Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

Suppose we assume for the moment that a light speed graviton can exist, and further that it's a phonon. So we are talking about longitudinal waves. Then v = ( gamma times p / rho ) ^ 0.5

Gamma = the ratio of the specific heat of a gas.
p = pressure (restoring force)
Rho = density (inertia)

I suppose for a transverse wave we would have to change rho to mu, mass per unit length (inertia)

I think a further assumption would be that mass in motion borrows energy from its ether space.

We would also need to look at the speed of a phonon in a non newtonian substance and also a B. E. condensate. Photons slow down, and can even go negative in a B.E. condensate. That does suggest a substance that can have compex root solutions.

<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 />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?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bearing in mind this is still being thought out, and is therefore not settled science --

Disturbing a medium can set off a density wave in that medium. A density wave must logically travel with the medium because it has no other reference frame.

A pressure wave requires an external force to create the pressure, and acts by transmitting momentum through contact but without displacement of the molecules or other medium constituents. The force determines the frame of reference for these pressure waves, which are oblivious to medium motion.

Light is of the latter (pressure) variety rather than the former (density) variety.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One peculiar property of light propagation is that light speed and aberration both depend on which gravitational potential field is producing the greatest pressure changes. For example, aberration from a distant binary must show aberration relative to each component of the binary when light is inside that binary's field. But the aberration of both components becomes similar and then identical as light transitions into interstellar space. And aberration transitions again to Sun-dominated, then Earth-dominated as it approaches our telescope. So the properties of light change as it transitions from field to field, and the field with the greatest pressure gradient at any point in space always dominates at that point.

That is why, in Lorentzian relativity, we were forced to abandon both the universal aether model and special relativity's "no aether" model. What works is that the local gravitational potential field everywhere is the preferred frame for light propagation in that vicinity. Now we have a better sense why this is so.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">* 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not sure what "both cases" refers to here. But does the idea of pressure waves transitioning from field to field address your concern? -|Tom|-

Rather than looking at water flowing over a mountain, shouldn't we look at how pyroclastic flows behave in the same set up? I once designed a bit of kit to replace a "spider " in plastic extrusion. The spider chops up the molten plastic through a seive affair with knives. That slows the flow too much for the likes of pvc and the pipe can explode. My design used a simple parabola lathed into the inside of the pipe, mixes the plastic wonderfully.

So maybe we can look at lava lamps, .[] as they are pretty close to the idea. A good parabola would be better still and I think we might need to change the oils, so that the globs are the lighter oil.[]

[tvf] “Bearing in mind this is still being thought out, and is therefore not settled science -- “

I understand. I’m still wrestling with my ideas as well, looking for the things that will doom them to an early death. The sooner I divest myself of a bad idea, the sooner I can move on to something else. (But first I want to be sure it is a bad idea.) I hope that my thinking out loud is helping you as much as your thinking out loud is helping me.

===

[LB] “ ...
* 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. “

[tvf] “I'm not sure what "both cases" refers to here.”

Case 1 is the water flowing near a mountain, case 2 is the elysium flowing near a mass.

===

[tvf] “Disturbing a medium can set off a density wave in that medium. A density wave must logically travel with the medium because it has no other reference frame.”

OK.

[tvf] “A pressure wave requires an external force to create the pressure, and acts by transmitting momentum through contact but without displacement of the molecules or other medium constituents. The force determines the frame of reference for these pressure waves, which are oblivious to medium motion. Light is of the latter (pressure) variety rather than the former (density) variety.”

Hmmm.

===

[tvf] “One peculiar property of light propagation is that light speed and aberration both depend on which gravitational potential field is producing the greatest pressure changes.“

Yes.

[tvf] “For example, aberration from a distant binary must show aberration relative to each component of the binary when light is inside that binary's field. But the aberration of both components becomes similar and then identical as light transitions into interstellar space.”

“And aberration transitions again to Sun-dominated, ... “

“ .. then Earth-dominated as it approaches our telescope.”

Yes, yes and yes. This makes sense. We have no way at present to actually confirm this for those distant transitions, but we should be able to send a space craft out to find the transition zone for Earth/Sol or Earth/Luna. And once the physical existence of either of these transition zones is confirmed the others will be sort of “grand fathered” in.

[tvf] “So the properties of light change as it transitions from field to field, ... “

OK.

[tvf] “Does the idea of pressure waves transitioning from field to field address your concern?”

No (but it helps in another area I‘ll get to later). I have two problems with your pressure wave concept:

1) I don’t see how a real wave in a real medium can be either 100% density or 100% pressure. All real media are compressible to some extent. A change in density will create a corresponding change in pressure, and vice versa.

2) Even in the case of a 100% pure pressure wave such as you hypothesize, I don’t see how this wave could ignore the flow of the particles comprising its medium. Pure pressure transmission must be a function of the interaction of each particle with its neighbors, rather than of each particle with a distant and perhaps no longer operating force.

Once a force has set a light wave in motion, the force can be turned off (a light bulb, for example) and the wave will continue to propagate outward until all of its energy has been absorbed (for example by friction with other media). Observation indicates that this can take many billions of years.

Or suppose the force is not turned off. As soon as the light wave propagates away from the region where the force is acting, how can the wave continue to use that now-distant force as a frame of reference?

<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 />1) I don’t see how a real wave in a real medium can be either 100% density or 100% pressure. All real media are compressible to some extent. A change in density will create a corresponding change in pressure, and vice versa.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Let's not confuse the microstructure and macrostructure of waves. A wave is defined as "an oscillation that travels through a medium by transferring energy from one particle or point to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium". That necessarily involves temporary movement or deformation of each wave constituent, which (as you say) involves both pressure and density changes.

But I was speaking of macroscopic wave properties. So let's agree that pressure or density waves are a shorthand for "pressure-dominated" or "density-dominated" waves.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2) Even in the case of a 100% pure pressure wave such as you hypothesize, I don’t see how this wave could ignore the flow of the particles comprising its medium. Pure pressure transmission must be a function of the interaction of each particle with its neighbors, rather than of each particle with a distant and perhaps no longer operating force.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is really the same question with the same answer. Particle-to-particle action is what forms and transmits each wave. But if the wave is water flowing over a mountain, the pressure increase exists only near the mountain. So the wave continually reforms there, much like lenticular clouds continually reform in place.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As soon as the light wave propagates away from the region where the force is acting, how can the wave continue to use that now-distant force as a frame of reference?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It can't. The pressure wave uses the dominant local field as its frame of reference. This dominant frame changes as the pressure wave propagates. -|Tom|-

[tvf] “ ... let's agree that pressure or density waves are a shorthand for "pressure-dominated" or "density-dominated" waves.”

Agreed.

And I can think of no reason at this time to rule out the possibility that light waves propagate as pressure (dominated) waves in their medium. So unless we find reasons to think otherwise I’ll assume that this is how they propagate.

However, there is a terminology problem that may be contributing to my inability to understand what you are saying. See below.

[tvf] “ ... if the wave is water flowing over a mountain, the pressure increase exists only near the mountain. So the wave continually reforms there, much like lenticular clouds continually reform in place.”

I think I follow you up to this point. If the wave is elysium flowing near a mass, the pressure increase exists only near the mass. So the pressure wave continually reforms around the mass.

This is a good analogy for describing how background elysium is pressurized by the graviton shadow near a mass to become the physical embodiment of the gravitational potential field for that mass.

===

The Terminology Problem

The word wave is often used to describe phenomena like this (dynamically stable stationary pressure gradients), but for several reasons I think it would be more physically accurate to call them pressure zones or pressure bubbles rather than pressure waves.

Two of those reasons:
*) Although these zones do move through the medium as a pressure variation, they do not do so at a characteristic speed. Instead they move at the speed of the mass that has entrained them. And if the speed of that mass changes, so does the speed of the entrained pressure zone or bubble.

*) These zones do not exhibit the property of interference. When two or more graviton shadows overlap, the elysium pressure bubbles they create always add constructively.

I understand the futility of fighting established practice, so I don’t plan to push this very hard. Can we agree to refer to light waves as light waves rather than as pressure waves? Then if we want to talk about a light wave and a pressure wave in the same discussion, we will know which of the two different phenomena are meant.

For example, in the following exchange I’m reading your use of “pressure wave” as meaning “light wave”. Am I correct in doing so?

[LB] “As soon as the light wave propagates away from the region where the force is acting, how can the wave continue to use that now-distant force as a frame of reference? “

[tvf] “It can't. The pressure wave uses the dominant local field as its frame of reference. This dominant frame changes as the pressure wave propagates.”

And I’m reading your use of the terms “dominant local field” and “dominant frame” as referring to the elysium pressure wave (bubble) that is entrained by the graviton shadow of the mass. Am I correct here also?