Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />Is this a general statement relating to gravity and light or specific to the Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is tough to say. GR has two physical interpretations -- the field interpretation and the geometric interpretation. With the latter now ruled out because it provides no cause to initiate motion and no source for new momentum, we are free to develop the field interpretation in physically sensible ways that are consistent with the math of GR. Historically, one of those ways is to treat the "field" (meaning gravitational potential) as an optical medium. That idea has been around for a long time, and even Einstein seemed to adopt it in a limited form by mid-career.

That said, it all fits very naturally into MM premises. But the core idea is common to GR and MM.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What is the justification for calling a gravitational potential a light-carrying medium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They both have identical physical properties -- wave speed c, inverse linear density near masses, etc. Why have two entities to explain the same phenomena?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We know that light rays are bent by gravitational potential but what is the disturbance inflicted on the potential by light according to the law of action-reaction? We know that a medium where a wave is present is disturbed in some way to cause that wave. Are you disputing the particle nature of light?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't understand your first question, but it may be answered by the second: Without any ambiguity, yes. Light has every wave property known, including those unique to waves: Wavelength, frequency, intensity, amplitude, refraction, diffraction, coherence, interference, polarization, absence of mutual collisions, radiation pressure, transverse/longitudinal vibration, sameness of properties for each discrete entity, propagation speed unaffected by speed of source.

Light also exhibits two particle properties, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. But because these also have possible wave interpretations until the wave strikes matter and ejects electrons, it seems more reasonable to conclude that light is a pure wave phenomenon than to conclude that it is some kind of mathematical “dual entity”, lacking a physical description. And light has no properties unique to particles, most notably the ability to collide with another of its own kind.

So yes, I dispute that light has any particle nature. It is a pure wave phenomenon sometimes able to eject electrons via its momentum. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />I think gravitons in the MM are too problematical, especially
when you introduce a space that can possess different densities.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not "space", but a material, tangible medium called "elysium", one of an infinite number of mediums in a universe with an infinity of divisibility in scale. Any medium that can be compacted by gravity will have a density that varies with degree of compaction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why do you need the elysium if you have gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<ul><li>Gravitons behave like particles, elysium produces wave phenomena.</li><li>The propagation speeds in elysium are c, while gravitons propagate at least 20 billion times c.</li><li>Gravitons interact by collisions, elysium does not.</li><li>Gravitons easily penetrate matter, elysium (light) waves do not.</li></ul>

Short answer: incompatible properties.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Seems a little redundant and an ad hoc device to explain the refraction of light through a gravitational field.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is it also ad hoc to speak of gravity and light as if they are different phenomena? Is the star medium or the galaxy medium equivalent to gravity and/or light?

To me, it is an unjustified philosophical assumption, more in the nature of a personal belief, that everything in the universe can be explained with a single medium. I would agree, however, that two mediums is a very improbable number. The number of mediums is surely either one or infinity. -|Tom|-

TVF: So yes, I dispute that light has any particle nature. It is a pure wave phenomenon sometimes able to eject electrons via its momentum. -|Tom|-

In my opinion, when substances and phenomena are mixed, a lot of confusion can arise. A particle is substance and a substance by definition is a metaphysical thing. A property of substance is a physical thing, like its mass, color, etc. Mixing properties that are manifested at the phenomenal level with the "nature" of things, or denying some "nature" of things based on properties measured at the phenomenal level, is not recommended.

I slowly starting to get the impression that in the Meta Model you have melted metaphysics and physics and have kept the notions from these two fields that seem appropriate for your objectives. But things are not that eclectic in reality, unless there is an empirical justification for those choices.

Nicholas Gisin at the University of Geneva in the 90's generated two photons that were entagled over a distance of several miles. This entaglement may be an basis for the explanation of the wave phenomenon but how can one go to such extent and claim that what exists is the wave and not the particle? Researchers in Australia last year, I believe, isolated photons and demonstrated teleportation. How can this be done if light does not have a particle nature?

The straightforward answer is that light is a particle but exhibits wave behavior. The photoelectric effect cannot be explained unless light is particle and recall this earned the Nobel for Einstein, not his Relativity Theories.

I understand that you need a medium for gravitons and this comes in confict with light being particle, and therefore you theorize that light is just waves propagating in the medium, you call LCM. But this is just a mixup of phenomenal and substantive worlds in my opinion. There can be no wave at the phenomenal level that is not backed by some kind of substance, unless we come to the conclusion, that I think that you would like, that light is a side effect of the graviton and it is only a phenomenon, whereas the only substance that is causing it is the graviton. Good luck, honestly, I admire you for your strength.

Enrico,

Since space is void, what does impose the limit "c"? Put differently, if space does not have any properties on substance level, what causes the limiting factor of information propagation?

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

Jan:

Since space is void, what does impose the limit "c"? Put differently, if space does not have any properties on substance level, what causes the limiting factor of information propagation?

Good question but it does not concern Physics but pmetaphysical grounding of a postulate use in a physical theory. If I new the answer...

By the way, the limiting factor on information propagation in SR is only with respect to suitable inertial reference frames. SR does not prohibit FTL speeds but if such speeds are present in an inertial reference frame, they violate causality in another suitably chosen reference frame. But those who think causality is a principle of Physics invariant of the choice of reference frame, like TVF, would of course claim that SR is falsified if FTL speeds are detected, not realizing that it is the choice of reference frame that causes the violation, and such violation is neither present in the frame those speeds were generated, nor such violation is a physical effect.

Jan, C is not a limit of the speed of light but a constant speed of light. And keep in mind we are limited to models here so how the constants are decided is what makes the models work. Space is a void only in modeling to make it all work. Real space has matter, energy and volume.