Leaderboard

Why are you waffling about spirituality in a biology thread?

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. People like Minkowski, Wheeler, and others understood aspects of relativity that didn't occur to Einstein himself. Example: What Einstein discovered is equivalent to space and time being a 4-dimensional continuum, and relations from one inertial frame to another being equivalent to hyperbolic rotations in that space. This idea is not in Einstein's writing prior to 1908, and for a while he was reluctant to wholeheartedly accept it. Other people helped him --and everybody else-- understand his own ideas much better.

Here my attempt to create another model of how the world of waves and particles work (JAM). No math is involved, as most formulas don't actually change. It's just a different, and in my opinion more realistic, way to look at things. It breaks down most physical forces into simpler forces, especially space/time distortions, instead of just calling them a (magic?) property, as in the Standard Model. The same forces which cause gravity may also be responsible for all else: magnetism, electricity, and so on, just as different ways of waves to work out. Discussions are welcome, as long as they are fact based, not based on authorative or other such rhetoric. I believe every experiment, measurement and visualisation can be explained with it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure about predictions. Feel welcome to suggest anything where my model would work differently. First is the base level, which is fairly speculative: Everything is just random fluctuations ("blips") of space deformities. The "blips" don't just affect the looks of an area, they also affect its geometry and number of dimensions. Thus, they can affect one another: for instance, if a space large from curvature becomes simpler and thus smaller, it releases its hitherto normally distributed blips into an atypically small space, leading to the illusion of movement when new blips pop into and old blips vanish out of existence and change the distribution back to normal over time (entropy). Movement then means irreversible changes across an ever widening space. Thus, we get time and spatial differentiation, and physical laws based on probabilities and geometry. Second is the wave level, which I'm fairly certain about, and which is the actual model (JAM): Everything in the universe is just waves at this level, all moving at the speed of light, probably through 4D spacetime, all with these main properties: compression or decompression of spacetime at different intensities (maybe instead directly curving of space into a fourth dimension). Waves can move in different directions and in different orientations, they define the space they pass through: Lots of such waves make the space more "bumpy", thus increasing distances and creating the apparent curvature of spacetime around objects with lots of such waves. Because they recursively affect space, they will move in circles when the amplitude gets too big relative to the wavelength, which happens at the wavelength of beta radiation. We get electrons. At extreme frequencies or extremely short wavelengths, they even form little black holes with an event horizon. This happens at the (Compton) frequency of protons or quarks. The event horizon of an atom usually vibrates at the frequency of electrons (or positrons in antimatter) due to the movement of quarks, protons, neutrons etc., which also explains why their charges are identical, just with opposite sign. It may be possible for waves to move straight beyond those frequency limits. One or more other waves moving in the right way may then be needed to cause circling of the combined wave pattern. A Higgs field or such is not needed. Further properties are mostly, maybe all, derived from those basic characteristics: Gravity is the curvature of space from waves moving through it. Thus we get not only the 4D spacetime needed for relativity, but also a reason for why it happens (Sidenote: If neutrinos and such have a significant effect, parts of gravitation may move slower than the speed of light. A testable hypothesis). All this would be fairly easy to simulate on a computer, to see whether it's feasible and works as well as current models. Magnetism is standing waves between two objects (similar to the standing waves seen in the double slit experiment) caused by resonance effects, which are different depending on the geometry of the objects affecting each other, especially the electrons and electron configurations. This is similar to ocean waves having different effects on surf boards or beach balls. The complex geometry of the standing waves in 3D space, already hinted at in the 2D space of the double slit experiment, creates the torus form of the magnetic field. You may also have noted the spikes in ferro fluids. This would explain them. The fact that only some geometries (mostly electron configurations of atoms) are affected, and by (slight) movement of the standing waves or of the atoms and electron shells in the the standing waves, is why magnetism has two poles: Atoms can only 'wiggle' in one direction in the field (if they are affected), which works a little like pulling a screw into a cork (both ways) through changes in the resonance patterns with changing distances. If the two groups are configured and oriented in a compatible way, they will move towards each other. If they have opposite configurations or directions, they will move away from each other or change direction. Similar applies to other such scenarios (like copper slowing down magnets, or like superconductors), which easily follows from the above. This, too, can relatively easily be demonstrated with computer simulations and thus proven to be based on the same wave properties as gravity, just applied differently. There are also some experiments with sound waves producing similar effects, though simpler. Photons or em-waves do not have any magnetic (or electric) properties. Magnetism is just an effect of waves and objects influencing each other through spacetime curvature and resonance. Which is why they are much more powerful at short distances (resonances break down at larger distances) and why light does not get affected by magnetism, unlike gravitation (the "bumpiness"/curvature is the same regardless of resonance effects). Spin is exactly what it says it is: waves moving in circles under certain circumstances. This also helps create properties like mass (through resistance against changing the speed of circling objects) and electric charge (through two different possible directions of according "whirls", left or right handed). I'm not going into different types of spin here - let's just say things get more complex the more complex or high frequency the objects are. Some more speculative additions: Electrons, while popping in and out of existence as disturbances in the event horizon of protons, being able to take up a life on their own as circling waves (whirls), and sometimes following very complex paths, appear to partially follow a "race track" around atoms. In this "race track", some numbers of electrons fill the track fully and in a fairly stable way. Specifically numbers which relate to pi minus some for the size of electrons, a value around 2 to 2.5. Thus, we get full orbits at 2 (2x1), 10 (5x2), 18 (6x3) and so on. It's easy to show (also in a computer simulation) that numbers inbetween would leave such a "race track" or band in an "odd" constellation, with some electrons being free to do other movements, which could influence neighboring atoms disproportionately: chemical reactions. This movement along a preferred "track" and ability to influence neighboring waves and atoms through different geometries also explains most of the differing magnetic properties of different materials. Complex objects are also complex waves. Similar to how one can get a wave on an oscilloscope to move by adding another wave to it, all physical objects move by adding waves with an impuls in the right direction to it. This is easiest done by pushing mass the other way (action/reaction), as this gives us the whole power of e=mc^2 as a "lever", plus the impuls. Using photons directly also seems possible, but requires a lot of photons for similar effect without this "lever", probably to the tune of e=mc^2, and maybe even then with limits. The wave nature of speed is also another reason we can't go faster than light: We can only add more waves of the speed of light, so that the total of them can only approach c, never reach it. With circular movement, there's also at least one photon's worth going more or less the opposite way, so the speed will stay below c, regardless how many more photons get put into the acceleration. For instance, providing a ship with gigawatts of laser power probably only provides the acceleration of the according mass (E=mc^2, plus speed/impulse) of matter using conventional propellant. It is limited in effectiveness at any speed, so that one can't get more kinetic energy than was used for acceleration. While the speed "vectors" are stored in the moving object similar to heat, they are invisible to the moving object, because for it, their frequency is zero, due to moving in the same direction. Only in a collision or such does the energy of the speed/impuls get released and it becomes possible to observe.

Gravitational red-shift is due to light going from one gravitational potential to a higher one. Imagine it like a hill. Climbing the hill takes energy. Light gives up the energy it needs to "climb the hill" by through a decrease in it frequency. For our galaxy to see a red-shift from all directions would mean we would be at the "peak of the hill". and everything else lower down the slope. But that means everything else would see our galaxy as higher up the slope, and see light coming from our galaxy as being blue-shifted. For your idea to be correct, our galaxy would have to have a unique and special position in the universe. The second part, as pointed out by others is an old hypothesis, and has been discounted.

You don't actually have a theory. Being very gracious, I would say you have a hypothesis. That being said I would further say your hypothesis has been disproven by experimentation.

Better. But not good enough. It still does not explain why we are conscious, i.e. how we explain that consciousness exists. What is the evolutionary advantage? I would say that it is the capability to: observe the environment see how you self are placed in this environment can anticipate different possible actions, and reflect on the results thereof compare this with your aims, interests, needs, desires etc choose the action that fits best Now if all these steps are initiated at an unconscious level, does it change anything? It is only the last step where the question of free will comes into play: can I choose the action with which I can identify myself; or am I forced to do something against my aims, interests, needs, desires etc? Your arguments are valid when you would argue against libertarian free will. But how would they be arguments against compatibilist free will? And may I assume, given your position, that in planning and building e.g. the LHC, the consciousness of none of planners, builders, engineers, physicists etc plays a role? And the Libet experiments are pretty useless in my eyes. In the first place, if you are a naturalist, one should not be surprised at all by the results of these experiments. Everything has a 'causal fore-play', so it would be astonishing to see my 'action plans' pop out of nothing, and causing my behaviour. In the second place is the experiment too artificial, compared with situations in which the idea of free will really plays a role. The task for the subjects of the Libet experiments is to flex their hand without a reason, just spontaneous. So the flexing of the hand, the moment when I am doing this, is in no way personally relevant, so really no model of an action for which the question of free will is relevant.

The non-linearity of the model is encoded in the structure of the field equations themselves, and means simply that you can’t just add two valid solutions (metrics) together, and expect the result to also be a valid solution to the equations for the particular physical scenario you are interested in. For example, in the aforementioned case of a binary BH merger, the metric of the spacetime containing the in-spiralling black holes is thus not just the sum of two “ordinary” black hole metrics, but a new and different solution in its own right, which has to be obtained from scratch by solving the field equations (which in this case can only be done numerically). The degree by which solutions fail to be linear will increase the more you move into the strong field regime - e.g. when your binary BH are still very far from each other, the overall spacetime almost (depending on your required levels of accuracy) looks like two ordinary BH spacetimes joined together; but as they continue their in-spiral and get closer together, the error of the linearised approximation becomes very large very quickly. Since, in this scenario, the form of the gravitational wave field far away depends explicitly and directly on the geometry of the spacetime close to the in-spiralling black holes, the difference (relative to a linearised approximation) is directly observable here. In general though it is difficult to separate out the effects purely due to non-linearity, since this self-interaction is encoded in the structure of the equations themselves, and thus does not appear as a computational term that can be isolated and separately measured. The basic idea is this - you treat the gravitational metric as a small enough deviation from flat Minkowski spacetime, so you make an ansatz of the form \[g_{\mu \nu}=\eta_{\mu \nu}+h_{\mu \nu}\] and demand that \(|h_{\mu \nu}|\ll 1\). Also introduce the convention that an upper bar means trace removal, ie \[\overline{h}_{\mu \nu } \equiv h_{\mu \nu } -\frac{1}{2} \eta _{\mu \nu } h\] Without loss of generality (this can be formally proven, but I’ll obmit that here), one can then impose a gauge condition to simplify the maths, such as \[\overline{h}{^{\mu \alpha }}{_{,\alpha}}=0\] Setting all of this into the original Einstein equations and working through the considerably cumbersome expressions, everything decouples and simplifies into \[-\overline{h}{_{\mu \nu ,\alpha}}^{\alpha}=16\pi T_{\mu \nu}\] Unlike the full original Einstein equations, this equation is fully linear, and obviously far easier to solve.

I think now I somewhat get what you meant by the origins of relativity. I interpreted it as the historical development. And as I was writing, I was also using this as an opportunity to learn it because it is very important. I also knew that my account of the historical developments would have gaps. As you said, the history of the development of relativity theory and the speed of light is interesting, and complex. This is a subtlety that a non- expert like me may not be able to discern. However, now that you have pointed it out, I will try to understand if there is any distinction. I will get back with some ideas on your main question in relation to homogeneity and isotropy of space. Your question on this will help me understand how my theory relates with existing knowledge, for better communication. Do you mean (atomic?) clocks would count faster (or slower) depending on the time of day? GPS signals?

Chinese submarines use turbo-electric transmission systems to drive their propellors. "The Russian, U.S. and British navies rely on direct steam turbine propulsion, while French and Chinese ships use the turbine to generate electricity for propulsion (turbo-electric transmission)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion One reason for using electric motors in the main propulsion system is to lower the acoustic noise profile of the vessel for silent running during operations.

I don’t know in detail how Chinese submarines work, but I doubt the battery runs the main propulsion system. That requires a lot of power, and is likely run directly from a steam turbine. The battery might run a motor used in emergencies, when main propulsion is unavailable, capable of a few knots. If the primary propeller(s) became fouled, the emergency propulsion might be engaged, which likely has its own propeller. Different cultures place different emphasis on safety, and space is usually at a premium on a sub. And mistakes can be made. The US has safeguards and procedures put in place only after incidents revealed flaws, because sometimes they reveal flaws that don’t show up under normal ops, and are situations that you wouldn’t test for because it would be too dangerous to do so. e.g. There were significant changes made after the Thresher was lost in the 60s. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/october/reflections-loss-thresher#:~:text=After the Thresher disaster%2C the,quick actuation in an emergency.

Then our instincts kind of suck given all the war, genocide, global warming, pollution, nuclear weapons, etc.

We wish. The problem is they cancel out too many of the good, too many of the indifferent, and much too many of the innocent. (not criticizing your point Dim, really just taking up your choice of words to make a different point)

The dandelions in my garden disagree. So do lots of birds.

Literature? I loked for studies about consciousness in slow processes and didn't find anything. May be could be a good field of research... Seems not. So obvious that would need no demonstration. But also could be a good field of research... No. I didn't expect something different from you. That's why I didn't want to continue discussing with you and still don't want to but you continue asking me things. I should not answer you anymore...

I would suggest you to continue this your subject on your own or with other ones, not with me.