sananda

looking at wikipedia it seems disputed that the expirements have any merit and that they simply calculate c in a roundabout way.

has it been proven though, this link says it is at least 20 times as fast as light http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp This would support a hypothesis suggesting that gravity is a flow of ZPF energy, where as light is a wave through that same medium. Correct?

Maybe I should have said why carrots are carrots orange, but nobody really cares about that. It is not a better theory, it is really a hypothesis as to why... this could lead to other predictions... one that I am suggesting is that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate but light from distant sources is red shifting as it travels towards us because it's medium, space, is less dense in here. This hypothesis also works for light traveling towards an observer, but not sure about light traveling away... i suspect that c remains constant for light traveling towards a sensor that is moving towards the light but not so sure about what happens to it if the sensor is moving away from it in terms of frequency shifts, speed etc... i'd like to see what experiments have been done with measuring light speed and their results. If there are anomalies perhaps this hypothesis can address them. I could be way off here but I would suggest that moving towards the source light speed remains at c and frequency probably balances too because time of the sensor relative to the source has sped up, in which case light speed balances.

I've asked this on another thread but can you list the experiments carried out to verify this?

Hi Guys, Just wondering does anyone have a list of the major experiments that have been performed with regard to light speed and movement of sensors. How has light speed constancy been proven through experimentation in this regard. Has someone shone light pulses at a sensor moving forward and backwards towards the light and measured the length of the pulses? If anyone has a list of references it would be great.

that's all currently described by the existing math Mr. Skeptic, neither of us is suggesting that it's wrong as it's not wrong... relativity is exceptionally accurate in describing the mechanics of large masses in space. We're simply suggesting that space-time curvature can be explained in 3 dimensions through the absorption of ether... Newtonian gravity can be explained thus quite simply if you simply say that matter (sorry particles with mass) absorbs the field of space as follows On earth that's F = mg 2 arbitrary bodies that's F = G(m1 + m2)/r^2 We now know space is filled with virtual particles, Hawking radiation is based on this right? Maybe these virtual particles are the fuel that give matter its mass, volumetric properties etc. like a candle needs air to shine. HalClem suggests that these particles might be expelled into an equal but opposite universe... a very interesting concept... but perhaps it is simply electron production is the equal but opposite force? We also know that electrons cloud around the nucleus now and cannot be observed, perhaps they are the absence of something or perhaps they are the result of an unpairing of virtual particles. What we are both suggesting however is that ether is absorbed, and that is the key to this and if you think about it, it is very intuitive, isn't it? The only other factor to consider in relativity then is time... Say time relative to an atom is based on how much energy is available to it... an analogy of a blow torch vs a candle is a good one here... more oxygen available to a flame the brighter and hotter it burns... perhaps it is the same with matter... the more energy available the faster it runs atomically... This would give rise to time slowing for an atom near a black hole and speeding up the further you go away from it... in fact here on earth that has been verified too with atomic clocks run faster in space. Is this not a beautiful system? An experiment with a sound source in a room that changes frequency relative to movement would yield astonishing results... Say that the pitch changed enough to cancel the doppler effect, or changed depending on the pressure of gas in the room... what kind of cool effects would we observe

If he said he has not yet discovered why it means he was looking at the time of writing. He said it is enough, meaning it is enough to describe the mechanics of it. I cannot believe that you would openly say you're not interested in the why of it. That to me is like saying 'I believe in God but don't have a clue about what he/she is' Oh wait, that's the basis of all religions...

sorry about that, wasn't meaning to be offensive honestly. Newton said this: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies." The word here is 'yet' So Newton was interested in the why!!! The father of modern physics!!! Perhaps more people should be interested in the why?

yes but could gravity be used to transmit information? has it been proven to be = light speed or is it just a theory?

Just laughing at how particular you are... not meaning any offence, you are of course correct... if you believe in massless particles that is. Is it true that the only reason we have photons is because of the photo-electric effect?

What about the experiment with 2 electrons separated by space, observation of one affects the other... Is that not faster than light data transmission? could space-time be like the stick, and gravity like the push on the stick?

Since when is science not interested in the why? When you know the why you become master of whatever the subject is. How is a great question because it details precicely how something works, like in a murder scene the forensic team and detectives first discover the how... why is then added to how to get the full picture so that the case is solved. If you concentrate only on the how, you will never see the full picture. Would we ever had have supersonic flight had we not known the why? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged lol

If one has a very long stick, say 1 light year long that is not compressible and one moves it through space. Ignoring inertial problems isn't one sending data from one side of the stick to an observer at the other at a speed faster than light. Discuss.

You could say the placebo effect is a miracle but in effect it's a scientific process we don't fully understand. All magic could fall under this category, i.e. science we just don't understand yet. Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This is a quote that could put an end to all religions.

But the theory is the theory of relativity, it just gives reason to it, so the math is exactly the same. At the moment the theory of relativity states that matter magically effects the space-time continuum. All i'm saying that matter consumes the space time continuum, and you can see the results of this as gravity. The only extra prediction I am giving is that light will redshift coming into areas of lower pressure, i.e. areas that have consumed more ether.

Hi HalClem, I believe exactly that and have done so for years too. I actually posted this independently on the 29th here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43547 What is really cool is the other phenomenon that this theory can explain. gravity of course if light travels through the same medium then it would explain gravitational lensing if atomic time is associated with it, then in areas of less pressure time would slow, so say near a black hole if space energy is reasonably static then the consumption process could make an atom sticky and resist movement as it comes into a balance. light speed limited by ether density red shift of light from outer galaxies could be explained by the fact that space is less dense as you travel towards the centre of the universe the list goes on and on. would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

oops... so matter just affects the space-time coninuum magically. gotcha! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If I had one euro for every time i heard the heavy object on the rubber analogy I'd be rich. Why does matter affect the space-time continuum? The correct answer to this is that nobody knows.

hey swansont, if black holes are absorbing ether which causes gravity and the amount of ether available dictates the speed of time an atom runs at then can you not see the simple relationship between gravity and time? basically objects in close proximity to a black hole will be starved of ether and thus run more slowly... light will also flow towards the hole.

I've often toyed around with the push theory, but it means that every point in space needs to have the same inward pressure for it to work, then shadowing occurs of some of that energy when planets come into the mix. Now if you mean pressure in a similar way in which gases fill a room then it makes more plausible sense. I was affected in school when I was told that after all these years we can describe the effects of gravity, but we are still just as ignorant as to the source of it. We have the bowling ball on a rubber sheet analogy to describe the effects of matter on the space time continuum, but it's often used as a cop out. Personally I think it is exceptionally obvious what gravity is... It the the equal but opposite reaction to existence... matter is animated, gravity is the result. This means that space itself is the fuel of matter and that is a heresy. LOL

there is certainly a case to suggest that intelligent life exists on other planets... once we have the technology we will travel to other worlds and make them habitable by us... perhaps we will need to merge with a life form on the planet there in order to survive there... if this is the case then we can suggest the same thing might have happened here... our mythology suggests that zoroastrians, christians, etc. etc. all have myths about the gods coming down, mating with the life forms here and producing mighty offspring... Genesis 6 is worth reading, it is the chapter that talks about how man was limited to 120 years by the intelligent designer, they needed to cull the entire population with a flood and select a family for the future regeneration of the species... at this time they limited our age apparently. Crazy stuff to be written thousands of years ago don't you think? Great to read the bible with a star trek cap on

Hi AJB, Unfortunately it is more of a discussion than a mathematical paper... And gravitational lensing is the most logical prediction but that's already been shown to exist so that's not much use. If I was to stick my neck out on a prediction I would say that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate but rather it looks that way because the medium that light is passing through is more dense the further you travel towards the edge of the universe, simply because it has not been absorbed or processed yet. Has this been proposed before anywhere? i.e. that matter has its volumetric properties because it absorbs energy in the ZPF and acts somewhat as a capacitor for this energy? And that gravity is the equal but opposite reaction to this system? I would even suggest that perhaps electrons are the absence of something rather than something. Hawking radiation is where black holes absorb one of the virtual particle pairings, could this also be what is happening at the subatomic level? My theory is simply a three dimensional solution to Einstein's theory of relativity substituting ether for space-time. It is based on a number of assumptions 1. matter absorbs ether to become animated and exhibit its volumetric properties, this results in the side effect of gravity 2. light travels through this same medium and thus is affected by any gravity currents it encounters 3. time is based on the rate of absorption of ether and is thus affected by movement through the ether and the amount of matter in the viscinity Perhaps this is why light speed seems constant to observers. If I am traveling at half the speed of light towards a light source, my clock now runs at a new pace say 1.5 times normal... now the light is actually traveling towards me at 1.5 times the speed of light, however because my clock is running faster I observe everything around me running .667 speed, which means that I now observer the light traveling towards me coming at exactly light speed. I kind of imagine the system a bit like rivers and ripples... the ripples are light the river current is ether flow towards matter... the only extra thing is that matter is made from the same stuff as the river and the perception of this matter is based on how much ether can be absorbed at any one point. atoms, molecules etc. so are like wire frames floating around in this energy and are affected by flow through it and surf gravity current... gravity is very weak because the flow goes through our atoms like a bottle crate caught at the grid at the end of a sewer tunnel. Does any of this make sense to anyone out there?

you cannot rule out ether based on Michelson-Morley you see, ether, or what we now know as the zero point field or the sea of virtual particles is a real field... whether it's the subtlest field is anyone's guess... but think about it, how does light travel? why does gravity cause an inward force towards matter? why do magnets have an effect on the space around them? it all points to a subtle ether that electromagnetic radiation can flow through quite easily. my own belief is that matter absorbs ether and that is why mass and time depends on how much ether is available to an object to consume. atoms are like energy sinks that manifest as physical matter and gravity is the equal but opposite reaction to this system the reason drag is not observed is because the rate matter feeds from space depends on the space around it, and the observers rate of time is also governed by this rate of consumpion of fuel. so maybe there is no space time, only the affect of matter on ether. matter causes gravity because it consumes ether and observation of time is dictated by how much ether is available to matter. also light waves travelling through this ether medium are affected by the current in space caused by planets and stars in space... this would lead to gravitational lensing by its very nature. is this the grand unified theory??? I have a paper on this if anyone wants to read it.

What most don't realise is that Einstein never really described what space time, and thus gravity, actually is. I think that the zero point field or rather virtual particles in quantum physics is just this... it is the ether that science spoke of pre 100 years ago. With that in mind you could potentially say that the effect of matter on the ZPF could explain gravity, but what is that effect. For me I have come to the conclusion that perhaps matter absorbs the ZPF in order to become animated... this absorption of energy results in the equal but opposite reaction of gravity. Hawking said black holes tear virtual particles apart, what if the point particles that make up matter absorb them in part or totality?