Frequently asked questions
|
|
|
| You refer to a form of energy acting directly on matter to produce a gravity effect.
Why don't satellites or spacecraft rapidly slow down as they impact with this type of energy?
|
|
|
I don't think the motional energy which causes gravity is travelling particularly fast. Matter decay is a very very slow process so
the motional flow of energy would be more like a very gentle breeze. Significantly, in this case, the energy 'breeze' is accelerating.
The reason that satellites and spacecraft don't slow down is that there has to be relative acceleration between dark energy and matter
for there to be any impact. No acceleration no force, f=ma. Don't forget, if one is to attribute physicical properties to dark energy, top of the
list would be that it would be inviscid, in other words frictionless and super fluid.
Due to the fact that motional energy is accelerating in the vicinity of matter this relative acceleration which we experience, unless we are
in free fall, has a mechanical effect on us and it is this that causes space curvature. Simply put, gravity is a mechanical effect and
not just an inherent property of matter.
|
| You say that light is an oscillation of this motional energy. How do you explain the polarisation of light and its transverse wave characteristics?
|
|
|
Transverse waves have their oscillatory motion at rightangles to the direction of the expanding wave front. Drop a pebble in a pond and there you have it,
the transverse wave propagates outwards in an expanding circular direction. However, you can't have a transverse wave expanding outwards
adopting a spherical geometry. In other words, you can't have an omnidirectional transverse wave because you run out of dimensions to accommodate the
rightangle oscillations. That's why it is impossible to visualise it, if you have ever tried.
In an attempt to illustrate a transverse wave it is commonly suggested to get a length of string held fast at one end then wave it up and down to show
the transverse wave shape. Adding a bit of 3d to it you can move your hand in a circular motion and you will have a 3 dimensional
transverse wave which gives a possible clue to the true nature of light.
Take one hydrogen atom and excite it just long enough to produce one photon. I suggest you will not see a flash propagating outwards in all directions.
More likely you will see a uni-directional, or
maybe bi-directional, twinkle with a wavelength specific to the geometry of the hydrogen atom. This small wavelength packet or photon is self-sustainable and
carries on its way until it bumps into something.
So now take lots of hydrogen atoms and excite them to produce photons and what you experience now is a cacophany of twinkles in random directions,
following on behind and adjacent to each other, but separate.
The good thing is that 'twinkles' can have the transverse wave characteristics, if you wish, a localised helical correlation between a magnetic and
electric field, for example.
|
Have you any proof or predictions that can be backed up by experiment to add authority to your proposed theory?
|
|
|
This is a difficult one to answer. The reason is that the standard model as proposed by specific and
general relativity works extremely well.
Simple gravity is a different way of looking at things and most significantly
attributes a physical cause to gravity rather than an intrinsic property of matter to warp spacetime, as favoured by relativists.
The advantage of this line of thinking is that it allows science to move on. We were coming to a dead end, with more ingenious
mathematics needed to knit together aspects of the theory which in reality were defying prediction. This is probably a bit unfair
in that Einstein probably never intended his theory to be a panacea for everything. At the quantum level other forces become
significant and mask relativistic effects. At the macro level, predicted motion of galaxies do not follow either Newtonian or
Einstein's physics.
Observable predictions
1) Retrograde orbits round the sun in the same planetary plane compared to a normal orbit will not follow a mirrored path
given the same initial orbital velocity.
2) Similar to 1 above, Einstein's solar geodesic paths are themselves not stationary but rotate very slightly in the same plane
and orbital direction as the planets.
3) Light does have a medium for its propagation and this medium would closely resemble dark energy.
4) The local speed of light is governed by the direction and speed of movement of dark energy. For instance, close to the sun, the speed of light will be faster
going downwards rather than away from it.
5) Similar to 4 above, light is only constant relative to the medium in which it propagates, namely dark energy. If dark energy is
in motion relative to you then the speed of light will be effected accordingly.
6) Whenever you have dark energy (sometimes refered to as motional energy on this website) in a state of acceleration you have a mass effect. In
other words, you have something with mass like properties - momentum, potentially visible, effected by gravity etc..
7) The strength of the gravitational field of any matter will be subject to a slow decline due to the influx of dark energy.
The planets are slowly moving further from the sun.
|
One of the arguments which dispels any aether based theory is that
should you be holding a mirror and were travelling at the speed of light then you would not be able to
see your reflection. This is clearly not the case so how do you rationalise this?
|
|
|
Special Relativity states that light travels independent to the speed of the light
source so we can assume with a 99.9999% certainty that you will see a perfect reflection.
Taking another angle at answering this question, should you be in free-fall towards the centre of a black hole and approach the speed of light you would still see a perfect reflection.
If you rapidly decelerated and lets assume that we could stand on the event horizon of the black hole then
we would not see a perfect reflection and would see probably no reflection at all.
The difference here, in the Black Hole example, is that there is relative acceleration between you and dark energy, ie. you are in a non-inertial reference frame.
In the first case, there is no acceleration involved. You are simply travelling at the speed of light
with constant velocity. Only during the acceleration phase to obtain the speed of light would you notice any distortion.
I refer back to a point I have already made, "Dark Energy has no impact on our physical universe unless there exists relative acceleration".
|
... one of the classic problems with aether, if it is
posited as medium for EM waves, has always been the fact that it would cause all kinds of complex
refraction effects as the EM waves propagate between volumes of aether moving in different ways.
These effects are simply not observed.
|
|
|
Dark energy is not a baryonic medium but what could be defined as 'field'. You can only detect field by its
influence on things that can be observed or measured, for instance, iron filings round a magnet. I can best explain dark energy by
suggesting you sprinkle your iron filings at ever an increasing distance from the magnet until the
familiar pattern ceases. Extrapolate this further and there is still field there, albeit, in more of a static state.
Einstein's lenses are one example of 'complex refraction effects' which this website suggests is caused by the movement
of dark energy or, if you prefer, the movement of field influencing the geometry of space.
|
Nick Summers
30th March 08
---------------------------
|
home