Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory

[Spring Theory]

Derivation of the speed of light:

The general continuity equation:

∂ρ/∂t + ∇ · ρu = 0

∇⋅ is divergence,

ρ is the density of space

u is the velocity of a photon wave in the x direction

t is time

∂ρ/∂t + ∇ · ρu = 0

∂ρ/∂t + ρ ∇ · u + u∇ · ρ = 0

∂ρ/∂t + u(∂ρ/∂x + ∂ρ/∂y + ∂ρ/∂z) + ρ(∂u/∂x + ∂v/∂y + ∂w/∂z) = 0

Assume changes in the y and z direction are small

∂ρ/∂t + u∂ρ/∂x + ρ∂u/∂x = 0 {equation 1}

Conservation of momentum equation (1D Steady flow):

ρ ∂u/∂t + ρ u · ∇u + ∇p = ρg

Where g = 0

ρ ∂u/∂t + ρ u · ∇u + ∇p = 0

ρ ∂u/∂t + ρ u · (∂u/∂x + ∂v/∂y + ∂w/∂z) + (∂p_x/∂x + ∂p_y/∂y + ∂p_z/∂z) = 0

Assuming smooth flow in the x direction with negligible changes in the y and z:

ρ ∂u/∂t + ρ u ∂u/∂x + ∂p/∂x = 0 {equation 2}

Equation of state:

∂p/∂x = (dp/dρ)(∂ρ/∂x)

Where p = pressure of space

Substituting:

ρ ∂u/∂t + ρ u ∂u/∂x + (dp/dρ)(∂ρ/∂x) = 0 {equation 2}

The plane wave function is expressed as:

u = Ae^i(kx-ωt) = Ae^ik(x-ct)

Where k = 2π/λ and ω = 2π c/λ

Using the plane wave function as a solution:

u = Ae^ik(x-ct) ρ = Be^ik(x-ct)

Where:

∂u/∂x = Aike^ik(x-ct) and ∂ρ/∂x = Bike^ik(x-ct)

∂u/∂t = -Aicke^ik(x-ct) ∂ρ/∂t = -Bicke^ik(x-ct)

This makes equation 1 and 2:

-Bicke^ik(x-ct) + u Bikee^ik(x-ct)+ ρ Aike^i(kx-ct) = 0 {equation 1}

-ρAicke^ik(x-ct)+ ρ u Aike^ik(x-ct) + (dp/dρ)(Bike^ik(x-ct)) = 0 {equation 2}

Dividing by ike^i(kx-ut):

-Bc+ u B + ρ A = 0 {equation 1}

-ρc A + ρ u A + (dp/dρ)(B) = 0 {equation 2}

Simplifying coefficients:

ρ A + (u - c)B = 0

(u - c) ρA + (dp/dρ)B = 0

The solution will be non trivial is the determinant of the matrix is zero:

ρ (dp/dρ) - ρ(u - c) (u - c) = 0

(dp/dρ) - (u - c)² = 0

(u - c)² = (dp/dρ)

u - c = √ (dp/dρ)

Resulting in:

u = c + √ (dp/dρ) {equation 3}

And the velocity of the photon is reduced as dp/dρ gets smaller. When dp/dρ = 0 (no space compression/decompression effect), the velocity is the c - the speed of light in a vacuum.

Please let me know if I made any mistakes.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Spring Theory

[Spring Theory]

All you have here are interactions that produce photons. That's all part of the standard model. Nothing that actually tests your model. Further, none of these examples are related to atomic structure.

 

What's the connection with a circular orbit? What is the interaction that makes the photon travel in a circle?

 

It's the decompression of space that creates a circular orbit. As stated before, the photons refract around each due to the velocity gradient they create.

 

Another experiment would be to measure the trajectory of two photons from a decaying particle. Spring theory would predict a very small parallel offset. This distance would be the diameter of the orbital.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Spring Theory

[swansont]

It's the decompression of space that creates a circular orbit. As stated before, the photons refract around each due to the velocity gradient they create.

 

So how can photons interact with space in a Lorentz invariant way that also has this circular symmetry? Why does this decompression happen near an atom? Why don't circular orbits radiate?

 

ρ is the density of space

p = pressure of space

…

Please let me know if I made any mistakes.

 

You didn't define these terms. How does one measure the density and pressure of space?

 

Where g = 0

 

What does g represent?

How does speed of a photon and density of space represent a momentum?

[Spring Theory]

Great questions.

 

 

So how can photons interact with space in a Lorentz invariant way that also has this circular symmetry? Why does this decompression happen near an atom? Why don't circular orbits radiate?

 

Photons interact with space through the compression they are composed of. Being an orbital of two compression waves, the photon pair system has a specific time cycle. When the orbital system travels through a decompression area, the cycle slows down equivalently to the Lorentz invariant.

 

I have yet to get to the proton system, but in the nucleus of an atom, the photons that make up protons and neutrons create decompression areas around them which results in decompression around an atom.

Circular orbits don't radiate because the photon system sees the path as linear. The compression makes space bend so, to the photon, it is traveling in a straight path. Outside of this system and decompression, the path appears to be circular.

 

 

You didn't define these terms. How does one measure the density and pressure of space?

 

Spring theory postulates space as a super phase state of matter, meaning density is mass/volume and pressure is force/area (or energy/volume). I have some more math to introduce, but the units selected are SI units. Exactly how to measure these metrics are based on the mathematics, but I have not found constant results yet. Currently, my calculations of the density of space (non compressed) are ranging from 2.09341x10^-26 kg/m³ to1.42742x10^-44 kg/m^3.

 

What does g represent?

 

g = acceleration, if present (from a mass like the earth). I assume this is zero when looking at a system of photon compressions.

 

How does speed of a photon and density of space represent a momentum?

 

Similar to the momentum equation for a sound wave. Really it is a momentum flux of mass. Intuitively it seems a mechanical wave doesn't carry momentum since there's no mass flow, but thinking of the energy and momentum transport as successive collisions it gets easier to picture. The original source transfers energy and momentum to adjacent "space springs" which collide with the next layer, etc.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Spring Theory

[Mordred]

Sorry to me your not being very clear.

 

Let's start with a basic question on photons. Lets assume a multibody problem.

 

In compression are you referring to the waveforms? Or are you deferring to individual particles?

 

Yes this is a trick question. Treat it as "how is a particle defined? Question

Great questions.

 

 

Photons interact with space through the compression they are composed of. Being an orbital of two compression waves, the photon pair system has a specific time cycle. When the orbital system travels through a decompression area, the cycle slows down equivalently to the Lorentz invariant.

 

I have yet to get to the proton system, but in the nucleus of an atom, the photons that make up protons and neutrons create decompression areas around them which results in decompression around an atom.

 

Circular orbits don't radiate because the photon system sees the path as linear. The compression makes space bend so, to the photon, it is traveling in a straight path. Outside of this system and decompression, the path appears to be circular.

 

 

 

Spring theory postulates space as a super phase state of matter, meaning density is mass/volume and pressure is force/area (or energy/volume). I have some more math to introduce, but the units selected are SI units. Exactly how to measure these metrics are based on the mathematics, but I have not found constant results yet. Currently, my calculations of the density of space (non compressed) are ranging from 2.09341x10^-26 kg/m³ to1.42742x10^-44 kg/m^3.

 

 

g = acceleration, if present (from a mass like the earth). I assume this is zero when looking at a system of photon compressions.

 

 

Similar to the momentum equation for a sound wave. Really it is a momentum flux of mass. Intuitively it seems a mechanical wave doesn't carry momentum since there's no mass flow, but thinking of the energy and momentum transport as successive collisions it gets easier to picture. The original source transfers energy and momentum to adjacent "space springs" which collide with the next layer, etc.

How is this different from particle to particle interactions?

 

Which analysis are you using? Either the transport of mass, energy or wave functions. (Other none OP transports aside).

 

Forget trying to describe your model via a word salad. Use mathematics and specific interactions.

 

Quite frankly if you want to convince anyone you need predictability. You can't have that without a proper math descriptive. Containing predictive levels of cause a leads to cause b.

 

Does some of particle physics follow rotations similar to the geometry of spring dynamics ? Absolutely. Can you show those examples mathematically?

 

Well I leave that in your hands. This far what I've read the answer is no. Feel free to correct me. I don't take insult.

Lol do me and everyone else a fav.

 

latex is far easier to read.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/page-3#entry115211

 

pain in the butt I agree but highly recommended

Edited June 1, 2015 by Mordred

[swansont]

Photons interact with space through the compression they are composed of. Being an orbital of two compression waves, the photon pair system has a specific time cycle. When the orbital system travels through a decompression area, the cycle slows down equivalently to the Lorentz invariant.

 

That sounds like word salad. I'll believe it's Lorentz invariant when you show mathematically that it is.

Spring theory postulates space as a super phase state of matter, meaning density is mass/volume and pressure is force/area (or energy/volume). I have some more math to introduce, but the units selected are SI units. Exactly how to measure these metrics are based on the mathematics, but I have not found constant results yet. Currently, my calculations of the density of space (non compressed) are ranging from 2.09341x10^-26 kg/m³ to1.42742x10^-44 kg/m^3.

 

So there is no experimental confirmation of this. Shouldn't this affect the propagation speed of light?

[Spring Theory]

Sorry to me your not being very clear.

 

Let's start with a basic question on photons. Lets assume a multibody problem.

 

In compression are you referring to the waveforms? Or are you deferring to individual particles?

 

Yes this is a trick question. Treat it as "how is a particle defined? Question

How is this different from particle to particle interactions?

 

Which analysis are you using? Either the transport of mass, energy or wave functions. (Other none OP transports aside).

 

Forget trying to describe your model via a word salad. Use mathematics and specific interactions.

 

Quite frankly if you want to convince anyone you need predictability. You can't have that without a proper math descriptive. Containing predictive levels of cause a leads to cause b.

 

Does some of particle physics follow rotations similar to the geometry of spring dynamics ? Absolutely. Can you show those examples mathematically?

 

Well I leave that in your hands. This far what I've read the answer is no. Feel free to correct me. I don't take insult.

 

Since word salad seems to be the buzz word, I will lay out the ingredients of the salad…

 

1. There are no particles. Schrödinger had it right.

2. In compression, this refers to the compression/rarefaction of space caused by the photon/wave.

3. The transport mechanism is that of the mass flux of space itself.

4. So are you satisfied with the math so far presented?

5. More math representations to follow relating Hooke's law to that of the forces in space.

 

That sounds like word salad. I'll believe it's Lorentz invariant when you show mathematically that it is.

 

 

So you're satisfied with the Lorentz invariant shown mathematically based on velocity?

 

So there is no experimental confirmation of this. Shouldn't this affect the propagation speed of light?

 

Yes, density of space affects the speed of light as well as the elasticity or spring constant of space.

[swansont]

Yes, density of space affects the speed of light as well as the elasticity or spring constant of space.

 

Any evidence that the speed of light varies in a vacuum?

 

Since word salad seems to be the buzz word, I will lay out the ingredients of the salad…

 

1. There are no particles. Schrödinger had it right.

 

 

Explain the photoelectric effect, and photon bunching/antibunching.

[Mordred]

Regardless of whether you wish to use the wave or particle form. QM also applies the invariance of light.

 

This includes Schrodinger, you need to show this mathematically as being wrong

Did I miss your wave function metrics in the math you have posted? All I see above is differential vectors. In what appears to be in the form of a test particle. Mind you it would help to use latex.

[Mordred]

 

 

Another key detail is that the invariance of light is extremely well tested. Your theory isn't. Also relativity is compatible with SO(1.3) group representation. This includes the stress energy and curvature tensor. I saw no comparison to the symmetry that GR has as an orthogonal group with the math you've thus posted.

[Spring Theory]

Regardless of whether you wish to use the wave or particle form. QM also applies the invariance of light.

 

This includes Schrodinger, you need to show this mathematically as being wrong

Did I miss your wave function metrics in the math you have posted? All I see above is differential vectors. In what appears to be in the form of a test particle. Mind you it would help to use latex.

 

I'm not saying that Schrodinger is wrong. His wave function actually implies an ether.

Another key detail is that the invariance of light is extremely well tested. Your theory isn't. Also relativity is compatible with SO(1.3) group representation. This includes the stress energy and curvature tensor. I saw no comparison to the symmetry that GR has as an orthogonal group with the math you've thus posted.

 

You could say the variance of time is very well tested too. Taking a new perspective that time is constant explains the perception of the invariance of light.

[swansont]

I'm not saying that Schrodinger is wrong. His wave function actually implies an ether.

If it exists, then you should have no trouble measuring its properties, and our speed as we travel through it.

[Strange]

 

You could say the variance of time is very well tested too. Taking a new perspective that time is constant explains the perception of the invariance of light.

 

It is the fact that the speed of light is invariant that leads directly to the fact that time is observer dependent.

 

I suppose you could develop an alternative where you choose to make time invariant and end up with a varying speed of light, but it would probably be more complex. For example, you will have to come up with new versions of Maxwell's equations. Are you up to that?