Wow, scientific honesty at 19:00 is the precise reason why I’ve subcribed to this channel! Thank you very much for showing an open mind in the face of issues! Great video!
As is a norm for ` Real Physics ` the subject / program brings challenging ideas for the mind. I was surprised to find that the production value / format also brought a challenge. I look forward to the next video thank you .
Did Fay make his field computation relativistic ? Using 4-momentum instead of velocity ? Because the derivation of G, using Sciama paper, was very impressive in my opinion.
Great, great video! This is so exciting I will watch it several times! And if it turns out that the problems with gravity lie not in physics and facts, but in human mentality and ways of solving them, what then? And if it turned out that a completely new definition of gravity could be created based on... the latest discovery of space-time expansion, what then? And if it turns out that dark matter is a mistake of scientists, similar to... the existence of Newton's graviton, what then? What if it were possible to formulate different, improved definitions of gravity that would take into account the FACT of the expansion of space-time? Yes. But how can you talk to someone who doesn't even have a PhD in physics before his name? -And this is a very important problem, bigger than gravity itself.
By determining the constancy of speed, all experiments and Michelson-Morley experiments are indirect and incomplete. If the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out on a bus or airplane and was used to determine speed. only then will this experience be direct. Therefore, Einstein does not rely on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Question. Do you have an example of such direct experience?
The difference at 19:16 between SDSS and VSL looks just like a logarithm / e to the power of the prediciton. Any idea how to get one in there 😂? Did anyone do a Taylor-development just using a linear term?
Everything is related to the number of field cells that make up the universe, and the base electric force that bonds them. Field Cells (+−) are a + and − field point particle in superposition). 1 cell bonds to 12 neighbours (like close-packed spheres). Cells can be split into a + and − that bond to a neighbour to form a positron (+−+) and electron (−+−). Protons (pep) and antiprotons (epe) are the same but made from electrons and positrons (no quarks). -- Neutron (pep_e) has a mass halfway between Muon (ep_e) and Tau (epep_e) and loses an electron in Beta- Decay, with Beta+ as a new e_p formed near a proton with the electron retained and positron expelled (pep + e_p => pep_e + p). Pions, Kaons and more massive particles are combos of +, − and +−s that are only stable at (close to) light speed as time stops for them. There's 1 or 2 mass multiplier mechanisms and a mass addition mechanism. -- Gravity and part of the strong force is the rest of the universe pushing inward against matter that pushes outward against empty space=balanced field trying to stay balanced. Big G varies with distance from the galactic centre.. Mass gains the finite universe's electric energy from voids so voids expand and matter space/field contracts. -- There could be a mini black hole per volume decrease towards a galactic central black hole, as it absorbs more smaller black holes the closer they are, dark matter-wise, but a variable Big G MOND theory is more attractive. No new matter, and no reliance on WIMPS at least.. Black holes turn neutrons into more massive 'Tau Cores' (pep_e => pepe) that are stable as time slows hugely in black holes. Mass increase is what expands the universe as it uses up total universe electricity that bonds the field.
@@TurboLoveTrain .. Empty=balanced field (equidistant, stationary cells) is the null state, however I don't think this is possible. Even in a completely empty universe holistically it wants to be a perfect sphere with polar coordinates, but locally it wants to be close-packed, equidistant cells and these two coordinate systems are in slight conflict (although similar) so there's inherent buzz (cells slightly moving and/or slightly splitting (polarising)). -- It's an inertial field - energy lost warping the field is returned by the field rebalancing behind.. You can think of it as wireframe twelve pointed stars with very fine bonds and tiny point particles that warp the field as they move through it with zero resistance (though enough polarisation and vibration of the field affects a particle's trajectory).
21:50 the Euclidean space time is (mostly) compatible with relativity if you use proper time as the 4th dimension instead of coordinate time, and restrict everything to moving at the speed of light with the direction that you are travelling being projected down into a 3d slice of the world. This can be derived from special relativity from taking the Minkowski metric ds^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2, and adding the spatial length to both sides giving ds^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=(cdt)^2, and then by dividing by dt^2, we get (ds/dt)^2+(dx/dt)^2+(dy/dt)^2+(dz/dt)^2=c^2 which can be interpreted as everything moves at the speed of light. We can also (potentially) interpret anti-matter as moving in the negative direction. The main problem that Euclidean Relativity faces is that light doesn’t have to move at the speed of light in any reference frame (because we removed the light like vectors with zero length by changing the metric) however this might be able to be solved.
I would first of all criticize the SRT;-) At freshman level. So understand its genesis - and discover the errors;-) After that, you won't have to connect anything else;-)
@magma90 The measurement of the speed of light dropped worldwide by roughly 20 km/s between 1928 and 1945. In 1948, it suddenly went back up again. The international committee of metrology fixed the speed of light in 1972 by pegging it to the meter. Even today, gravity varies in place to place and time to time, which is why every decade, the international committee of metrology adjusts the value of G to the new worldwide average. So, again I ask, "have you recently measured the speed of light?"
I have raised the principle of subjectivity, associated with Mach's principle, explaining the red shift of distant objects, as follows. The supposed expansion of the universe is a gravitational mirage caused by the relativistic energy loss of photons exchanged from large distances, considering the distant emitter O as the center of a homogeneous universe of density D with radius up to the observer (us) R. The gravity exerted on the photon by the universe outside the sphere of radius R is null, and is added to the gravity exerted on the photon by the universe inside the sphere of radius R, from the emitter O. This subjective gravity (perceived from where we are) generates the gravitational pull on the photon towards its emitter, generating the redshift that we observe. I explain it in TW marcodecunha, in a document.
What is hampering the progress in understanding these fundamental principals is a lack of public/ open source equivalent of publishing a scientific paper. If you are not a professional scientist you can’t get published. If a solution is “out there” A Joe Rogan(ish) website/podcast could do more to advance science in one show than the last seventy years of scientific publications.
Request to you: Suppose: we managed to “improve” the Michelson-Morley experiment so that with its help the result of the experiment was determined; speed on an airplane is 300, 350, 400 meters per second. Question for you: what will this mean for BIG SCIENCE?
@@hollaadieewaldfeee New technologies, new research tools. BIG SCIENCE doesn't want to eliminate the *BIG MUD* of noise in fundamental optical experiments. WHY? Let me suggest for schoolchildren and students on one's own to measure the Universe, dark energy, black holes, etc. To do this, I propose two practical devices. «laser tape measure *+reference distance* 1,000,000 m”» and «Michelson-Morley HYBRID Gyroscope». I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 250000 (In a laser tape measure, the length of the optical fiber is fixed at 1000000 ) meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 84/84/84 cm, and the weight is 24 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.
@@hollaadieewaldfeee Do you even know what the Michelson-Morley experiment tries to investigate? If you are familiar at least with a diagram of the interferometer and some simple optics I don't understand where you take issue with it.
Agreeing on the constant speed of light when radiated it follows that light needs this similar speed to impact absorbtion.Emission patterns are very precise!!!!! So it follows that light has to adjust it's speed and this cannot be done by "gravity" It must be the electric field at hand that changes the speed of light. It might explain cosmic radiation being robbed of electrons. These particles can't process deviating photon energies and "overpower"the stability of their electron shells?
The resolution of (Einstein) Variable Speed of Light (for photons - and photinos) - must be addressed. The Aether must be recognized, as the matter universe has 3 photon energy levels and the Aether has 3 photino energy levels. Matter - Light speed photons, only Einstein gravitational lensing Tau electron photon Muon electron photon Electron photon Aether - Variable light speed photinos, Einstein gravitational capture, no lensing Small electron photino Electrino photino Graviton photino When you understand this, you have solved Einstein's statements, but also start correcting much of the Standard Model and all of the disparate and distinct physic sectors that can't talk with each other.
Aether universe particulate photinos have infinitely small energy levels. Even though they can still accomplish (par value) light speed, they are weak against a greater gravitational object. Thus, they are gravitationally attracted, orbit, and ultimately gravitationally captured. Variable light speed photinos are only in the Aether. Matter universe particle photons have higher energy levels. While they can be gravitationally attracted, they have such firm light speed velocity that they do not orbit, but escape, and are only gravitationally lensed. Light speed photons are only in the matter universe. It is that simple, peeps !
Are Neutrinos real, or are they just photons that manage to make it through lots of barriers to a detector. There are lots of other photons though, and you can just make EM waves using radio transmission techniques.Gravity as a charge density gradient in a unified quantum field makes more sense, with balanced field repelling field imbalances from all directions, causing them to clump.
@@PrivateSi According to the Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) model, the following categories, simply answers your question, and so much more. Matter Universe Particles : ES or EG ES or EG ES/EG or EG/ES ES/ES EG/EG Electron transitions (Electron+Positron) (Elrectron + Positron) (Electron + Positron) before/after fusion Tau energy level : (Tau space mesh fabric with gravitons/gravity waves = time) Graviton Electron Positron Tensor boson (Higgs-1) Neutron (no gravity interaction) Photon (gravitational lensing) Lyman series fusion agent light speed light speed (gamma rays) Muon energy level : (Muon space mesh fabric with gravitons/gravity waves = time) Graviton Electron Positron Tensor boson (Higgs-2) Neutron Photon Balmer series fusion agent light speed light speed (UV rays) Electron energy level : (Electron space mesh fabric with gravitons/gravity waves = time) Graviton Electron Positron Tensor boson (Higgs-3) Neutron Photon Paschen series fusion agent light speed light speed (visible light) Aether Universe Particulates : Small electron energy level : (Space mesh fabric - no time) Graviton Electron Positron Tensor bosino Neutrino (no gravity interaction) Photino (gravitational capture) Pfund series fusion agent variable light speed variable light speed (infra red light) Electrino energy level : (Emergence of the electrical force separate from the gravitational force) Start of the separation of the Electro-static (ES) weak nuclear force and Electro-gravitic (EG) strong nuclear force (Electrino space mesh fabric - no time) Graviton Electrino Positrino Tensor bosino Neutrino Photino Humphrey series fusion agent variabe light speed variable light speed (infra red light) Graviton energy level (gravitatational base of the cosmos) : (Graviton space mesh fabric - no time) Graviton (-) Graviton (+) Tensor bosino Neutrino Photino fusion agent variable light speed variable light speed Aether tensor bosinos - fusion agents - Hydrogen fusion Helium up to Iron in stellar engine of the photosphere Matter tensor bosons - fusion agents - Iron fusion Cobalt up to Element 118 in stellar engine of the chromosphere There is no such thing as (Feynmann) electron + positron natural annhilation. Electron + positron become neutron or photon, depending on their ES or EG composition. True cosmology evolution is Electro-gravitic, not Electro-static. Matter universe is quantum entanglement. Tensor bosons are the Hubble tension, cosmic tension, Einstein tension of the matter cosmos. Sun disappears, while light takes 8.33 minutes to get to Earth, and Earth eventually flies off at a tangent. Aether universe is sub-quantum entanglement (entire instant cosmic consciousness at vast distances). Tensor bosinos are the Aether tension of the cosmos. Sun disappears, Earth instantly flies off at a tangent, while light continues onwards. The ES and EG model clearly describes the stellar engine and its operation, the sun's interior core, ... as well as the interior of all active and rotating planets and moons displaying an exterior radiation belt, magnetic polarity, and gravity.
There is no Big Bang singularity. There is an entire Aether cosmic-wide Big Manifestation of innumerable singularites appearing at the quantum foam (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, CMBR), which - IS - the active boundary between the Aether and the Matter univesre. This is not a cosmic evolution remnant - it is an active and still functioning Aether to Matter universe activity. The tensor bosons, composed of electrical force and gravitational force are the (said) Tesla currents, modern Birkeland currents, and the Be'nards convection in the stellar engine photosphere. The tensor bosinos and bosons electrical force fusion process energizes the electron shell to expand and overwhelm the Van der Wahl's radius., The tensors gravitational force then fuses the nuclei together, overcoming the Coulomb Barrier. As the gravitational force passes away from the fused nuclei, the electrical force also passes. The energized electron shell then dissipates and stabilizes - producing the multiple electron transition states - depending on what energy level the tensor bosons or tensor bosinos are fusing. The tensor bosons (and their fusion properties) are the real cause for cosmic accretion and evolution, versus any electro-static forces currently being stated as accretionary theory (only able to accrete up to 1 meter - and no bigger volume). Electro-gravitics are the real cause for all cosmic accretion up to stellar objects.
@@johnlord8337 ... There is no EG model in science so how can it simply answer my questions? Please explain all the other photon types you ignored and a rough explanation of the system before asserting more things without evidence. I've provided both in my other post here. Read it if you want as it makes more sense than your/EU? idea as asserted. I don't make up new particles, I try to do more with the basics and discount most of the newer parts of the SM as useless junk. No bosons except photons.
Thank you, your ideas are of interest. I am not a physicist, but... Why are mainstream physicists so toxic when you talk about problems with relativity? It's almost as if relativity is considered to be gods law of all of the universe. > Relativity has obvious ambiguities and potential flaws and especially with Minkowski space. Why one space-time geometry over the other space time geometries and why the ambiguity and conflation between space-time geometries. Why is this never addressed anywhere. > Common descriptions of "Time-dilation" due to velocity always seam contradictory to speed of light. It's like we just conveniently change to a local or global frame whenever it is convenient to wash away a contradiction :( > Clocks. How do we consistently measure the speed of light with a clock that is impacted by the speed of light in the same frame of reference. To use a clock based upon massless particles to measure the speed of a massless particle sound ludicrous lol > Cosmology: Too many underlying assumptions that have been elevated to the level of gods laws of the universe for my liking. Inflation of space-time, expansion of space-time, expansion of distance between objects. If it doesn't seam to fit we just invoke variable size and speed of space and time until it works. > I really think physicists need to actually define what space-time is before defining the rest of the universe in terms of some ambiguous abstract math and geometry :)
P.S. With regards to speed of light, gravity and density. Why are atoms and molecules clumped into objects such as planets considered to have density, yet particles and energy are not considered to have density. They say space time flows toward large celestial objects and spacetime is compressed as we get closer to that object then why does that density not effect the speed of propagation of a wave? Is space outside of our atmosphere but still withing earths gravity a true vacuum with no density? Heck, is open space between galaxies really a complete void absent of all density of energy or particles? Density affects the propagation of all other waveforms so why not light?
@@axle.studentas a physicist I would implore you to understand from our perspective that a lot of people talk about "problems" with relativity when they usually do not understand it. I hope you can imagine after a while that it becomes meaningless to entertain this unless someone has genuine theory and prediction or at the lowest bar some sort of accreditation/reputation to give substance to their words. For example, imagine a doctor listening to people always talking about how they just have questions about germs existing because they've not used a microscope before. I would also say that whilst there are of course problems, the majority of your queries stem from a misunderstanding of the concepts - i mean this with absolutely zero condescension or malice, physics is hard. Talking about density and energy for example - particles are to our knowledge point like, and fields are unimpeded by the 'density' of energy in any given location because the field is solely a medium. Imagine if you would waves on the ocean - the height of the waves might different but you can't exactly squeeze water through more water. In a field the waves simply pass through each other and interfere, so this concept of density we have physical intuition for is not applicable
@@ytpanda398 Thanks for the understanding. I also have a sound awareness of the problem of multitudes of alternative theories and quackery and attempt to be careful of that. When I suggest alternatives, it not so much about not understanding the concepts it is usually about questioning the concepts to begin with. I tend to have a slightly more predominant lean toward the underlying human psychology (cognitive) and philosophy of physics. It's a "Testing/checking the Human Subjective Paradigm" approach with regards to what we define as reality. Reality is a somewhat ambiguous and illusive concept, especially within the abstract concepts that exist within physics. > All I can do when I encounter an issue or ambiguity is look for where that issue has been discussed or resolved. If I don't find that physics has covered the issue? Ask, paint the best description I can to find a direction toward the discussion or solution? Typically I am met with venim for doing so. The difficult part is that I see the same issues that are described by many renowned physicists. I didn't get that from "Out There" or from "Someone else's words" I have arrived at that point through my own hard works and investigation. Often these issue pop out unexpectedly as I am investigating something else. Then I find "Such and such physicist has discovered this anomaly in physics. It's just coincidence that we arrived at the same place, but that happens. Maybe I read the same material as the other and it just happened to have guided me there. > I see these problems and I see them from many different paradigms. Most others don't appear to see the problem at all as if it never existed. All I can do is attempt to describe the problem, even if I don't have a solution for it. I can't attempt a solution if I can't accurately describe the problem. Solving the wrong problem/question equates to a wrong solution/answer. > Thank you for your kindness.
Alex, 1. Distant light is very likely just losing momentum (ie red shift) over great distances. Lets suppose that free space isn't 100% resistance free, possibly caused by some very small imbalances between ε0 & μ0 causing some leakage of momentum from photons. In physics there really is no such thing as absolute no resistance. Why should space be any different? Its very unlikely there is a variable speed of light. For that to occur there would have to be some variances occuring with ε0 & μ0, which is very unlikely. Lets Suppose there was variable c. Why don't see observe blue shifted light in some regions of distance space? If c is truly variable, than we should also observe blue shifting right? Since we constantly only observe red shift the most likely reason is that light is just losing momentum & c is always constant in free space. 2. Gravity is very likely from the strong interaction. The issue is finding may be experimentally impossible consider that strong interaction is about 10^38 stronger at 1 nuclei radii than gravity. The strong interaction is defined by the Reid potential which is limited in resolution because no means to accurately measure it. Maybe its possible to expand on the Reid potential using polynomial equations, than filing in the blank polynomials between gravity and the last observable data points to see if its possible to link (ie complete the polynomial) When it comes a relationship between gravity & electromagnetism there is none. We now know that Gravitation lensing does not happen & the effect is caused by simple refraction. In the case of Eddington 1919, The Sun plasmasphere. In the case of gravitation lensing, the gas & plasma inside of the lensing galaxy. There are no observable lensing effect from the Milky way central black hole. There is no point trying to find a relationship using EM constants associated with gravity because the don't exist. 3. There are likely just two fundamental forces: Electromagnetism & the strong interaction. Weak interaction is just electromagnetism properties happening inside the nucleus of an atom. Gravity & strong interaction are the same. Consider that all nuclear interactions, gamma or election emissions occur. gravity originates from inside the subatomic particles (ie proton & Neutron) This is probably the closest to grand unification. I don't think gravity & EM can be consolidated since there is no interaction between the two. I hope this helps & provides you some thought for your work! Take care & thanks for sharing your work!
@@hollaadieewaldfeee Go look up vacuum permittivity & vacuum permeability which determines the speed of light. yes, there are no true black holes since light is not deflected by them. There are just supermassive objects that don't emit light. Observations indicate the do have a magnetic field present. ""What we're seeing now is that there are strong, twisted, and organized magnetic fields near the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy," said Sara Issaoun, CfA NASA Hubble Fellowship Program Einstein Fellow, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO)" If light cannot escape a blackhole, neither would magnetic fields.
Read answer to your problems/confusions in "Classical Physics Beyond Einstein’s" - speed of light is proportional to speed of time locally only, with coefficient of proportionality c. Nonlocally, it is not true, that gives time dilation, gravity, strong force ...
AI has the same weakness as the human mind, and that is the "conclusion". Like the children's story of chicken little, where a newborn chicken gets hit with a raindrop and concludes that the sky is falling. Physics has made a lot of conclusions, and I would disagree with many of them starting with the one that electrons moving around the nucleolus isn't absorbing and emitting photons. Wrong conclusions are something that math can't solve.
You make too much calculation. Occam's Razor with the Electro-Static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) model will give you a simple calculation, versus all of this calculus.
"Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate" -Occam This loosely translates to "don't compound more than necessary" or "mistakes compound." Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler" Somehow these two quotes were conflated and everyone just runs with it misquoting both Einstein and Occam.
Thanks so much for your work on this. FYI I just watched this video on VSL and author claims to fit the linear redshift observations. th-cam.com/video/XrWKjOu1J4c/w-d-xo.html. Curious what a plot would look like if you divided your VSL function by standard regression line. Might be insightful. Serious question... Is it not obvious that light from far off galaxies would be redshifted? Highly energetic ultraviolet EM waves have a hard time making it from our sun to earth. Visible light is easily scattered. Microwaves make it through. Why would we expect anything else regardless of your model, static or expanding.
Consider this: To say that gravity is a force or a curvature of spacetime is like asking for artificial resuscitation. Why are you asking for the artificial when you want the real thing? Neither Newton nor Einstein had any nuts and bolts idea of how gravity and gravitation actually work. They did give us good useful math. The Moon shots were successful using Newton’s, not Einstein’s math. Gravity is neither a force nor is it the geometry of a description. It is true that “there are no actual forces involved in gravitational interactions between objects”. Gravitation and gravity can be explained within the scope of galactic mechanics. The galaxy has a medium that is massless, that moves at the so called speed of light. Considering that it moves at c, it cannot possibly be made of normal matter. It’s not your grandfather’s aether. This medium slows, locally as it nears normal matter because the medium feeds kinetic energy to all the subatomic particles of the normal matter. The medium maintains the speed of light in all subatomic particles. Any change in the speed of light causes an acceleration or a change in acceleration in the subatomic particles that we call gravity. Gravity does not affect normal matter directly. Time Dilation causes changes in c, locally, which cause counter-accelerations in the subatomics of normal matter, which translate to the macro as a force. This slowing of the medium is also the phenomenon we reckon as time dilation. Your relationship with time is inversely related to your speed through the medium of the galaxy. This explains TD in both SR and GR. Changing the speed of the medium or changing your speed through the medium has the same TD effect. Gravity is completely local. Gravity is always proportional to, and in the direction of, the gradient of time dilation. Similarly, any macro acceleration in an object causes acceleration or changes in acceleration in the subatomic particles which translate to the macro as the behavior we call mass. Can you measure mass without accelerating it? Normal matter accelerates itself in response to these two causalities which are similar and Einstein understood this. He called it Equivalence.
Me personal as a non physicist. I thing everyone needs to go back to basics with Einstein and Minkowski and "actually" (properly) define what space and time (space-time) are. And state why one particular version of space-time is used over another. I would also be asking why the different variants of space-time keep getting conflated.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for all your work - as someone who spends a lot of time in foundational issues in physics, your videos have been a great help!
Wow, scientific honesty at 19:00 is the precise reason why I’ve subcribed to this channel! Thank you very much for showing an open mind in the face of issues! Great video!
As is a norm for ` Real Physics ` the subject / program brings challenging ideas for the mind. I was surprised to find that the production value / format also brought a challenge. I look forward to the next video thank you .
Thanks Alex for your fantastique work and content ! You inspire us 🫡
Exciting line of research. Good luck!
With luck and more power to you.
hoping for more videos.
...Constants aren't as constant as we though they were :)
Did Fay make his field computation relativistic ? Using 4-momentum instead of velocity ? Because the derivation of G, using Sciama paper, was very impressive in my opinion.
Great, great video! This is so exciting I will watch it several times! And if it turns out that the problems with gravity lie not in physics and facts, but in human mentality and ways of solving them, what then? And if it turned out that a completely new definition of gravity could be created based on... the latest discovery of space-time expansion, what then? And if it turns out that dark matter is a mistake of scientists, similar to... the existence of Newton's graviton, what then? What if it were possible to formulate different, improved definitions of gravity that would take into account the FACT of the expansion of space-time?
Yes. But how can you talk to someone who doesn't even have a PhD in physics before his name? -And this is a very important problem, bigger than gravity itself.
By determining the constancy of speed, all experiments and Michelson-Morley experiments are indirect and incomplete. If the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out on a bus or airplane and was used to determine speed. only then will this experience be direct. Therefore, Einstein does not rely on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Question. Do you have an example of such direct experience?
How does VSL account or cause a gravitational force, or have you only found a correlation between VSL and the force of gravity?
The difference at 19:16 between SDSS and VSL looks just like a logarithm / e to the power of the prediciton. Any idea how to get one in there 😂? Did anyone do a Taylor-development just using a linear term?
Everything is related to the number of field cells that make up the universe, and the base electric force that bonds them. Field Cells (+−) are a + and − field point particle in superposition). 1 cell bonds to 12 neighbours (like close-packed spheres). Cells can be split into a + and − that bond to a neighbour to form a positron (+−+) and electron (−+−). Protons (pep) and antiprotons (epe) are the same but made from electrons and positrons (no quarks).
--
Neutron (pep_e) has a mass halfway between Muon (ep_e) and Tau (epep_e) and loses an electron in Beta- Decay, with Beta+ as a new e_p formed near a proton with the electron retained and positron expelled (pep + e_p => pep_e + p). Pions, Kaons and more massive particles are combos of +, − and +−s that are only stable at (close to) light speed as time stops for them. There's 1 or 2 mass multiplier mechanisms and a mass addition mechanism.
--
Gravity and part of the strong force is the rest of the universe pushing inward against matter that pushes outward against empty space=balanced field trying to stay balanced. Big G varies with distance from the galactic centre.. Mass gains the finite universe's electric energy from voids so voids expand and matter space/field contracts.
--
There could be a mini black hole per volume decrease towards a galactic central black hole, as it absorbs more smaller black holes the closer they are, dark matter-wise, but a variable Big G MOND theory is more attractive. No new matter, and no reliance on WIMPS at least.. Black holes turn neutrons into more massive 'Tau Cores' (pep_e => pepe) that are stable as time slows hugely in black holes. Mass increase is what expands the universe as it uses up total universe electricity that bonds the field.
there is a null state
@@TurboLoveTrain .. Empty=balanced field (equidistant, stationary cells) is the null state, however I don't think this is possible. Even in a completely empty universe holistically it wants to be a perfect sphere with polar coordinates, but locally it wants to be close-packed, equidistant cells and these two coordinate systems are in slight conflict (although similar) so there's inherent buzz (cells slightly moving and/or slightly splitting (polarising)).
--
It's an inertial field - energy lost warping the field is returned by the field rebalancing behind.. You can think of it as wireframe twelve pointed stars with very fine bonds and tiny point particles that warp the field as they move through it with zero resistance (though enough polarisation and vibration of the field affects a particle's trajectory).
21:50 the Euclidean space time is (mostly) compatible with relativity if you use proper time as the 4th dimension instead of coordinate time, and restrict everything to moving at the speed of light with the direction that you are travelling being projected down into a 3d slice of the world. This can be derived from special relativity from taking the Minkowski metric ds^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2, and adding the spatial length to both sides giving ds^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=(cdt)^2, and then by dividing by dt^2, we get (ds/dt)^2+(dx/dt)^2+(dy/dt)^2+(dz/dt)^2=c^2 which can be interpreted as everything moves at the speed of light. We can also (potentially) interpret anti-matter as moving in the negative direction. The main problem that Euclidean Relativity faces is that light doesn’t have to move at the speed of light in any reference frame (because we removed the light like vectors with zero length by changing the metric) however this might be able to be solved.
Have you measured the speed of light lately?
@@menlikegods363 what do you mean?
I would first of all criticize the SRT;-) At freshman level. So understand its genesis - and discover the errors;-) After that, you won't have to connect anything else;-)
@magma90 The measurement of the speed of light dropped worldwide by roughly 20 km/s between 1928 and 1945. In 1948, it suddenly went back up again. The international committee of metrology fixed the speed of light in 1972 by pegging it to the meter. Even today, gravity varies in place to place and time to time, which is why every decade, the international committee of metrology adjusts the value of G to the new worldwide average. So, again I ask, "have you recently measured the speed of light?"
@@menlikegods363 how is that relevant to my original comment?
I have raised the principle of subjectivity, associated with Mach's principle, explaining the red shift of distant objects, as follows. The supposed expansion of the universe is a gravitational mirage caused by the relativistic energy loss of photons exchanged from large distances, considering the distant emitter O as the center of a homogeneous universe of density D with radius up to the observer (us) R. The gravity exerted on the photon by the universe outside the sphere of radius R is null, and is added to the gravity exerted on the photon by the universe inside the sphere of radius R, from the emitter O. This subjective gravity (perceived from where we are) generates the gravitational pull on the photon towards its emitter, generating the redshift that we observe. I explain it in TW marcodecunha, in a document.
What is hampering the progress in understanding these fundamental principals is a lack of public/ open source equivalent of publishing a scientific paper. If you are not a professional scientist you can’t get published.
If a solution is “out there” A Joe Rogan(ish) website/podcast could do more to advance science in one show than the last seventy years of scientific publications.
Request to you: Suppose: we managed to “improve” the Michelson-Morley experiment so that with its help the result of the experiment was determined; speed on an airplane is 300, 350, 400 meters per second. Question for you: what will this mean for BIG SCIENCE?
First of all, I would criticize the MME;-) Has it ever been able to measure what it claims to measure;-?
@@hollaadieewaldfeee New technologies, new research tools. BIG SCIENCE doesn't want to eliminate the *BIG MUD* of noise in fundamental optical experiments. WHY?
Let me suggest for schoolchildren and students on one's own to measure the Universe, dark energy, black holes, etc. To do this, I propose two practical devices. «laser tape measure *+reference distance* 1,000,000 m”» and «Michelson-Morley HYBRID Gyroscope». I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 250000 (In a laser tape measure, the length of the optical fiber is fixed at 1000000 ) meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 84/84/84 cm, and the weight is 24 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions.
Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven:
Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.
@@hollaadieewaldfeee Do you even know what the Michelson-Morley experiment tries to investigate?
If you are familiar at least with a diagram of the interferometer and some simple optics I don't understand where you take issue with it.
Agreeing on the constant speed of light when radiated it follows that light needs this similar speed to impact absorbtion.Emission patterns are very precise!!!!! So it follows that light has to adjust it's speed and this cannot be done by "gravity" It must be the electric field at hand that changes the speed of light. It might explain cosmic radiation being robbed of electrons. These particles can't process deviating photon energies and "overpower"the stability of their electron shells?
The resolution of (Einstein) Variable Speed of Light (for photons - and photinos) - must be addressed. The Aether must be recognized, as the matter universe has 3 photon energy levels and the Aether has 3 photino energy levels.
Matter - Light speed photons, only Einstein gravitational lensing
Tau electron photon
Muon electron photon
Electron photon
Aether - Variable light speed photinos, Einstein gravitational capture, no lensing
Small electron photino
Electrino photino
Graviton photino
When you understand this, you have solved Einstein's statements, but also start correcting much of the Standard Model and all of the disparate and distinct physic sectors that can't talk with each other.
Aether universe particulate photinos have infinitely small energy levels. Even though they can still accomplish (par value) light speed, they are weak against a greater gravitational object. Thus, they are gravitationally attracted, orbit, and ultimately gravitationally captured. Variable light speed photinos are only in the Aether.
Matter universe particle photons have higher energy levels. While they can be gravitationally attracted, they have such firm light speed velocity that they do not orbit, but escape, and are only gravitationally lensed. Light speed photons are only in the matter universe.
It is that simple, peeps !
Are Neutrinos real, or are they just photons that manage to make it through lots of barriers to a detector. There are lots of other photons though, and you can just make EM waves using radio transmission techniques.Gravity as a charge density gradient in a unified quantum field makes more sense, with balanced field repelling field imbalances from all directions, causing them to clump.
@@PrivateSi According to the Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) model, the following categories, simply answers your question, and so much more.
Matter Universe Particles :
ES or EG ES or EG ES/EG or EG/ES ES/ES EG/EG Electron transitions
(Electron+Positron) (Elrectron + Positron) (Electron + Positron) before/after fusion
Tau energy level :
(Tau space mesh fabric with gravitons/gravity waves = time)
Graviton Electron Positron Tensor boson (Higgs-1) Neutron (no gravity interaction) Photon (gravitational lensing) Lyman series
fusion agent light speed light speed (gamma rays)
Muon energy level :
(Muon space mesh fabric with gravitons/gravity waves = time)
Graviton Electron Positron Tensor boson (Higgs-2) Neutron Photon Balmer series
fusion agent light speed light speed (UV rays)
Electron energy level :
(Electron space mesh fabric with gravitons/gravity waves = time)
Graviton Electron Positron Tensor boson (Higgs-3) Neutron Photon Paschen series
fusion agent light speed light speed (visible light)
Aether Universe Particulates :
Small electron energy level :
(Space mesh fabric - no time)
Graviton Electron Positron Tensor bosino Neutrino (no gravity interaction) Photino (gravitational capture) Pfund series
fusion agent variable light speed variable light speed (infra red light)
Electrino energy level :
(Emergence of the electrical force separate from the gravitational force)
Start of the separation of the Electro-static (ES) weak nuclear force and Electro-gravitic (EG) strong nuclear force
(Electrino space mesh fabric - no time)
Graviton Electrino Positrino Tensor bosino Neutrino Photino Humphrey series
fusion agent variabe light speed variable light speed (infra red light)
Graviton energy level (gravitatational base of the cosmos) :
(Graviton space mesh fabric - no time)
Graviton (-) Graviton (+) Tensor bosino Neutrino Photino
fusion agent variable light speed variable light speed
Aether tensor bosinos - fusion agents - Hydrogen fusion Helium up to Iron in stellar engine of the photosphere
Matter tensor bosons - fusion agents - Iron fusion Cobalt up to Element 118 in stellar engine of the chromosphere
There is no such thing as (Feynmann) electron + positron natural annhilation. Electron + positron become neutron or photon, depending on their ES or EG composition.
True cosmology evolution is Electro-gravitic, not Electro-static.
Matter universe is quantum entanglement. Tensor bosons are the Hubble tension, cosmic tension, Einstein tension of the matter cosmos.
Sun disappears, while light takes 8.33 minutes to get to Earth, and Earth eventually flies off at a tangent.
Aether universe is sub-quantum entanglement (entire instant cosmic consciousness at vast distances). Tensor bosinos are the Aether tension of the cosmos.
Sun disappears, Earth instantly flies off at a tangent, while light continues onwards.
The ES and EG model clearly describes the stellar engine and its operation, the sun's interior core, ... as well as the interior of all active and rotating planets and moons displaying an exterior radiation belt, magnetic polarity, and gravity.
There is no Big Bang singularity. There is an entire Aether cosmic-wide Big Manifestation of innumerable singularites appearing at the quantum foam (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, CMBR), which - IS - the active boundary between the Aether and the Matter univesre. This is not a cosmic evolution remnant - it is an active and still functioning Aether to Matter universe activity.
The tensor bosons, composed of electrical force and gravitational force are the (said) Tesla currents, modern Birkeland currents, and the Be'nards convection in the stellar engine photosphere. The tensor bosinos and bosons electrical force fusion process energizes the electron shell to expand and overwhelm the Van der Wahl's radius., The tensors gravitational force then fuses the nuclei together, overcoming the Coulomb Barrier. As the gravitational force passes away from the fused nuclei, the electrical force also passes. The energized electron shell then dissipates and stabilizes - producing the multiple electron transition states - depending on what energy level the tensor bosons or tensor bosinos are fusing.
The tensor bosons (and their fusion properties) are the real cause for cosmic accretion and evolution, versus any electro-static forces currently being stated as accretionary theory (only able to accrete up to 1 meter - and no bigger volume). Electro-gravitics are the real cause for all cosmic accretion up to stellar objects.
@@johnlord8337 ... There is no EG model in science so how can it simply answer my questions? Please explain all the other photon types you ignored and a rough explanation of the system before asserting more things without evidence. I've provided both in my other post here. Read it if you want as it makes more sense than your/EU? idea as asserted. I don't make up new particles, I try to do more with the basics and discount most of the newer parts of the SM as useless junk. No bosons except photons.
Thank you, your ideas are of interest.
I am not a physicist, but... Why are mainstream physicists so toxic when you talk about problems with relativity? It's almost as if relativity is considered to be gods law of all of the universe.
>
Relativity has obvious ambiguities and potential flaws and especially with Minkowski space. Why one space-time geometry over the other space time geometries and why the ambiguity and conflation between space-time geometries. Why is this never addressed anywhere.
>
Common descriptions of "Time-dilation" due to velocity always seam contradictory to speed of light. It's like we just conveniently change to a local or global frame whenever it is convenient to wash away a contradiction :(
>
Clocks. How do we consistently measure the speed of light with a clock that is impacted by the speed of light in the same frame of reference. To use a clock based upon massless particles to measure the speed of a massless particle sound ludicrous lol
>
Cosmology: Too many underlying assumptions that have been elevated to the level of gods laws of the universe for my liking. Inflation of space-time, expansion of space-time, expansion of distance between objects. If it doesn't seam to fit we just invoke variable size and speed of space and time until it works.
>
I really think physicists need to actually define what space-time is before defining the rest of the universe in terms of some ambiguous abstract math and geometry :)
P.S. With regards to speed of light, gravity and density. Why are atoms and molecules clumped into objects such as planets considered to have density, yet particles and energy are not considered to have density. They say space time flows toward large celestial objects and spacetime is compressed as we get closer to that object then why does that density not effect the speed of propagation of a wave? Is space outside of our atmosphere but still withing earths gravity a true vacuum with no density? Heck, is open space between galaxies really a complete void absent of all density of energy or particles?
Density affects the propagation of all other waveforms so why not light?
@@axle.studentas a physicist I would implore you to understand from our perspective that a lot of people talk about "problems" with relativity when they usually do not understand it. I hope you can imagine after a while that it becomes meaningless to entertain this unless someone has genuine theory and prediction or at the lowest bar some sort of accreditation/reputation to give substance to their words. For example, imagine a doctor listening to people always talking about how they just have questions about germs existing because they've not used a microscope before.
I would also say that whilst there are of course problems, the majority of your queries stem from a misunderstanding of the concepts - i mean this with absolutely zero condescension or malice, physics is hard. Talking about density and energy for example - particles are to our knowledge point like, and fields are unimpeded by the 'density' of energy in any given location because the field is solely a medium. Imagine if you would waves on the ocean - the height of the waves might different but you can't exactly squeeze water through more water. In a field the waves simply pass through each other and interfere, so this concept of density we have physical intuition for is not applicable
@@ytpanda398 Thanks for the understanding. I also have a sound awareness of the problem of multitudes of alternative theories and quackery and attempt to be careful of that.
When I suggest alternatives, it not so much about not understanding the concepts it is usually about questioning the concepts to begin with.
I tend to have a slightly more predominant lean toward the underlying human psychology (cognitive) and philosophy of physics. It's a "Testing/checking the Human Subjective Paradigm" approach with regards to what we define as reality.
Reality is a somewhat ambiguous and illusive concept, especially within the abstract concepts that exist within physics.
>
All I can do when I encounter an issue or ambiguity is look for where that issue has been discussed or resolved. If I don't find that physics has covered the issue? Ask, paint the best description I can to find a direction toward the discussion or solution?
Typically I am met with venim for doing so.
The difficult part is that I see the same issues that are described by many renowned physicists. I didn't get that from "Out There" or from "Someone else's words" I have arrived at that point through my own hard works and investigation. Often these issue pop out unexpectedly as I am investigating something else. Then I find "Such and such physicist has discovered this anomaly in physics.
It's just coincidence that we arrived at the same place, but that happens. Maybe I read the same material as the other and it just happened to have guided me there.
>
I see these problems and I see them from many different paradigms. Most others don't appear to see the problem at all as if it never existed. All I can do is attempt to describe the problem, even if I don't have a solution for it. I can't attempt a solution if I can't accurately describe the problem. Solving the wrong problem/question equates to a wrong solution/answer.
>
Thank you for your kindness.
Alex,
1. Distant light is very likely just losing momentum (ie red shift) over great distances. Lets suppose that free space isn't 100% resistance free, possibly caused by some very small imbalances between ε0 & μ0 causing some leakage of momentum from photons. In physics there really is no such thing as absolute no resistance. Why should space be any different?
Its very unlikely there is a variable speed of light. For that to occur there would have to be some variances occuring with ε0 & μ0, which is very unlikely. Lets Suppose there was variable c. Why don't see observe blue shifted light in some regions of distance space? If c is truly variable, than we should also observe blue shifting right? Since we constantly only observe red shift the most likely reason is that light is just losing momentum & c is always constant in free space.
2. Gravity is very likely from the strong interaction. The issue is finding may be experimentally impossible consider that strong interaction is about 10^38 stronger at 1 nuclei radii than gravity. The strong interaction is defined by the Reid potential which is limited in resolution because no means to accurately measure it. Maybe its possible to expand on the Reid potential using polynomial equations, than filing in the blank polynomials between gravity and the last observable data points to see if its possible to link (ie complete the polynomial)
When it comes a relationship between gravity & electromagnetism there is none. We now know that Gravitation lensing does not happen & the effect is caused by simple refraction. In the case of Eddington 1919, The Sun plasmasphere. In the case of gravitation lensing, the gas & plasma inside of the lensing galaxy. There are no observable lensing effect from the Milky way central black hole. There is no point trying to find a relationship using EM constants associated with gravity because the don't exist.
3. There are likely just two fundamental forces: Electromagnetism & the strong interaction. Weak interaction is just electromagnetism properties happening inside the nucleus of an atom. Gravity & strong interaction are the same. Consider that all nuclear interactions, gamma or election emissions occur. gravity originates from inside the subatomic particles (ie proton & Neutron) This is probably the closest to grand unification. I don't think gravity & EM can be consolidated since there is no interaction between the two.
I hope this helps & provides you some thought for your work! Take care & thanks for sharing your work!
;-)
To 1: Space is a concept: does nothing contain;-) "Free space" is nonsens;-)
To 2: So there are no "black holes" either ;-)
@@hollaadieewaldfeee Go look up vacuum permittivity & vacuum permeability which determines the speed of light.
yes, there are no true black holes since light is not deflected by them. There are just supermassive objects that don't emit light. Observations indicate the do have a magnetic field present.
""What we're seeing now is that there are strong, twisted, and organized magnetic fields near the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy," said Sara Issaoun, CfA NASA Hubble Fellowship Program Einstein Fellow, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO)"
If light cannot escape a blackhole, neither would magnetic fields.
Read answer to your problems/confusions in "Classical Physics Beyond Einstein’s" - speed of light is proportional to speed of time locally only, with coefficient of proportionality c. Nonlocally, it is not true, that gives time dilation, gravity, strong force ...
😇😎😇
AI has the same weakness as the human mind, and that is the "conclusion". Like the children's story of chicken little, where a newborn chicken gets hit with a raindrop and concludes that the sky is falling. Physics has made a lot of conclusions, and I would disagree with many of them starting with the one that electrons moving around the nucleolus isn't absorbing and emitting photons. Wrong conclusions are something that math can't solve.
You make too much calculation. Occam's Razor with the Electro-Static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) model will give you a simple calculation, versus all of this calculus.
"Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate"
-Occam
This loosely translates to "don't compound more than necessary" or "mistakes compound."
Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler"
Somehow these two quotes were conflated and everyone just runs with it misquoting both Einstein and Occam.
Thanks so much for your work on this. FYI I just watched this video on VSL and author claims to fit the linear redshift observations. th-cam.com/video/XrWKjOu1J4c/w-d-xo.html. Curious what a plot would look like if you divided your VSL function by standard regression line. Might be insightful.
Serious question... Is it not obvious that light from far off galaxies would be redshifted? Highly energetic ultraviolet EM waves have a hard time making it from our sun to earth. Visible light is easily scattered. Microwaves make it through. Why would we expect anything else regardless of your model, static or expanding.
Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. Try to keep up.
Consider this:
To say that gravity is a force or a curvature of spacetime is like asking for artificial resuscitation. Why are you asking for the artificial when you want the real thing?
Neither Newton nor Einstein had any nuts and bolts idea of how gravity and gravitation actually work. They did give us good useful math. The Moon shots were successful using Newton’s, not Einstein’s math.
Gravity is neither a force nor is it the geometry of a description. It is true that “there are no actual forces involved in gravitational interactions between objects”.
Gravitation and gravity can be explained within the scope of galactic mechanics. The galaxy has a medium that is massless, that moves at the so called speed of light. Considering that it moves at c, it cannot possibly be made of normal matter. It’s not your grandfather’s aether.
This medium slows, locally as it nears normal matter because the medium feeds kinetic energy to all the subatomic particles of the normal matter. The medium maintains the speed of light in all subatomic particles. Any change in the speed of light causes an acceleration or a change in acceleration in the subatomic particles that we call gravity.
Gravity does not affect normal matter directly. Time Dilation causes changes in c, locally, which cause counter-accelerations in the subatomics of normal matter, which translate to the macro as a force. This slowing of the medium is also the phenomenon we reckon as time dilation.
Your relationship with time is inversely related to your speed through the medium of the galaxy. This explains TD in both SR and GR. Changing the speed of the medium or changing your speed through the medium has the same TD effect.
Gravity is completely local. Gravity is always proportional to, and in the direction of, the gradient of time dilation. Similarly, any macro acceleration in an object causes acceleration or changes in acceleration in the subatomic particles which translate to the macro as the behavior we call mass. Can you measure mass without accelerating it?
Normal matter accelerates itself in response to these two causalities which are similar and Einstein understood this. He called it Equivalence.
Me personal as a non physicist. I thing everyone needs to go back to basics with Einstein and Minkowski and "actually" (properly) define what space and time (space-time) are. And state why one particular version of space-time is used over another. I would also be asking why the different variants of space-time keep getting conflated.
Wavespeed depends upon spacetime tensions th-cam.com/video/vEzftaDL7fM/w-d-xo.html
There will be no mention of aether, hence nothing to see here.
VSL = flat earth level crackpottery.
You do not know what you talk about
Be specific.