brain wracking analysis, I finally figured out how the inertial force is created. But the solution to this has led to some startling conclusions and enlightening revelations. I'll start off by describing the solution to the inertial force.

Why is it so that a person sitting in an accelerating rocket will see the rest of the universe being accelerated? How can the explusion of a little matter cause the rest of the universe to change velocity? How come he feels a force pushing him back?

Explanation from the perspective of someone inside the rocket:
When the rocket fires its engines, it expels matter out the back. The expulsion of this matter causes a recoil within the engine, which then spreads throughout the rocket's atoms due to mutual electromagnetic repulsion. What then, keeps the person in place? As the matter was expelled from the rocket, it created a disturbance in the medium, analogous to a sound wave in a gas. This disturbance is spherical, and is a compression in the direction the matter was expelled, and a rarefaction in the opposite direction, with the in-between directions being interpolations of between forward and backward. It spreads out like a spherical wave then, being refracted and bent by density changes it encounters in the medium as it goes along. The atoms of the rocket (and the person), experience this gravitational wave as it travels through them. It causes them to be pushed in the same direction as the matter that was expelled. The combination of the electromagnetic repulsion pushing the rocket one way, and the gravitational wave pushing the other way, causes the force of inertia. The electromagnetic repulsion is the action and the gravitational wave is the re-action. As the gravitational wave crosses objects, it accelerates them in the same direction as the matter that was expelled from the engines of the rocket. The gravitational wave continues to be generated as long as the rocket is firing its engines. Its magnitude is equal to the rate of expulsion of matter from the engines.

Explanation from the perspective of someone outside the rocket:
The matter expelled from the rocket will cause it to accelerate due to mutual electromagnetic repulsion. Both the matter being expelled out the back, and rocket being pushed forward, generate gravitational waves. However, since the gravitational waves of the two are identical but opposite, they cancel each other out and there is no gravitational wave, just the acceleration of the rocket due to electromagnetic forces.

In order derive some more of the interesting discoveries, I should point something out first. The mass and energy in my model are not point particles. Rather, they are the medium itself. More energy means more density at that point. Since abrupt changes in the density are impossible in a continous medium, the density changes smoothly from point to point. This results in there always being some density at every point in the entire universe. The density at any point in the medium can be calculated by summing up the densities generated by all the particles and energy in the entire universe, and taking into account how distant they are from that point.

Variation of the gravitational constant G and variable inertial force
One of the startling conclusions from the above is that the gravitational constant isn't a constant at all --- it is a variable that is determined by the density of the medium between two points. This because the change in the paths of particles in the 4-dimensional medium is determined by the density gradient. The path will tend to refract towards regions of higher density, and the rate of change of the path is proportional to the density gradient. The average density of the medium in intergalactic space is lower than that in the inner solar system. Since the change in density between intergalactic space and the inner solar system is high, an object within the inner solar system would attract another object in intergalactic space with much more force than attracting another object in the inner solar system. Additionally, since the medium is less dense in intergalactic space, an object would appear to accelerate faster there than in the inner solar system. This can be modeled either as a change in the inertial force, or as gravitational time dilation. Similarly, an object near a black hole would be in a much denser medium, and appear to accelerate very slowly. The change in the gravitational constant and the change in inertia are, however, not perceptible to a local observer. The change in the gravitational constant and inertia are only visible at a remote location. This is because the local density of the medium to an observer is always 1, and the density then varies at other locations. This is required because the locally observed speed of light is always the same.

Automatic conformance to the Lorentz transformations
According to the Lorentz transformations, a person travelling near the speed of light should see the stars in front of him to be much denser and blue shifted, and should see the stars behind him to be very sparse and red shifted. Surprisingly enough, this phenomenon also occurs because of the gravitational wave emitted during acceleration. As the gravitational wave travels through the medium, it deflects light rays so that they spread outwards if they are coming to the ship from behind, and focusses them inwards if they are coming towards the ship from the front. Some further analysis shows that it also preserves lightlike vectors as being lightlike, and timelike vectors as being timelike, thereby keeping the speed of light constant after factoring away density changes. This gives some very clear insight as to why the Lorentz transformations arise.

The non-necessity of a Minkowskian metric
The purpose of Minkowskian geometry is to preserve the speed of light between frames. However, as I just explained, my model automatically does the Lorentz transformations through refraction. Because of this, the Minkowskian metric is no longer needed in my model, and the medium can have a regular 4-dimensional Euclidean metric.

The Pioneer anomaly possibly explained
The Pioneer anomaly, in which the Pioneer spacecrafts are experiences an unknown sunward acceleration as they travel out of the solar system, can possibly be explained by variations in G. As the Pioneer spacecrafts head out of the solar system, the density of the medium drops. This causes the mass of the solar system to attract the Pioneer spacecraft more than if they were nearer to the solar system.

The mystery of galactic spiral curves explained without dark matter
The galactic spiral curve measures the velocity of stars orbiting a galactic center with respec to distance from the center. Instead of the expected fall of orbital velocity with distance, the orbital velocity remains more or less a constant. This mystery can be explained if G rises as distance increases from the center, because the density of the medium drops, as there is less matter the farther you go from the center.

Possible explanation of why the Big Bang could expand
One of the puzzles today is that the universe was an immensely dense packet of energy at the moment of the Big Bang. The gravitational forces must have been immense, so how then did the expansion take place? As explained before, G varies inversely with the density of the medium. The medium must have had enormous density at that point, making G extremely small. This would have made it easy for matter to expand.

Please feel free to nitpick in the above, as I think that this is probably the most important finding in my model so far, and so I must get it absolutely correct.

The overall concept of inertial massive environment is quite close to Aether Wave theory, and the explanations of for example dark matter and Pioneer anomaly are identical. Aether Wave theory supposes, the Aether isn't some mystic environment, which energy is represented by "density and spin", but quite normal matter, just in dense superfluid state, similar to those, whose existence was predicted in the collapsars. From such state all the observable properties of vacuum results quite naturally.

Although I don't fully understand some of explanations, the model of Minkovski metric by refraction in particular. Can you make more clear such explanation? Does your theory consider/implements the hidden dimensions concept and how? Furthermore, the explanation of BigBang expansion sounds somewhat scrambled, at least for me. Why u expecting the most dense Universe just at it's very beginning? And from where such density arises by your theory?

The medium isn't so mysterious. In fact, it's just an energy field.

According to the Minkowski metric explanation, for an object that was initially at rest and then accelerated to a velocity very close to the speed of light, the end result would be like this: The rest of the universe would seem to be focussed on a point at the front. This would result in stars seeming very close together in the front, and very far apart in the back. The entire field of view would warp towards the front. Additionally, distance in the front would be shortened, and distance to the back would be lengthed. Photons arriving from the front would be extremely blue shift, and photons arriving from behind would be extremely red shifted.

I do not need the Minkowski metric in my theory, because the same effects appear from the gravitational wave emitted from the acceleration of that object. It would warp starlight coming from all angles towards the front. Additionally, it would red shift light coming from behind, and blue shift light coming from the front.

If all the mass of the universe was concentrated in a tiny volume, then this would make the density of the Big Bang extremely high.

But what's the energy in your model, after than? Why your environment differs from the properties of normal matter by such way?

But the Minkowski metric has nothing to do with acceleration. In fact, whole the special theory of relativity is based on inertial frame description. Here's no acceleration considered at all. For example, the Lorentz contraction isn't temporal effect, it doesn't occurs just at the moment of acceleration. Can we see some derivation of Lorentz transform by your model?

You're obviously supposing, the mass/energy of Universe doesn't change during time. Was it created by God at the very beginning?

My environment does not differ from "normal matter" in any way. Instead, the properties of spin and density are matter/energy themselves. The properties of charge, mass, color, etc arise from the fundamental properties of spin and density that each energy or matter possesses. What I call the medium is basically the sum field of all the energy and matter together.

The Minkowski metric, however, does describe the relationship between co-moving frames. I am not relating the Minkowski metric to acceleration in any way. Rather, I am relating the Minkowski metric to the velocity attained after the acceleration is already done.

Yes, I do believe that the energy of the universe is conserved, and the amount of energy has always been the same.

I'll comment on a couple of the areas I tend to see similarly:

The propogation of forces within the rocket, from the exhaust seem correct. It's electromagnetic bonds that hold the matter together and these propogate the acceleration throughout the craft. The deformation of these bonds, when inertia is considered is what is physically sensed onboard as the accelerating force.

I like the idea of gravity and mass being opposing forces that tend to maintain a static balance that define the boundary between matter and space. If you look at a black hole, there are many characteristics to it that act as a pure surface, including surface tension affected by charge and deformed by rotation (assuming the math is correct ... though if space is dense inside a black hole that might delay or dilute these effects). Matter has these same characteristics. Removing mass creates energy. If you look at the medium between mass and space, gravity could be seen as pushing toward the mass, whereas the mass pushes outward until some size is achieved that maintains a balance between this compressive and expansive force. The gradient of the density along the interface would seem proportional to the pressure between these two forces. EMF radiating from this interface would seem likely to have a frequency proportional to this compressive force along this gradient ... the greater the mass and outward force, the greater the countering gravitational force under a steady state, which creates a larger gradient change in this density and a faster wavelength to oscillations within it as the bonds are held tighter. When mass is converted to energy, it might be seen as removing the force of mass outward and allowing the balanced gravitational force to instead collapse in on that space. This would act like an explosive decompression in the medium (could this occur instantly? If space was instantly deformed in an area, EMF forces would still operate a light speed to restore a balance ... you wouldn't notice being instantly moved in space, but you would notice responses to any deformations in it that might occur in the process).

Now because I like the general flavor of your ideas, I'm going to be a bit more critical, because I'd enjoy having a firmer understanding of how a system with these characteristics could truly match experiences and observations.

Here are a couple questions I have:

1) Does this medium or density to space have an inertia itself? The compressive force on matter, for an inside observer would seem due to acceleration alone. Motion itself doesn't cause compression. So intuitively this would seem to require the medium surrounding an object to propogate with it and remain locally undeformed, except when diverted in motion. This would seem to require the medium itself to have an inertia and remember velocity as well as respond in an inertial manner to changes in it but I personally don't like the idea of some nebulous boundaries to a moving medium surrounding an object. It would seem the mass itself should have inertial information. Maybe you can help clarify this for me.

2) You commented on the local density of space being an analog and continuous fnuction affected by all other particles in the universe. I'm interested in this view. Do you believe this would be an instantaneous state or something that would itself propogate and equalize over time in response to changes? It does seem that some layer of description to forces needs to be instantaneous because any effects that require a delay seem to require another layer of description that defines the mechanism for that delay. So the existance of an instantaneous universal field could possibly provide a final layer that needs no other particles or mediums to descibe how it communicates actions. Something people might overlook is that communicating a force instantly doesn't create instantaneous motion, nor does it necessarily provide a mechanism for instantaneous communication either. A force can be small and below the "signal to noise" level over some short period of time to where it could exist and be communicated instantly without being instantly signficantly detectable.

Truly, these have been a couple issues that have bothered me with my own thoughts. You seem to have some similar ideas and hopefully a clearer picture of the interactions. Maybe you can help me out.

BTW, on the galactic arms comment, I was looking at this earlier and thinking likely 1/d^2 forces might still apply but because the mass is distributed and not centralized orbitals inside a galaxy don't mirror planetary orbits where the majority of the mass is centralized. Though I haven't dug into it enough to make any concrete statements, but it's worth considering ... basically if local gravitational forces in a galaxy still follow a 1/d^2 relationship and the mass is very much distributed then local gravitational forces would always predominate (as they are closest and most significant) and this would almost give a viscous effect where local areas tend to remain attached and move together at a constant velocity (not to mention likely collisions and effective friction encountered to masses moving outside the average velocity in an area).

The first thing you should know is that you should not consider the medium to be a fluid. The medium is a field that has two properties: density and spin. Because of these properties, it sometimes seems appropriate to refer to it as a fluid, but unlike a regular fluid, it has no drag whatsoever, but it does have compression/rarefaction pressure waves (like sound waves). Additionally, inertia is not a magical in-built property of matter or energy. Rather, it is simply the resistance to acceleration caused by gravitational waves that are induced by acceleration.

Information is carried along in the medium via longitudinal and transverse waves. The speed is defined by the local density of the medium. This is how changes propagate to the entire universe.

In order to fit the measured galactic spiral curve, there needs to be almost continous mass distribution for the entire galaxy...which is why they introduced dark matter, because such a continuous mass distribution is not detected via luminous matter.

The problem of such explanation is, the gravitational waves are incredibly subtle with compare to electromagnetic waves. Whereas the charged body can really behave by the way you're describing, the gravitational waves emanated by accelerated bodies aren't able to accelerate other objects significantly. The correspondence principle simply doesn't work here.

Why it should be so, if your environment behaves like ordinary matter and "information is carried along in the medium via longitudinal and transverse waves"? Furthermore, the gravitational waves you're describing should be just considered as these compression (i.e. longitudinal) waves.

The theory of yours is in fact close derivation of Aether Wave theory, and the Aether Wave theory is able to explain most of the ad-hoc assumptions, postulated by you. For example the spin of matter can be replaced by composition of waves through phase interface by incorporating a multidimensional nature of matter. It means, the Aether Wave theory explains the spin concept (rather abstract for most people) just by more intuitive wave motion composition through phase interface. From this point of view, I've nothing against such concept, because I believe, the spin density can be substituted by the wave frequency using Euler transform formalism.



The main conceptual difference consist in origin of inertia and the resulting constant mass/energy of Universe in time.By commonly known idea, the potential energy of Universe mass compensates the internal energy of vacuum nearly exactly, so nearly none inertia/energy/mass is required at the very beginning. It seems, by our concept the overall energy of Universe is retained, so it forms a causality problem of BigBang event. Furthermore, I really don't understand your explanation of Lorentz transform by "refraction of gravitational waves". Can you supply some derivation, or at least some illustration of it?

Ok, so inertia is a property of the field/medium as it interacts with matter. I assume from the last sentence this operates along the lines of electronic inductance, where a magnet passing through a coil can induce a current and transform kinetic energy into a field surrounding the motion would in turn could maintain the motion. Either increasing or decreasing this velocity requires transferring energy between the surrounding field.

And it seems you're saying this same field could potentially affect nearby objects though as they become more distant (and possibly dependent upon orientation relative to the direction of motion?) the effects are both more diffused and in the case of the rocket ship example, the motion of the ship and the exhaust have an effect that tends to cancel this field.

What action do you see as representing the binding forces of matter? What keeps these variations in density from dispursing? Is it simply a matter of the field regenerating itself? If so, then for example, why does an electron tend to maintain a specific size versus some alternate size? It seems there's a need to have some level of quantization involved.

(I hope you don't mind me asking so many questions. I've got to run for now but I'll check back post more later if you haven't tired of it by then Have fun)

Inertia is not a property of any thing. It's simply the effect of standing in one place while the rest of the universe accelerates in the opposite direction. Also, the medium/field and matter are the same thing, since matter is energy, and field/medium is an energy field.

There are some slight quirks with this model. For example, I can't satisfactorily explain why gravitational waves emitted by acceleration do not lose their intensity as they spread. One solution to this that I have thought of requires that the gravitational wave "generated" by acceleration, in the frame of the accelerated object, must have existed since the beginning of time, and had been travelling inwards, instead of outwards, and would then converge upon the place of the object at the time that it accelerates. This solves two problems: the gravitational wave does not lose its intensity with distance, and the density can remain constant around the object after it has finished accelerating. I realize that this particular solution requires some very bizarre concepts, namely that the wave somehow knows that it's needed in the future, but it might be possible if we consider the entire universe, space and time, to be interacting with each other in closed loops. The resulting interference caused by the acceleration would then be enough to generate a time-reversed wave, which appear to come inwards rather than travel outwards. The reason that the gravitational wave is need is that it is reponsible for accelerating the rest of the universe the other way.

Density tends to cluster around itself due to mutual attraction via the effect of refraction, so that's how I think it "maintains" itself. Kind of like the inward pressure in your theory, but I model it as a refraction, which makes much more sense to me, atleast.

I speculate that the size of the electron has something to do with the conclusion that I drew from the explanation of the time-reversed gravitational wave. It appears that if the entire universe (that means the entire field), can be treated through a wrap-around wave equation, the constructive and destructive interference only allows the electron to have one particular size. Any other size would be unstable. This also means that the mass of the electron would have varied with time as the universe expanded, and that the effective mass of the electron also depends on the local distribution of mass and energy.

Please read my previous post regarding this matter.

And they are.

It is the same way in my theory. I've just separated the concepts out because it makes it easier to work with sometimes. Just a matter of personal preference, I guess.

If you consider the environment for energy spreading (i.e. Aether) as convenient matter, created by energy, then isn't particular difference with compare to Aether Wave theory. Everything else follows from concept of waves of elastic inertial environment recursively. I agree, the usage of spin formalism is just a matter of personal preference. But it's important to remember, the spin formalism encapsulates the hidden dimension concept and hides the information about Aether internal topology and it's evolution, because the spin is just one of lotta partial aspect of such topology as steady state solution.

But I can see a less formal problem in inertia explanation. By Aether Wave theory the inertia of some matter is a result of convolution/compactification of energy gradient at the level of hidden dimensions of such matter. It's infinitely recursive concept (the matter is formed by energy of waves of some more subtle matter) and it requires just infinitesimal inertia from entropic processes at its very beginning. It doesn't requires assumption about hidden gravitational waves, transferring inertia without lose of intensity and other "bizarre concepts", as you've said. These gravitational waves are forming just a subtle "byproduct" of acceleration in my model with conformance of observation. The inertial energy is transfered by accelerated object alone, not by some waves spreading to it's neighborhood.

Such insight follows directly from recursive wave equation model, so I can feel the your explanation of inertia somewhat redundant in its context and such of this mistaken. The subtle gravitational waves aren't able to keep/exchange the energy of inertia during acceleration. Furthermore, such hypothesis leads to the conclusion of constant matter/energy of Universe from its very beginning, which I can feel as uncomfortable from causality reasons. And at the end, I never understood the usage of refraction concept of yours in explanation of inertia and/or Lorentz transforms. As the refraction is geometrical concept requiring some phase interface, can you at least draw some picture about it?

But what property or process retains the motion induced by acceleration? In the example of the spacecraft, during the period the rocket is operating a compressional force is transmitted throughout the spacecraft including any occupants inside. After the rocket has stopped this compression is removed but the spacecraft has a different velocity. Some characteristic needs to remain changed by this acceleration so as to store this change in velocity after the acceleration is removed. I see that as inertia. If the field itself, which is analog and continuous stores this velocity then this motion has a distributed component not solely isolated to what might intuitively be assumed was the mass of the craft ... at least that's how I interprete what you're saying.

Maybe I know the answer to this already - the density and spin components that you mention of the field have directional characteristics that determine how this density should propogate over time? Sorry if this physics 101 for many people.

Actually, I've had some thoughts along these lines also. The universe may not be entirely composed of a lossless medium. In fact many lossy paths may continue to exist. We know the universe was much hotter and denser in energy at some point (or at least if all the energy was created in an initial impulse/Big Bang), though this is under the assumption that energy is neither created nor destroyed so if some distant (echo) of space appears to have been hotter then the assumption would be that it would be smaller.

Alternately, if the universe is a resonant manifold, then not all wavelengths will be sustained in all modes of oscillation. There would be a decay to wavelengths that were not some harmonic of a fundamental along whatever path a directional wave took. In this case, only certain motions would remain sustainable over time - those that were lossless. If you look at a wavefront propogating, if it splits and goes through 2 paths with different delays and then recombines, it diffuses and cancels. Such paths would gradually decay in influence over time each pass. The only sustainable modes of travel would be those paths that kept all components of the wave in phase during the entire cycle. This might also be interpreted as why some particles are stable and others unstable. The universe initially contained effectively all possible particles of which these decayed and diffused leaving only those that remained resonant with whatever manifold the universe is contained in. The light reaching us from distant stars didn't necessarily travel a straight path but instead might have echoed around inside a much smaller volume only to reach us many many cycles later.

As a side comment, it seems possible that observations of the Big Bang don't actually represent an initial period of creation but instead reflect the "channel characteristics" or properties of this hull that all energies pass through over time. New energies might be injected at a planck scale and the ratio between larger observations of energies and these lower level quantum energies could indicate the resonance or inertia behind a mode of oscillation. (In a resonant electronic circuit a small signal can be stored resonantly depending on the quality or "Q" of the path. The larger the Q the more amplified the signal can become, though the tradeoff is that it effectively has a large "inertia" and can take time to damp out also)

I'm just throwing out some ideas for you to mull over. As another more abstract example not to be taken literally but to indicate the general concept, let's say the universe was cyclic with recurring Big Bangs and Big Crunches ... any particles osciallting through these cycles that collided would be deflected and have a merged alternate path taken later. Eventually all paths would follow collision free/lossless paths (unless new "creative" energy was being injected into the system).

I'm game. Sounds plausible.

Ahha, it seems we think alike. Yes, the characteristics of matter are likely determined by more distributed properties to the universe.

From my view the actual structure of the universe could be very small, chaotic and even lossy. I've managed to get to the point where I believe even a rather random network of computing elements would create a space that could be interpreted as a lossless medium communicating at a fixed light speed (even with variable delays between nodes). The smaller the network/medium the more uniform space on a large scale would appear to be. For example, if the universe existed as a single simple regular solid (like a cube or pyramid) you couldn't detect anything outside this. Any energies interacting with an edge would either be lost or reflected in some fashion. This would lead to "echoes" or reflections of a small space that would appear infinite and uniform.

The apparent uniformity of space I don't believe comes from connecting a string of rather identical elements together but instead comes from unravelling over time a small "seed" space that creates recurring, regular features on larger scales.

The insight for me was realizing how many observations seemed to agree with the idea of a "thin" resonant universe (I won't rehash them here). I've given this example many times but imagine standing sandwiched between a couple mirrors and looking out at "warped spacetime". If you curled this space up tightly, locally it would appear chaotic but larger recurring patterns would emerge on larger scales as patterns of reflection were repeated. I still don't know the example mechanisms that waves within this manifold operate though there are a lot of characteristics that seem to be required.

---------------------------------------

Now, ignore my ideas and let me hear the more original ones you have. I don't want to distract you from presenting some new possibilities (that hopefully will fit into a piece of the puzzle I'm also trying to assemble )

I suppose, the cefarix's idea of inertial energy stored in the form of waves as a result of acceleration isn't fully nonsense and it has an direct analogy in Louis deBroglie hypothesis. I believe, such waves really exists in form of the model illustrated bellow (you can click to the animation bellow to see the AVI animation at better resolution):



The Lorentz relativistic contraction of particle string corresponds to shortening of ribbon band flapping and waggling in Aether like in the wind under motion. Whenever you stop, the ribbon will become narrow under restoration of the original length of it. As you can see, these "gravitational waves created by acceleration" can really exist, but they aren't spreading to the neighborhood, but they're traveling with accelerated object, being the immanent part of it.

I didn't intend to imply they were nonsense. I was simply trying to find where the inertia component of mass was stored. If mass is a function of the density of a medium in space then the kinetic energy either needs to be stored in a secondary medium, or as the spin component he mentioned or as an additional property (including potentially even phase information embedded or distributed throughout the density information).

Do each of the points in this graphic have a complex value (with real and imaginary components) or is it embedded in the phasing/arrangement of the points and each point is simply a binary value?