Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

[LB] “ Look at a region of elysium out in one of the great voids. Imagine a coordinate system attached to one elyson, and a proton moving relative to that coordinate system.”

[Gregg] “The proton is dead in the water. The elysons are moving.”

Of course. Since all motion is relative, we are free to choose either point of view.

[Gregg] “The proton doesn't have to do anything but be in the way.”

Of course. It is also true that the elysium doesn’t have to do anything but be in the way. (All motion is relative.)

[Gregg] “Let the Elysium be dynamic. The proton does not have to move.”

Of course. Let the proton be dynamic. The Elysium does not have to move. (All motion is relative.)

===

Normally we are looking at the mass / elysium interaction from the point of view of the mass, so it makes sense to think of the mass as stationary in a moving field of elysium.

But for now (for the purpose of trying to understand what tvf is saying) I want to focus on the elysium itself (and on individual elysons), so I am choosing the other point of view.

Gregg] “I am not a fan of all things being the same at all scales”

Nor am I. But I am a fan of most things being similar over various scale ranges. You need to spend more time thinking about and understanding the details of MM. (Or perhaps you just need to be more careful when you talk about them?)

Subtle differences like this can cause you to waste lots of time on irrelevant ideas.

And, when you mis-state a concept from a particular theory, it discredits the rest of your post in the eyes of readers that recognize the mis-statement. If your starting point is wrong, your ending point cannot be right. Except by accident.

Tom,

I’m still not making any sense out of this:

[tvf] “Classical thinking is that aether/elysium is THE light-carrying medium.“

OK.

[tvf] “This is a variant on that idea, ... "

Hmm. OK, but your emphasis on the word “the” above clearly suggests that this variation will involve additional media for the propagation of EM waves. I see no hint of these additional media as you continue below.

[tvf] “because light waves ignore the bulk flow."

This is where I lose you. What does this mean? Or rather, why is it relevant?

[tvf] “and are merely pressure variations in the elysium."

Isn’t this SOP for waves in any medium? Don’t all waves propagate as pressure and/or density variations in a medium?

[tvf] “My point was only to emphasize the break with classical thinking."

This is distressing, because I usually have no problem following your meaning.


===

In this variant model, how would you describe a light wave propagating through the elysium filled but otherwise mass-less void I have invoked above?

And how would the presence of a gravitating mass alter that description?

* Assume the gravitating mass is stationary wrt our coordinate system (IOW, stationary wrt the individual elysons inhabiting the void). Note - this scenario explicitly excludes bulk elysium flow from the picture.

* Assume the gravitating mass is moving wrt our coordinate system (IOW, moving wrt the individual elysons inhabiting the void). Note - this scenario explicitly invokes bulk elysium flow.

In both scenarios assume the dynamic entrainment model: No individual elyson ever separates from the bulk elysium.

In the stationary mass scenario this means that if there was a one time position shift of the mass, and that shift was much larger than the elyson center-to-center distance, no individual elyson would trade places with any other individual elyson. After alllowing for the small displacements due to pressure and / or density increases caused by the mass's gravitational force field, all elysons would be at the same coordinates before and after the one time move of the mass. But all elysons would now have different position wrt the mass's center of mass.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />your emphasis on the word “the” above clearly suggests that this variation will involve additional media for the propagation of EM waves. I see no hint of these additional media as you continue below.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"THE" was indended to separate phenomena that were unique to elysium from phenomena that required the presence of gravitons as well. Pure elysium waves may exist, but they would have nothing to do with light.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: because light waves ignore the bulk flow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is where I lose you. What does this mean? Or rather, why is it relevant?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It relates to a question I asked a year or two back. If we drop a rock into a flowing stream, do the waves stay centered on the rock? Or does the center of the spherical wavefronts move downstream with the current? The M-M experiment shows us that local lightwaves stay with the local rock (Earth) and ignore the current (bulk elysium flow).

That property of light presumably could not be a property of true elysium waves because a wave set off in the middle of an elysium current should have no way to know it is moving, and should regard the current as its rest frame.

But we are dealing with pressure waves that are very much entrained by the Earth. And that is the distinction I wanted to point out and discuss. As you know, when using deductive reasoning, the method is powerful provided one does not make a mistake at any point in the deductive syllogisms. Taking the wrong branch at a fork such as this one will be ultimately fatal to the rest of the model, even if we can't see the flaws yet.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: and are merely pressure variations in the elysium.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Isn’t this SOP for waves in any medium? Don’t all waves propagate as pressure and/or density variations in a medium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True medium waves should be carried along by currents. Pressure waves induced by an external force may not be, as in my example of an underwater mountain.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is distressing, because I usually have no problem following your meaning.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">More commonly, you are seeing the end products of a deductive process that has been thought about from every angle and confronted with every relevant experiment. Sometimes it takes several tries to get an analogy right so that it is faithful to every important aspect of the concept it is supposed to analogize.

In this case, we are "thinking out loud" about entirely unsettled aspects of the model, some of which remain murky in my mind as well. Usually, that's an indicator that something is "off". Gregg thinks the missing piece of the puzzle is shapes, and I'm not excluding that. But I have yet to have any "eureka" moment when thinking along that line.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In this variant model, how would you describe a light wave propagating through the elysium filled but otherwise mass-less void I have invoked above?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You could not have a lightwave without pressure such as that applied by gravitons. A pure elysium wave may be possible; but its properties would surely be nothing like light.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And how would the presence of a gravitating mass alter that description?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Light waves become possible. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Thank you for the additional details. I think I'm beginning to understand what you are doing.

Can you provide any more details about the "pressure wave" idea. In particular I'd like to know if you have any thoughts about the differences and similarities between pressure waves and:

* ordinary light waves
* pure elysium waves
* true elysium waves.

Regards,
LB

Tom,

While re-reading your post I found a partial answer to my question above. Here is a more detailed question based on that response.

[LB] “Don’t all waves propagate as &lt;periodic&gt; pressure and/or density &lt;oscillations&gt; in a medium? (How do these pressure waves differ from light waves?)

[tvf] “True medium waves should be carried along by currents. Pressure waves induced by an external force may not be, as in my example of an underwater mountain.

In this underwater mountain example, I see an analogy between the (stationary relative to the mountain) pressure gradients in the water flowing near the mountain and the (stationary relative to the mass) pressure gradients in the elysium flowing past a mass (which correspond to the gravitational potential field around the mass).

This explains how the elysium potential gradients around a mass “ignore the bulk flow” of elysium. But how does this address the issue of light waves (which are not stationary relative to the mass) being able to ignore the flow?

* In both cases a "standing" pressure gradient is induced in the bulk flow of the medium.
* In neither case is a wave (a periodic oscillation that propagates outward) generated in the medium.