Elysium and Interior Solutions

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Benish</i>
<br />Van Flandern has described clock rate reductions as being due to an increased density of elysium, where elysium is analogous (identical?) to gravitational potential.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitational potential changes are a measure of elysium density changes. (Both potential and density can have arbitrary additive constants, which is why I have to say "changes".) This takes the mystery out of potential.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To my mind, B. K. Ridley's characterization of "potential" as "magic" is on target: "We think we understand. But, really, we do not. The invisible influences of gravitation and electromagnetic fields remain magic; describable, but nevertheless implacable, non-human, alien, magic. Potential energy is a measure of the strength of this magic."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is difficult to imagine this person has read "Pushing Gravity" (or PG; M.Edwards, ed.; 2002). That has taken all the "magic" out of gravitation and replaced it with classical physics concepts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Whether it's potential or elysium, how exactly does it make clocks slow down, especially at the center where there is neither motion, nor space curvature, nor asymmetry? I.e., what does matter do to "thicken" the light medium in its vicinity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Matter sets up a graviton wind, as described in PG. The graviton wind pushes any substance it encounters toward the nearest mass. That includes elysium. So elysium gets denser near masses for the same reason a planetary atmosphere does. Therefore, gravitational force creates density or potential gradients near masses.

Geometric GR has this causality arrow going in the wrong direction.

Denser elysium then causes slowed propagation of all things electromagnetic, including atomic clocks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is spherical symmetry that makes the acceleration due to gravity go to zero at the center. What physical process could be taking place that does not similarly neutralize itself by symmetry, that seemingly accumulates so as to make clocks run slow?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Imagine the Earth as porous. Its atmosphere would then continue increasing in density all the way down to its core because of the weight of all the layers above. The same holds true for elysium because ordinary matter is porous to elysons.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Whatever the theoretical answer may be, how can we be sure that it's true? Wouldn't it be a good idea, no matter which model we prefer, to start thinking about testing gravitational interior solutions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This could be done by creating matter states so dense that they are not porous to elysons. But extreme condensed matter physics is not an area I have much familiarity with. I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize awaiting someone who carries out such experiments successfully. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Matter sets up a graviton wind, as described in PG. The graviton wind pushes any substance it encounters toward the nearest mass. That includes elysium. So elysium gets denser near masses for the same reason a planetary atmosphere does. Therefore, gravitational force creates density or potential gradients near masses.

Geometric GR has this causality arrow going in the wrong direction.

Denser elysium then causes slowed propagation of all things electromagnetic, including atomic clocks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is there a law or a conceptual explanation in the Meta Model for why the potential varies as it does? You mentioned planetary atmospheres as an analogy. Why doesn't the elysium density vary exponentially, for example, as the atmosphere does?

Assuming that the elysium density maximum in your model is the same as the potential minimum of General Relativity and Newton's theory, your prediction for the motion through the center of a massive body would presumably also be the same. An object dropped into a hole through an otherwise uniformly dense spherical mass would thus harmonically oscillate in the hole. This is the empirical test I had in mind. It's a very well known prediction, but nobody has ever seen it happen. Perhaps it would be possible to devise a way to test the prediction so that we could at least roughly ascertain the correctness of these interior solutions.

If the Meta Model agrees with Newon/Einstein for such a test, conducting it would serve to replace a theoretical extrapolation with a physical fact for both models, but would not help to decide between them.

Have you conceived of an experimental test or observation that would definitively decide between them? Is there some physical fact which, by its exposure, would give standard theorists no choice but to acknowledge the truth of your model; or conversely, which would prove to you that pushing gravity is untenable?

RBenish

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Benish</i>
<br />Is there a law or a conceptual explanation in the Meta Model for why the potential varies as it does? You mentioned planetary atmospheres as an analogy. Why doesn't the elysium density vary exponentially, for example, as the atmosphere does?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It does very approximately. However, the atmosphere presses against the solid surface, and elysium does not. If the Earth were porous to air, the atmosphere would assume the same density profile as elysium, the one predicted for potential by Newton and GR.

That profile is not a simple expression inside the Earth because Earth's own density profile is not a simple mathematical formula.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps it would be possible to devise a way to test the prediction so that we could at least roughly ascertain the correctness of these interior solutions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We can test gravity inside uniform spherical shells, and it obeys Newton's law. Planets are just built up of lots of uniform spherical shells, So we don't know of any reason to doubt the applicability of the law for planetary interiors.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Have you conceived of an experimental test or observation that would definitively decide between them? Is there some physical fact which, by its exposure, would give standard theorists no choice but to acknowledge the truth of your model; or conversely, which would prove to you that pushing gravity is untenable?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In the PG book, I discussed the six unique properties of gravity in MM. In brief, these are:
** strongly FTL propagation speed
** finite range of 1-2 kpc
** shielding by ultra-dense masses
** elysium drag
** gravitational heating
** different perihelion advance rate for two comparable masses

Favorable results are already in for some of these, and there are no problems yet with the others. But if one of them does fail, the model is falsified. And I'm no fan of patching models to keep them viable. -|Tom|-

However firmly entrenched the status quo may be, we are fortunate to live in a time when new data keep pouring in. Either by design or by accident, I guess the uncovered facts will eventually give way to a new order. Aside from my hunch that we'll see a radical departure from the prevailing world view, it is not yet obvious to me what that new order will be.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We can test gravity inside uniform spherical shells, and it obeys Newton's law. Planets are just built up of lots of uniform spherical shells, So we don't know of any reason to doubt the applicability of the law for planetary interiors.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Shells and cylindrical tubes. Over the years I've kept pretty close tabs on such tests of the inverse square law, G-measurements, etc. Unfortunately, these are all (to my knowledge) essentially <i>static</i> experiments. Any motion of the test object is restricted to a very small range. Whereas, there may indeed be reason to refrain from concluding that this means observation of a test mass free to move through the whole interior would obey Newton.

First, perhaps, I should point out that observations of the kinematics of stars within Globular Clusters are beginning to yield unexpected results.



When radial (line of sight) velocity dispersions are compared with angular (proper motion) velocity dispersions, in almost every case the latter are found to be larger than expected--in a few cases substantially larger. Astronomers expect these dispersions to be equal. They seem to have no suspicion that Newton may be to blame; they interpret the results as indicating that the clusters are closer to us than had been previously believed. (That way the angular velocity dispersions can be made to line up with the radial velocity dispersions.)

Over the years I have been keeping close tabs on these observations as well, because I have devised a gravity model that predicts that the proper motions should be faster--more or less as observed. This model also predicts that, given a uniformly dense sphere with a diameter hole through it, a test object dropped into the hole will not harmonically oscillate.

To test the prediction, I have built a modified Cavendish balance, whose large masses are sculpted so as to allow the arm and bobs to swing through the center.

More details on these astronomical observations, experimental apparatus and new gravity model can be found at: GravitationLab.com

If you should be interested to check it out, please allow me to forewarn that the model is radical. It assumes that accelerometer readings and the rates of stationary clocks are utterly reliable indicators of the acceleration and velocity of these instruments (motion detectors). To make sense of this interpretation, another (fourth) space dimension is invoked, and I know you've had occasion to state your dislike of extra dimensions.

I sincerely thank you for your good work and for providing this site as a forum for discussion of new ideas.

RBenish

Is the curved slot through the two spheres a radius, or is it cycloidal? That's just out of idle curiosity, as I've wondered about why the chains on a swing slacken at ninety degrees to the horizontal.

Stoat: By slot I believe you mean what I call the "channel." This is the negative tubular zone through which the bobs move. This connects to the negative "slab" or "slice," which is the horizontal zone through which the arm passes. The channel is a circular arc, as the arm turns about its central vertical axis.

The fact that these are not straight paths and the fact that the removed material disrupts the spherical symmety are among the reasons why this experiment would only serve as a first approximation. For the moment that's all I want to achieve. I don't see any connection to your swing chains. I hope this answers your question.

RBenish