Why do clocks slow down?

What is a gravitational field but an aether?

You can bring up the gravitational field as the tendency of matter/energy to spread by the shortest/straightest path available. In the system of recursive foam it leads to the repeated collapse of such foam due the inhomogeneities, because the inner bubbles of such foam are always pressed by the surrounding bubbles. The bubble interior can be considered as the virtual particles with negative curvature/gravity, i.e. the bosons, or "radiation energy". Whereas the bubble walls or dropplets of dense phase corresponds the fermions. It's evident, inside the most dense foam with 1:1 volume ratio (like the liquid-vapor mixture in supercritical vapor) the exact distinction between fermions and bosons doesn't exist at all (i.e. the gravitons).

The conditionally stable state of foam is just this one with flat membranes - but this is a metastable state at the same time. Whenever some more dense foam appears, the curvature becomes negative and the foam will lose it ability to resist the cumulated pressure of the neighboring bubbles. The density of such bubbles will increase, until phase transition occurs under the boil formation of new big stable bubbles with low curvature. This process is recursive, whole our universe can be considered as such collapsing bubble full of bosons and some subtle amount of fermions, too.



The dragging effect of smaller bubbles to the places of negative curvature is similar to the diffusion of matter/energy and it can be described by the concentration leveling as a diffusion. By such way, the gravity has entropic nature. Near the black holes we can imagine the opposite process, the dissolving of matter into radiation and the migration of bosons from the center of black hole as well. By such way, all the physical processes thinkable are controlled just by "curvature of nested curvatures". The AWT even supplies a dynamic model of this Lagrangian mechanic based on recursive wave spreading along density gradients.

By such way, at least six nearly equivalent interpretations/explanations of AWT exists so far: the wave model, the particle model, the torsion field/elastic EM lattice model, the droplet/foam model, nested vortex fluid model and the statistical/diffusion one. We can bring-up some another models, definitelly.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Sep 28 2006, 02:21 AM

Pupamancur,Vanadesse and lalbatros,

Can any of you explain why light travels faster east to west than it does from west to east?

Where did you get that? It isn't true.
Light speed is fully isotropic, there are a few experiments that confirm it.
Are you talking about "closing speed"? What exactly are you referring to?

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Sep 28 2006, 03:41 AM

The battery is prolly dying.



sorry.

The ignorance of "negative results" (despite of its subtlety and claims in textbooks) is highly non-scientific approach in general, Pupa...



...Contrary to the generally accepted ideas (...I'd say beliefs, instead..) , but in agreement with the point of view expressed by Hicks in 1902, Miller in 1933 and Munera in 1998, the results of Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be considered null. The observed fringe shifts, although smaller than the classical prediction corresponding to the orbital motion of the Earth, point to an effective observable velocity vobs = 8.4±0.5 km/s. As emphasized at the end of Sect.2 and at the end of Sect.5, this value is exactly the same average value obtained by Miller in his observations at Mt.Wilson...

In system formed by transversal waves preferably (like the foam) the subtle effects of environment reference frame will become the more pronounced, the higher is energy wavelength. For example, the transversal waves at water surface (so called capillary waves) are independent to the underwater reference frame just for the wavelength bellow 1.73 centimeters (0.68 inch). By the similar way, the light speed anisotropy can be easily observed by the Doppler shift of microwave anisotropy (compare the results of WMAP and COBE probes). Just the very schematic and zealot stance can ignore such results...



This post has been edited by Zephir on Sep 28 2006, 11:14 AM

Papmancur,

Einstein said you could use synchronized atomic clocks as interchangeable with the speed of light determination. Driving with multiple synchronized atomic clocks light takes 14 nano seconds longer to travel from SanFrancisco to New York than it does to travel from New York to SanFrancisco(the same correction done for gps). If you go from New York to SanFrancisco and back they are resynchronized. That is why the MM experiments had a null result. No matter which way you go on the earth (on the flat) when you return the clocks will be synchronized. You have to understand the limitations of the MM experiments they were looking for a static aether. Although the aether that Zephir and I believe in are different neither of us believe in a static aether. Our aethers are of a fluid nature. Zephir I do not mean to speak on your aether but as I understand yours it is also more of a fluid aether. Correct me if I am wrong.

I suppose, the Aether behaves rather like elastic jelly or urethane foam, at least the light wave spreading and the electromagnetic forces are influenced by the chain of mutual torsion deformations, which are propagating at the distance.



Nevertheless, it doesn't mean, the Universe as such cannot be formed by fluid matter like the interior of neutron star (i.e. the boson condensate). The another question is, how to detect such behavior, as I don't expect, the large distance motion will influence the observable matter distribution too much. We'll need a long-term and long distance astronomical observations to detect it.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Sep 28 2006, 02:17 PM

I see you are a little confused, you are talking about "closing speed" (Google it) in the "Sagnac effect" (Google it)
http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac

Wrong, there is no connection and the MMX gives a null result modulo the incorrect processing of data by Dayton Miller. I would recommend Shankland and Tom Roberts analysis on this.

Here is the newest one, by Tom Roberts

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

Doesn't matter which aether you are talking about, it doesn't exist. What really killed the aether theories is not so much MMX as it is Ives-Stilwell (Google that). I-S gave the mortal blow to the aether theories , so you and Zeph and all the other aether theorists are wasting your time.

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Sep 28 2006, 02:31 PM

Pupamancur,

I could not agree with you more about your sight and the signac affect. But once again have you ever heard of limitations in your experiments. The Aether of the MM experiment and Miller experiment goes back to Aristotle and his obsession with the mathematical static aether. This experimentation is biased on a static non moving aether that the earth is moving through and this is only what it it is valid for. What do you think it is that synchronizes electron speeds in atomic clocks? All you know at this point is that it is not an energy aether. Your understanding currently is upon observation and mathematics. Relativity is merely a system of observations backed up by mathematical formulas. You know and observe gravity but you do not know what causes gravity. The same with magnetism. You are an observer and you use mathematics to describe the effects. That is not understanding. There are too many unknowns about light and gravity to just say signac effect and say that is an explanation for why light travels faster east to west than from west to east. There are depths to this issue that if you are willing to surface skim and dismiss, it will be your loss.

The geocentric theory also goes back to Aristotle. It has also been experimentally proven wrong. Your point?

Sorry, I'm apparently missing your point completely. Could you elaborate or explain in less abstract terms?

So are you proposing that understanding should NOT be based on observation and logic (since that's what math is)? Sorry, but that idea was eradicated in the Enlightenment. Relativity was actually not created based on observations, the experiments just confirmed the theory. The idea of relativity is much deeper than just a few mathematical formulas, but it is important to understand the connections between the ideas and the math.

We do, actually. Google it. Or just search for it on this forum, it's been explained lots of times.

Yeah, that's why people develop theories. I agree with you that we don't know WHY the universe is as it is. If you believe in God, that makes things easier, but if you don't, it may take a little while for your questions to be answered. We don't have the technology yet to understand that, and maybe we never will. But it won't be explained anytime soon, that's for sure. There are thousands of experiments we haven't done yet, each of which will provide more information. You can't make a theory that explains everything without knowing everything first.

vanadesse,

OK I will try it a third time an experiment is only valid for what it was designed for. A static aether and relativity are incompatible a fluid aether is not. All the aether experiments were designed for a static aether.

E=MC^2 When you begin to truly understand that mass has no energy, energy has no mass and yet each are a different form of the other it will become clear.

Lets take the big bang for example. Some day it may be seen in the same light as the early sailors believing they were going to fall off the earth. No matter how you use the mathematics to show how old the universe is or how wide it is that is just mathematics based on an idea not necessarily understanding. There is no mechanism for a big bang.

I googled gravity allot of formulas allot of observation but as I suspected no true understanding behind the cause of gravity. If you accept attraction between bodies of mass as the cause of gravity or gravitons that have not been detected yet or gravitational fields from nothing as an explanation.

Whether or not there is an aether do you really believe you have enough information and understanding to be positive there is no aether?

1. Can you define the properties of "static" aether?
2.Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?
3. What experimental and/or theoretical proof do you have that ""fluid aether is not incompatible with relativity"?

You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Sep 29 2006, 10:07 PM

Actually there are many theories as to the mechanism for the big bang. From Wikipedia:
While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest universe, when inflation is hypothesized to have occurred. There may also be parts of the universe well beyond what can be observed in principle. In the case of inflation this is required: exponential expansion has pushed large regions of space beyond our observable horizon. It may be possible to deduce what happened when we better understand physics at very high energy scales. Speculations about this often involve theories of quantum gravitation.

Some proposals are:

models including the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite;
brane cosmology models, including brane inflation, in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.
chaotic inflation, in which inflation starts from random initial conditions for the universe.
Some of these scenarios are qualitatively compatible with one another. Each entails untested hypotheses.

The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".

Of course not. That is completely beside the point.

Pupamancur and Vanadesse,


[/QUOTE] Can you define the properties of "static" aether?

Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?

What experimental and/or theoretical proof do you have that ""fluid aether is not incompatible with relativity"?

You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.

The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".

Of course not. That is completely beside the point.[QUOTE]

You claim there is no aether ,you claim you do not have enough information to make a judgment on the existence or non existence of an aether and you claim that is completely beside the point?