Speed of light lower than "c" - field equations

[pogono]

This way we have recapitulated Schwarszchild Solution in above, short formula.

If we know distibution of above "imaginary move", we may calculate "what any field do" creating new metric, started from Minkowski.

New theory article draft uploaded to the web: www.tp-theory.net/tpt_eng.pdf
Is there any physicist, who could help me to make it smooth and to publish it?
please...

or maybe could you act as formal reviewer for my theory?
Anyone?

[macaw]

New theory article draft uploaded to the web: www.tp-theory.net/tpt_eng.pdf
Is there any physicist, who could help me to make it smooth and to publish it?
please...

or maybe could you act as formal reviewer for my theory?
Anyone?

Your "theory" has been reviewed thoroughly, unfortunately it is riddled with mistakes that you refuse to correct, let alone admit. As to how valuable your theory is, you need only look at the poll that you opened.
Now, would you please start answering the questions?

[caveman1917]

Now, let us write geodesies condition for Schwarzschild in new pattern:

(@2)

By keeping at constant R, your metric only works on the sphere where it constitutes a 3d minkowski space.
Anything you derive from it is thus only valid on that sphere, and will naturally take a minkowskian form.

However by limiting your metric to the sphere there is no gravity in there, because the schwarzschild solution is spherically symmetric, and thus any sphere will not have a gravitational gradient on it, the gradient is between different r coordinates.

In short, you have no gravity there, just minkowski.

[pogono]

By keeping at constant R, your metric only works on the sphere where it constitutes a 3d minkowski space.
Anything you derive from it is thus only valid on that sphere, and will naturally take a minkowskian form.

However by limiting your metric to the sphere there is no gravity in there, because the schwarzschild solution is spherically symmetric, and thus any sphere will not have a gravitational gradient on it, the gradient is between different r coordinates.

In short, you have no gravity there, just minkowski.

Ok, but...
1. above metric is derived from Schwarschild
2. it is anisotropic

so is the diffrence, between isotropic and anisotropic metric for HO.

Just defined is REALLY very importan value, because it shows the difference between metrics. It means, that it describes new metric. Let me show you the shortest explanation for gravity.

It is easy to calculate, that difference between invariant interval between events calculated in Shwarzschild and Minkowski metrics (*for Hanging Observer) will be:

However we define it, if we know we may from this formula derive back Schwarschild metric.

If we know distribution of above "imaginary move", we may calculate "what any field do" creating new metric, started from Minkowski.

What means, it is recapitulation of Schw. metric with simple formula expressing imaginary move.
Agree?

[pogono]

Your "theory" has been reviewed thoroughly, unfortunately it is riddled with mistakes that you refuse to correct, let alone admit. As to how valuable your theory is, you need only look at the poll that you opened.

My theory has radically changed since I have opened the poll and - as I claim - it is now not ATM anymore.
Because I have no chance to close present poll I will open new therad just to vote for present shape of the theory.

Could all of you, please, vote for present (more mature) shape of the theory?

Poll is HERE

[macaw]

My theory has radically changed since I have opened the poll and - as I claim - it is now not ATM anymore.

Sure it is ATM, it is a collection of errors and misconceptions built on top of other errors and misconceptions.

[pogono]

My new poll has been closed by mod.
At least we know, that macaw and tusenfem are against my theory.

Sure it is ATM, it is a collection of errors and misconceptions built on top of other errors and misconceptions.

Please, explain me macaw, what is ATM in my present form of theory that I was trying to put under voting. In this theory:
a) I claim, that light has "c" speed and there is no ether
b) I transform Schwarzschild metric to some shorter form with correct math transformations
c) I create Lagrangian that works fine in some specific, well defined reference frame of Hanging Observer

The only ATM part in it that I recognize are:
d) assigning photon with some rotation, that drives to correct photon momentum formula
e) my field equations, explaining photon as disturbance in time-space (what seems at least interesting as I suppose)
f) explaining for Minkowski metric based on rotation where we keep constant "c" speed

Besides,
I though, that your motivation (all of you) was falsifying ATM ideas and forcing people to learn physics.
You did it with my idea. You convinced me.
I have bough few textbooks and learn, following macaw advice. I transform existing metrics now, instead creating my own ones. I refer to mainstream, now.

Your present behavior and responses points, that you do not notice that.
Did not you just lost in fight?

I am not going to convince you. No one could.
Mainstream is too solid. You say "one experiment is enough to falsify your theory, pogono" but if CERN publish hundred times checked experimental data falsifying SR, you say "it can not be true, they must be wrong". So, how could I convince you to my idea - just funny guy without physical experience, humble patent office clerk.

In your responses to this post, feel free to insult me - even mods are against.
When I came here, I was looking for some help - instead I have found kick-boxing ring.
I was trying to fight, but it comes to the end, now. Certainly, I have just mistaken the address.

[caveman1917]

Ok, but...
1. above metric is derived from Schwarschild
2. it is anisotropic

True but it is minkowski nevertheless.

However we define it, if we know we may from this formula derive back Schwarschild metric.

What means, it is recapitulation of Schw. metric with simple formula expressing imaginary move.
Agree?

The problem is that when you let go of the assumption to get back to the general schwarschild solution, you also have to let go of the and the , they are only valid at a single radial distance.

Another way to see this is by considering that time dilation between observers in the schwarzschild geometry depends not only on their relative velocity, but also on their difference in r coordinate. So if you want to create a coordinate chart for the entire schwarzschild solution, you'll always need to have a to be dependent on (not ).

For example, take two different stationary observers with no relative velocity, and calculate their relative time dilation. You should get an answer that depends on their radial distance from eachother.

[Garrison]

I am not going to convince you. No one could.
Mainstream is too solid. You say "one experiment is enough to falsify your theory, pogono" but if CERN publish hundred times checked experimental data falsifying SR, you say "it can not be true, they must be wrong". So, how could I convince you to my idea - just funny guy without physical experience, humble patent office clerk.

The problem is that all the available physical evidence refutes your claims, the new CERN data doesn't appear to conform with your hypothesis either, and I'm not aware of anyone here claiming that new data must be wrong, simply that given the other data available that it needs further corroboration before it can taken as fact. Theory must adapt to fit the facts yes but at the same time you don't get to ignore facts just to fit your theory, something which you have been consistently doing.

[Strange]

Mainstream is too solid.

It is. For good reason.

So, how could I convince you to my idea - just funny guy without physical experience, humble patent office clerk.

I hardly think you are another Einstein. He was a proper physicist. He just happened to work at the patent office for a while after graduating.

When I came here, I was looking for some help - instead I have found kick-boxing ring.

Welcome to the real world.

[Geo Kaplan]

When I came here, I was looking for some help - instead I have found kick-boxing ring.

It appears that you may not have read either the rules or the "advice to ATM" folks, either. If you had, then you would have seen that this is not the place for cooperative development of an idea. You are expected to defend an already-developed idea. Consider it a mini peer review activity. And if you found it rough, let me tell you that this was but a tiny sampling of what a real peer review can be like. It's not that people are cruel for gratuitous reasons (well, ok, some might be), it's because the bar for acceptance is -- and should be -- very high. If the proposed idea can survive the inevitable questions and attacks, it gathers respect. If data comes along to support it, it gets still more respect. Eventually it may become mainstream.

History is so full of ideas that seem elegant, beautiful and just "feel right" (to the proposer), but are horribly wrong, that additional -- scientific -- criteria (like conformance with experiment) must be used to determine correctness. Don't expect a single paper or verbal exchange to convince any self-respecting scientist that it is now time to replace a century's worth of tested theory. That's unrealistic, and for quite proper reasons.

[macaw]

My new poll has been closed by mod.
At least we know, that macaw and tusenfem are against my theory.

Nope, every person that knows about mainstream physics found your ATM wrong. Not only me and tusenfem. Look at the poll you opened.

Please, explain me macaw, what is ATM in my present form of theory that I was trying to put under voting.

Answer the questions I have asked you to answer and you will find out.

[pogono]

Nope, every person that knows about mainstream physics found your ATM wrong. Not only me and tusenfem. Look at the poll you opened.

My theory has changed. But it does not matter, now.
I got the message. There is no place for democracy in science, every one should think the way you think.
I would recommend to delete poll option in forum menu - there is no need to check if anyone may have other point of view.

I hardly think you are another Einstein. He was a proper physicist. He just happened to work at the patent office for a while after graduating.

I am well educated in math, but years ago. And you are right - I am not an Einstein, but i was not my point.

I agree, that progres in science comes from adding elements to existing jigsaw puzzle.
Exept breakthroughs in science. It comes from questioning previous knowledge. Newton, Maxwell, Galileo were "heretics".
If Unificaction Theory was just regular puszzle, we would find it years ago...
So, expect something, that looks like ATM.

True but it is minkowski nevertheless.
The problem is that when you let go of the assumption to get back to the general schwarschild solution, you also have to let go of the and the , they are only valid at a single radial distance. (...)

Thank you, for your validation. I agree with it.
But we really do not need to change R! Let me provide explanation with some scenario. It will be easier to see.

Let us consider Test Body falling down in gravity field. I will assign the "TB" index to it.
We may write its proper time in Schwarschild metric as:



TB passes Hanging Observer ("HO" index). For very short moment in time R_tb = R_ho. For this short moment in time when they are in the same spot we may write:



Let us to express TB proper time with HO proper time:



Above is just Minkowski... So where is gravity now? - Test Body is still falling!

I claim, that only one sign of gravity here is ANISOTROPY.
Let us check then, the diffrence between proper time in ISOTROPIC and ANISOTROPIC Minkowski.

Let us define "dz" as proper time for test body that we should notice with isotropic Minkowski in HO reference frame:



Now, let us check the diffrence, between these proper times in ISOTROPIC and ANISOTROPIC Minkowski.
As it is easy to calculate:



So... If test body is just photon (index "zero" for photon), we may see, that diffrence is equal to:





I call above "imaginary move".
Why? - because photons are our point of reference. We make measurment relative to them, so they act like the carpet that we stand on.
If the carpet is moving (even with imaginary move). we have to move with the carpet!

So we should guess, that gravity has something to do with this imaginary move.

It is what I show by my Lagrangian.

[Geo Kaplan]

My theory has changed. But it does not matter, now.
I got the message. There is no place for democracy in science, every one should think the way you think.

Re: democracy: Anyone can propose a theory. But not all will be found correct, not all proposers will do a good job of explaining and defending it. If your definition of democracy means that all theories, regardless of merit, should be accepted simply because the proposer keeps insisting that he or she is right, then I would agree with you that there is no democracy in science. It is, for the most part, a meritocracy. Poor or unsupported ideas tend to get weeded out. That's an inevitable part of the scientific method. Not all proposers will go away happy, but happiness for all is not the objective.

[macaw]

I call above "imaginary move".
Why? - because photons are our point of reference. We make measurment relative to them, so they act like the carpet that we stand on.

A little piece of advice: you can't attach reference frames to photons. Such errors doom your ATM throughout.

[Geo Kaplan]

A little piece of advice: you can't attach reference frames to photons. Such errors doom your ATM throughout.

Good catch; I lost that among the other clutter. Pogono -- do you understand why a photon has no (unique, sensible) inertial reference frame? This is a rather fundamental consideration, and if your theory depends on there being one, that could explain where you went off track. Remember: Even if you are self-consistent (I am not saying that you are, by the way), that is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. There are infinitely many self-consistent theories that are wrong. If you begin with a faulty premise, all that follows could be self-consistent, but that alone does not make the premise magically correct.

[pogono]

Good catch; I lost that among the other clutter. Pogono -- do you understand why a photon has no (unique, sensible) inertial reference frame?

macaw, Geo Kaplan,
I understand, really. And I do not claim it is real "proper time". I even call it "imaginary" proper time.
But also, I am curious, why if we define:

as "imaginary proper time" considered for photons ("moving carpet" proper time explained above)

as spatial interval for test Test Body (photon)

then we can note for every spot where TB (photon) passes HO just regular Minkowski.



* you may easy check that it works

I say - let us take a closer look to "dz", that we had never care of.
Here is hidden - caused by gravity - some "imaginary proper time".

And this way we can link GR with "flat QM"...
It seems to be the same "imaginary proper time" that is included in Schrodringer's and Dirac's equations, where we consider particle as wave with some imaginary proper time...

P.S. As you may see, above Minkowski works only for Observers at the same spot that test body is passing. We could call these observers then: "Measuring Observers". Sounds like QM?..

[macaw]

macaw, Geo Kaplan,
I understand, really.

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have made such gross mistakes.
Could you please stop developing your ATM and start answering the questions? There is a LOT of questions that you dodged.

[pogono]

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have made such gross mistakes.

You may call it as you wish.
I hope now we are close enough to explain what is forgotten "dz" for photon and what is "z", standing behind Schwarzschild metric.

We recall definitions from my field equations:

Let us define scalar field and two related vector fields:

It means for gravity, that (assuming c=1):





Then, we start with:

So... If test body is just photon (index "zero" for photon), we may see, that diffrence is equal to:



I call above "imaginary move".

multiplying by U:





Now, we recall, it it is equation for infinite small moment in time, in HO spot, so we guess, that it should be indeed manifestation of integral:



but we know, already that: thus



As it is easy to check, we obtain:



because (I recommend to use some software):



This way we have explained Schwarzschild metric, starting from rotating field vectors (creating particle), that creates time dilation around, that creates imaginary move for photons, that creates imaginary proper time "dz", that is reason for Schwarzschild metric.

[pogono]

Besides, you may also check one more important property of my field:



what appears important, when we want to analyze field through angle change (as I mentioned).

[macaw]

You may call it as you wish.
I hope now we are close enough to explain what is forgotten "dz" for photon and what is "z", standing behind Schwarzschild metric.

More nonsense, I asked you to stop trying to develop your ATM and start answering the questions.

[pogono]

More nonsense, I asked you to stop trying to develop your ATM and start answering the questions.

Nonsense?
You treat me as ATM ignoramus. But I though YOU like checking if numbers fits experiment.

I claim, that the difference between regular Minkowski and ANISOTROPIC Minkowski for HO is caused by gravity, so it should have something to do with gravity acceleration.

Then I prove, that it really has ("A" vector field is responsible for acceleration in my field equations)

Check yourself - it should take 3 minutes.
Open Mathematica or Derive (or whatever) and please check:

If (when assuming c=1)





then:

Above shows, that we have pointed reason for anisotropy:

This way you have explanation why, in infinite small increment in HO spot:



then:

So we may write Minkowski for photon, as:

then we can note for every spot where TB (photon) passes HO just regular Minkowski.

Thus, we express z_o as effect of field existence and obtain for photon:



And you have the same way explanation, what is the link between GR and QM, where you describe particles as manifestation of some field

[pogono]

Answering my own question:

Let us to express TB proper time with HO proper time:



Above is just Minkowski... So where is gravity now? - Test Body is still falling!

Here is gravity, or any field expressed with value of vector field A defined at the beginning of that thread.
We denote "tb" for Test Body.












Please, check numbers yourself. I appreciate.

[macaw]

Nonsense?
You treat me as ATM ignoramus. But I though YOU like checking if numbers fits experiment.

Please stop making up new fringe claims and start answering the questions against the existent claims.

[pogono]

Please stop making up new fringe claims and start answering the questions against the existent claims.

dear macaw,
many of your questions refer to first version of my theory, that has radically changed..I have also answered many of you questions, already.

Yesterday I have received confirmation, that my article draft passed Editor validation and will be processed for per review in mainstream Journal. It was my dream for last 3 years! It means, that at least one physicist on the world deem it is not rubbish anymore! :-D

I would like to thank you for that. I has happened thanks to your questions. Thank you macaw.

In last few posts you may find explanation, that gravity (and any field) may be considered just as local anisotropy in Minkowski metric. I also derive value of this additional "dz" increment and show, that it comes from my field equations (value of "A"-field responsible for acceleration) and it is really time dilation effect as I claimed.

I do not want to turn around in questions about historical version of my theory.
I have asked mods, if I could open non-ATM (but S&T) thread about my article.
I wait for the answer. If the answer will be yes, I will appreciate your questions.

Regards

[macaw]

dear macaw,
many of your questions refer to first version of my theory, that has radically changed..I have also answered many of you questions, already.

You simply amplified the errors in the first version with each iteration. Your current version is much worse than the original version. The questions I asked you are still valid challenges to your current version, so, please answer them.

Yesterday I have received confirmation, that my article draft passed Editor validation and will be processed for per review in mainstream Journal.

What journal did you submit to?

I would like to thank you for that. I has happened thanks to your questions. Thank you macaw.

You have nothing to thank me for, you don't have a valid paper.

In last few posts you may find explanation, that gravity (and any field) may be considered just as local anisotropy in Minkowski metric. I also derive value of this additional "dz" increment and show, that it comes from my field equations (value of "A"-field responsible for acceleration) and it is really time dilation effect as I claimed.

I have already shown that claim to be invalid, go back and you'll find a list of challenges against this claim. You haven't answered any of the challenges, please do so now.

I do not want to turn around in questions about historical version of my theory.
I have asked mods, if I could open non-ATM (but S&T) thread about my article.
I wait for the answer. If the answer will be yes, I will appreciate your questions.

Regards

There is nothing mainstream in your theory, your theory is all ATM.

[pogono]

What journal did you submit to?

Watch the news for next two years. You will know.
I am not going to give you pleasure to destroy something so fragile I have just achieved.

I have already shown that claim to be invalid, go back and you'll find a list of challenges against this claim. You haven't answered any of the challenges, please do so now.

I put a lot of calculations here, explaining lots of things and answering lots of your questions.
Since a week you did not put any calculations contradicting mine. You only post comments sot of: "you cover errors with next errors, and put mistakes into it. You are nothing but error sandwich maker"... an so on.

It is hard to answer, if I post obvious mathematical formula and you only post "you are wrong". Really.

You simply amplified the errors in the first version with each iteration. Your current version is much worse than the original version.
(...)
There is nothing mainstream in your theory, your theory is all ATM.

I can not agree.
In the first version of theory, I did not refer to mainstream, such Schw. metric, Minkowski metric, metric isotropy, etc. I also claimed that light has speed lower then "c", etc.

Now, I claim, that:
- light has always "c" speed for any observer and there is no ether
- Schwarzschild metric may be recapitulated much shorten by anisotropy in Minkowski for local observers
- Minkowski Metric is the result of keeping constant light speed

My MAINSTREAM, but new ideas are:
1) we can explain photon as disturbance in time-space structure, traveling through this time-space.

If anyone consider above for few minutes, it must be possible to describe E-M wave this way, if we assume, that time-space is medium (ether) for electromagnetic waves

2) Schwarschild metric may be trasformed to local anisotropic Minkowski.

So if we describe geodesies for photons as follows:

Thus, we express z_o as effect of field existence and obtain for photon:

then it HAVE TO MEAN, that "dz" is responsible for E-M wave attraction to source of gravity. Otherwise, we would have just regular Minkowski. We even measure that effect f.e. "track deflection of light on the face of the sun".

To understand what it means, it is enough to make simple exercise. We write above, as:



Now, recall "r" meaning from Schwarzschild metric. Should we expect:



or maybe:



So?

[Shaula]

Wait ...

- light has always "c" speed for any observer and there is no ether

but

If anyone consider above for few minutes, it must be possible to describe E-M wave this way, if we assume, that time-space is medium (ether) for electromagnetic waves

Is the second quote an extension to your idea that you are not making part of the paper?

[pogono]

Is the second quote an extension to your idea that you are not making part of the paper?

Hmmm. I am afraid that maybe I do not understand the question. Would you, please, explain?

Trying to explain my point of view:

Second quote was for idea, that:
- if we treat time-space as medium for E-M wave propagation, then E-M wave must be able to be described as local time-space disturbance.

But even, if locally time slows down, this disturbance (photon) still travels with "c" speed. There is nothing wrong in it.

For any non-local observers disturbance travels with "c" speed.
For local observer with time shorten - local light speed is also equal "c".

[pogono]

For any non-local observers disturbance travels with "c" speed.
For local observer with time shorten - local light speed is also equal "c".

One more comment.
The disturbance in time-flow maybe cached only, if we compare local observer time-flow (f.e. HO) with some other observer reference frame taking to compare some third observer time-flow.
It is exactly what we have done in Schwarzschild metric.

That is why it is hard to answer if:

or maybe:

because it depends on what is reference frame for HO time-flow comparing, other words - with whose time we compare its time flow to.