I realize this topic isn’t really the point of this book. But there is a lot said in this post in a very short space. It assumes an understanding of many things that are not readily accessible to a layman.
If I may, I would like to suggest more elaboration on this issue. I think this it is a very important discussion. I’m not sure that the criticisms of Weber’s theory are unavoidable or perhaps to some extent misunderstandings of the physical meaning of the math, etc. Important discoveries could be made by hashing it out point by point.
The relatively stable behavior of the solar system indicates there is something operating with gravity that is not just action at a distance or modern gravitational theory. The mathematics of Mechanics shows that you can't have stable inverse-square orbits in the presence of a non-zero torque on the system. You can demonstrate that the fundamental force equation from Newton's work, namely
F = -GMm(r^-2)
produces stable orbits, and that if you introduce non-zero torques that orbit becomes unstable.
Noting that the fundamental law is not time dependent, and recognizing that modern gravitational interactions are tensor not vector based, what happens when we introduce the condition of the speed of light being a constant and nowhere close to being "instantaneous" in traversing the distances from the Sun to Pluto? [Yes, IAU. Pluto. Lowell remembers; Lowell shall repay.]
In the case of the Earth, if the force of gravitation is mediated by gravitons, then the speed of that information exchange is light-speed limited. This implies that the total information exchange cycle between Sun and Earth is 17 minutes. How does the Sun "know" where to throw its graviton after it has received one from the Earth, considering that the Earth has moved several diameters away from the position it threw its first graviton at the Sun? To get those gravitons to their intended targets would imply some type of non-radial force acting on the system (torque-like), which should be detrimental to stable planetary motion. This effect should be even greater for planets more distant from the Sun, as the delay in exchange is longer.
But, the solar system has not yet flown apart, which indicates that there is something we don't yet understand about gravitation within modern theories. Is it because of an as-yet undiscovered medium than can communicate at superluminal speeds, action at a distance, or something else? It bears additional investigation and better explanation.
People in the "shut up and calculate" camp should get on with their own shutting up and calculating while the interested investigators continue to investigate.
Regardless of the reason, it's certainly not wrong to question these long-held, supposedly settled notions of Science, and especially those of Physics. This is why I follow our host's postings.
Action at a distance is real for massless fields like gravity and EM and perhaps all mass less fields! Experiments and theory now show that massless fields like gravity and EM propagate instantaneously in the nearfield for regions less than one wavelength from the source, and reduce to about speed c at about 1 wavelength. After that the fields reduce asymptotically toward speed c, but are never exactly speed c even at astronomical distances from the source. They only become exactly speed c at infinite distance which does not exist. So nowhere in this universe do massless fields like gravity and EM propagate at speed c! Theoretically this has been proved by setting the wave equation to a source term in both these theories, and solving for the resultant fields. Then extracting the phase vs distance from the source relation (dispersion curve), shows that it is non linear in the nearfield, with a clear minima, and becomes approximately linear in the farfield, about 1 wavelength from the source. Applying well known phase speed and group speed operators to the curve, which are proportional to the inverse of the slope of the curve, show that the fields propagate instantaneously in the nearfield, and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield, and about 1 wavelength from the source. See the following paper for details:
Since Relativity assumes the speed of light is constant for all inertial frames, then it is absolutely wrong, and so is any theory based on it it, which affects all of modern physics! Once this is understood, unification is possible. When are scientists going to wake up and look at the experiments and theory that prove that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, which has now been verified by many independent researchers. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. Also Relativity is based on 2 postulates: Galilean Relativity, and that the speed of light is a constant c for all inertial frames. If the 2nd postulate is not true, all that is left is Galilean Relativity! So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
One other point on this and I’m done. The speed of light is clearly not source-based like a projectile. But it’s also clearly not medium-based like a wave. The Michelson-Morley experiment made that clear, and forced Fitzgerald to propose ad hoc length contraction. A third alternative rarely if ever explored is that light speed is target-based—a kind of closing velocity. The closing interaction works on a IAAD basis at great (but not necessarily infinite) distances and takes effect when the light enters the far field. That interpretation, to my knowledge, is consistent with the data, including Weber’s theory and Dr. Walker’s findings. Any thoughts on that?
One can intuitively understand the phenomena using the relation: wavelength x frequency = c. Given an oscillating charge, where the frequency is known, in the nearfield, close to the source, only a small piece of the wavelength can be sampled. According to Fourier Theory, this means that the information about the wavelength is not clear and is therefore infinite. So in the nearfield the speed of light = wavelength x frequency is infinite. In the farfield, more of the wavelength is sampled and then wavelength starts to become more well known, so in the farfield the speed of light = wavelength x frequency is approximately speed c. But according to Fourier Theory, the wavelength must be sampled for infinite distance before the wavelength is known exactly. Since infinite distance does not exist, then nowhere in the universe is the speed of light a constant c. So the phenomena seems to be fundamentally due to Fourier Theory, which is related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
One issue I haven’t seen discussed is that in Einstein’s two-lightning bolt illustration, the bolt toward which the train is moving must occur before the other one from the perspective of the train. But the bolts are simultaneous from the perspective of the station. I don’t see how that could be possible in a mechanical model of the ether such as was proposed by Maxwell and Fitzgerald.
I've looked at a lot of theories of gravity over the years. My brother, far more learned than I in these matters, always favoured the graviton concept, while being open to other ideas. It fascinates me that while everyone is sure that gravity is a discrete "thing" that we can describe quite well in terms of its effects, we still don't have a compelling explanation for its cause(s).
The general relativistic idea of something happening in free space akin to a curvature makes an attractive picture. It’s curious, though, that changes in curvature appear to happen virtually instantaneously, yet theorists argue for gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light. I haven’t looked into it, since there’s no shortage of electromagnetic puzzles to solve.
It also implies, for example, breaking strains. If I shoot a bullet at a blanket it (the blanket) won't curve (much) and it will break. Yet apparently space-time is so strong that it has no breaking point (even Arcturus traveling at x thousand meters per second cannot pierce it) while it remains insubstantial and indetectable, having no measurable effect on the shape of the star itself, while a bullet will deform on impact.
Admitting the limits of analogy, nonetheless there is either something there, or nothing there. Or is there a third possibility we haven't even considered yet?
(As I'm not a fan of the space-time concept, I'm not a fan of trinary logic either. Both seem like copouts from a reductio ad absurdum forced by the use of standard logic.)
As a layman, having never understood a force that pulls rather than pushes, I've always speculated gravity as the result of lower ether density (lower pressure) near conglomerates of matter, but could never postulate how a lower density could be maintained against the pressure. A "graviton" force similar to, or as a version of, the electromagnetic process (not a particle) seems more realistic; though, again, I cannot postulate the cause.
An easy introduction to the electric universe model (below) explains how and why gravity and electromagnetism spar one another and vie for supremacy in cosmology... but if the gravitational concept dominates beyond the next 15 years I'll be truly astounded (and peeved because electromagnetism holds a metaphysic connection and is simply nature as it is). It says at the end, "Gravity is an exhausted and bankrupt concept." Highly recommended intro.
I'm the farthest thing from a mathematician, so I'd be lying if I said I understood everything said in the following video, but I did find the premise and the conclusion (at c.14mins in) very interesting; a nuclear engineer ran some mathematic lines of inquiry that gravity can be attributed to an electromagnetic effect. He *did* find the same connection that had been originally proposed by a plasma physicist from the Electric Universe model.
As soon as Hans taught me the right hand rule I immediately looked up the direction planets orbit. "Yup, they all go counterclockwise from solar north".
What does the internet say?: "It's a matter of chance that it ended up spinning in a counterclockwise direction when viewed from the top down"
I realize this topic isn’t really the point of this book. But there is a lot said in this post in a very short space. It assumes an understanding of many things that are not readily accessible to a layman.
If I may, I would like to suggest more elaboration on this issue. I think this it is a very important discussion. I’m not sure that the criticisms of Weber’s theory are unavoidable or perhaps to some extent misunderstandings of the physical meaning of the math, etc. Important discoveries could be made by hashing it out point by point.
The relatively stable behavior of the solar system indicates there is something operating with gravity that is not just action at a distance or modern gravitational theory. The mathematics of Mechanics shows that you can't have stable inverse-square orbits in the presence of a non-zero torque on the system. You can demonstrate that the fundamental force equation from Newton's work, namely
F = -GMm(r^-2)
produces stable orbits, and that if you introduce non-zero torques that orbit becomes unstable.
Noting that the fundamental law is not time dependent, and recognizing that modern gravitational interactions are tensor not vector based, what happens when we introduce the condition of the speed of light being a constant and nowhere close to being "instantaneous" in traversing the distances from the Sun to Pluto? [Yes, IAU. Pluto. Lowell remembers; Lowell shall repay.]
In the case of the Earth, if the force of gravitation is mediated by gravitons, then the speed of that information exchange is light-speed limited. This implies that the total information exchange cycle between Sun and Earth is 17 minutes. How does the Sun "know" where to throw its graviton after it has received one from the Earth, considering that the Earth has moved several diameters away from the position it threw its first graviton at the Sun? To get those gravitons to their intended targets would imply some type of non-radial force acting on the system (torque-like), which should be detrimental to stable planetary motion. This effect should be even greater for planets more distant from the Sun, as the delay in exchange is longer.
But, the solar system has not yet flown apart, which indicates that there is something we don't yet understand about gravitation within modern theories. Is it because of an as-yet undiscovered medium than can communicate at superluminal speeds, action at a distance, or something else? It bears additional investigation and better explanation.
People in the "shut up and calculate" camp should get on with their own shutting up and calculating while the interested investigators continue to investigate.
Regardless of the reason, it's certainly not wrong to question these long-held, supposedly settled notions of Science, and especially those of Physics. This is why I follow our host's postings.
Action at a distance is real for massless fields like gravity and EM and perhaps all mass less fields! Experiments and theory now show that massless fields like gravity and EM propagate instantaneously in the nearfield for regions less than one wavelength from the source, and reduce to about speed c at about 1 wavelength. After that the fields reduce asymptotically toward speed c, but are never exactly speed c even at astronomical distances from the source. They only become exactly speed c at infinite distance which does not exist. So nowhere in this universe do massless fields like gravity and EM propagate at speed c! Theoretically this has been proved by setting the wave equation to a source term in both these theories, and solving for the resultant fields. Then extracting the phase vs distance from the source relation (dispersion curve), shows that it is non linear in the nearfield, with a clear minima, and becomes approximately linear in the farfield, about 1 wavelength from the source. Applying well known phase speed and group speed operators to the curve, which are proportional to the inverse of the slope of the curve, show that the fields propagate instantaneously in the nearfield, and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield, and about 1 wavelength from the source. See the following paper for details:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240
Since Relativity assumes the speed of light is constant for all inertial frames, then it is absolutely wrong, and so is any theory based on it it, which affects all of modern physics! Once this is understood, unification is possible. When are scientists going to wake up and look at the experiments and theory that prove that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, which has now been verified by many independent researchers. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. Also Relativity is based on 2 postulates: Galilean Relativity, and that the speed of light is a constant c for all inertial frames. If the 2nd postulate is not true, all that is left is Galilean Relativity! So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*YouTube presentation of above arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0s
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper showing that an EM pulse propagates in the nearfield with no propagation delay. The paper has just been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM journal IRECAP: https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
One other point on this and I’m done. The speed of light is clearly not source-based like a projectile. But it’s also clearly not medium-based like a wave. The Michelson-Morley experiment made that clear, and forced Fitzgerald to propose ad hoc length contraction. A third alternative rarely if ever explored is that light speed is target-based—a kind of closing velocity. The closing interaction works on a IAAD basis at great (but not necessarily infinite) distances and takes effect when the light enters the far field. That interpretation, to my knowledge, is consistent with the data, including Weber’s theory and Dr. Walker’s findings. Any thoughts on that?
One can intuitively understand the phenomena using the relation: wavelength x frequency = c. Given an oscillating charge, where the frequency is known, in the nearfield, close to the source, only a small piece of the wavelength can be sampled. According to Fourier Theory, this means that the information about the wavelength is not clear and is therefore infinite. So in the nearfield the speed of light = wavelength x frequency is infinite. In the farfield, more of the wavelength is sampled and then wavelength starts to become more well known, so in the farfield the speed of light = wavelength x frequency is approximately speed c. But according to Fourier Theory, the wavelength must be sampled for infinite distance before the wavelength is known exactly. Since infinite distance does not exist, then nowhere in the universe is the speed of light a constant c. So the phenomena seems to be fundamentally due to Fourier Theory, which is related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
One issue I haven’t seen discussed is that in Einstein’s two-lightning bolt illustration, the bolt toward which the train is moving must occur before the other one from the perspective of the train. But the bolts are simultaneous from the perspective of the station. I don’t see how that could be possible in a mechanical model of the ether such as was proposed by Maxwell and Fitzgerald.
Interesting.
Thanks.
I've looked at a lot of theories of gravity over the years. My brother, far more learned than I in these matters, always favoured the graviton concept, while being open to other ideas. It fascinates me that while everyone is sure that gravity is a discrete "thing" that we can describe quite well in terms of its effects, we still don't have a compelling explanation for its cause(s).
The general relativistic idea of something happening in free space akin to a curvature makes an attractive picture. It’s curious, though, that changes in curvature appear to happen virtually instantaneously, yet theorists argue for gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light. I haven’t looked into it, since there’s no shortage of electromagnetic puzzles to solve.
Curvature implies continuity and connectedness.
It also implies, for example, breaking strains. If I shoot a bullet at a blanket it (the blanket) won't curve (much) and it will break. Yet apparently space-time is so strong that it has no breaking point (even Arcturus traveling at x thousand meters per second cannot pierce it) while it remains insubstantial and indetectable, having no measurable effect on the shape of the star itself, while a bullet will deform on impact.
Admitting the limits of analogy, nonetheless there is either something there, or nothing there. Or is there a third possibility we haven't even considered yet?
(As I'm not a fan of the space-time concept, I'm not a fan of trinary logic either. Both seem like copouts from a reductio ad absurdum forced by the use of standard logic.)
As a layman, having never understood a force that pulls rather than pushes, I've always speculated gravity as the result of lower ether density (lower pressure) near conglomerates of matter, but could never postulate how a lower density could be maintained against the pressure. A "graviton" force similar to, or as a version of, the electromagnetic process (not a particle) seems more realistic; though, again, I cannot postulate the cause.
An easy introduction to the electric universe model (below) explains how and why gravity and electromagnetism spar one another and vie for supremacy in cosmology... but if the gravitational concept dominates beyond the next 15 years I'll be truly astounded (and peeved because electromagnetism holds a metaphysic connection and is simply nature as it is). It says at the end, "Gravity is an exhausted and bankrupt concept." Highly recommended intro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2t1q0NdZsA&t=138s
I'm the farthest thing from a mathematician, so I'd be lying if I said I understood everything said in the following video, but I did find the premise and the conclusion (at c.14mins in) very interesting; a nuclear engineer ran some mathematic lines of inquiry that gravity can be attributed to an electromagnetic effect. He *did* find the same connection that had been originally proposed by a plasma physicist from the Electric Universe model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCxw3PEes4M
As soon as Hans taught me the right hand rule I immediately looked up the direction planets orbit. "Yup, they all go counterclockwise from solar north".
What does the internet say?: "It's a matter of chance that it ended up spinning in a counterclockwise direction when viewed from the top down"
Hm, sure.
Do we have data on other solar systems?
Always appreciate links. Thanks.