Guth’s Goof, March 25, 2014 by Stephen Smith

[jtb]

Suffice to say, space is not a substance anymore than time is. Space cannot warp or bend or ripple. “Space” is defined as “the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur”. It is a domain without substance, since it is where substance exists. It is not that substance, therefore it has no existence except as a method for defining the existence and position of things. To infer that space and time are a “fabric” in which gravity can “wave” is ludicrous. It is tantamount to saying that space exists in and of itself and is capable of alteration.

Space is a three dimensional area, similar to a stage in which the drama of life occurs. The stage itself is empty, created to be filled with props, animate and inanimate, that spin a story with twists and turns as the plot unfolds until the mystery is solved, the lovers live happily ever after, the bad guy is caught, and then: The End. The curtains are closed. Will there be another play, or, will this really be "The End"?

The world is a stage. We all have our parts to play. And, we are all part of the audience. There is nothing new under the sun.

[Sparky]

What we are talking about: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/03/25/guths-goof/

space is not a substance

HOw does a radio wave propagate through space/ vacuum?

[Frantic]

NIMI mode activated :

Well I think of it this way. Space as we imagine it is based on the known universe the brightly lit up part whether its UV, X, Visible, infrared, radio whatever. The remainder is the 99.9% plasma, that is what is important.

Now imagine an endless epxanse of protons and electrons sitting in perfect equilibrium. You probably can't becasue entropy is still a good discription of our universe, and that wouldn't make sense. So they must be moving. This by definition begins creating the electric and magnetic fields that light up and ceate our known universe, our known space. Energy is conserved, there is no inflating space that robs the universe of its energy and cause ssapce to collapse.

We tend to think that particles will fill a volume and the bounds of the container and quantity inside creates the density/pressure, could be in the universe that the net of all forces create a specific pressure in the universe, the pressure of the universe create the bounds. Only if all matter came to neutrality could matter escape because gravity is week. So long as the universe is viewed to have electric potential, garvitational escape and gravitational collapse do not exist. Electric forces will prevent the collapse and prevent escape where gravity would not. The universe is entropic meaning it is unlikely charges would ever come to a neutral point but would always remain in some state of electric potential (hence the electric universe is created). Bounds of the universe cannot be defined as substance, like space or matter, only as a net of forces. Space is a property of the net of forces.

Waves do not propagate through space, they move relative to each other. Particles are waves. Particles move relative to each other. This is the nature of space and time.

As soon as some portion of the plasma would attempt to expand or collapse it would be countered by electrical forces.

[Steve Smith]

You might as well ask how gravity travels. I know that the quantum zoo is thought to contain bosons that "carry" various fields, but they're fictional characters. EM radiation (light) travels as a transverse wave function consisting of an electric field at right angles to a magnetic field. An oscillating dipole generates an electric field that generates a magnetic field that generates an electric field, and so on. It is a self-ratcheting phenomenon. I disagree with the particle nature of light, as well as the wave/particle duality.

In this regard, I'm disagreeing with some Electric Universe theorists who think that space is filled with particles of density sufficient to carry a wave -- similar to a wave through water. Those particles aren't detectable at this point, so I think that the classical explanation is sufficient. I know that aether is a popular idea but I'm not convinced.

Anti-Photon by W. E. Lamb, Optical Sciences Center, University of Arizona

Steve Smith

[chrimony]

I disagree with the particle nature of light, as well as the wave/particle duality.

Then what is your explanation for the double-slit experiment?

[Steve Smith]

Read the paper.

[tonto8119]

An oscillating dipole generates an electric field that generates a magnetic field that generates an electric field, and so on.

When i read this sentence i was reminded of an article by Wall Thornhill http://www.holoscience.com/wp/global-wa ... ignorance/ In the article Wall says

Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so a new paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established. It was not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak, attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as Van der Waals’ dispersion force or the ‘London force’) that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids and solids. Like gravity, the London force is always attractive and operates between electrically neutral molecules. And that precise property has been the most puzzling distinction between gravity and the powerful electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as attract.

So it seems the clue about the true nature of gravity has been available to chemists — who are not interested in gravity — and unavailable to physicists — who are not interested in physical chemistry (and view the world through Einstein’s distorting spectacles). Look at any average general physics textbook and you will find no reference to Van der Waals or London forces. What a different story might have been told if London’s insight had come a few decades earlier? Physics could, by now, have advanced by a century instead of being bogged in a mire of metaphysics.

The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles caused by slight distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The tiny electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons, at any given instant, cannot shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all directions. The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or molecules is that the electric dipoles tend to resonate and line up so that they attract each other. An excellent illustrated lesson on the London force, or Van der Waals’ dispersion force can be found here.

Obviously, gravity is distinct from the London force. It is much, much weaker. That should be a clue. What if we are looking at gravity being due to a similar electrostatic distortion effect in the far smaller constituents of each atom, in the electrons, protons and neutrons? Of course, this is heresy because the electron is supposed to be a fundamental particle, with no smaller constituent particles. However, there are experiments that challenge this belief.

Would you say that the London force or Van der Waals dispersion force somewhat describes the above sentence?Forgive me if i'm gone off track here,just trying to understand it. Anthony

[jtb]

"space is not a substance"

I can't buy it. Space is the area within some sort of a container. Before every "thing" is sucked out of the container, the surrounding positive pressure will eventually collapse the container.

A vacuum is an area of space devoid of nearly every "thing". The space between every "thing" must be something, otherwise the container would collapse. So nothing, must be something. We just don't know what nothing is.

[tayga]

It's interesting to see that people with a good grasp of physics continue to struggle with concepts of particles and space. I read some of Gerald Lebau's work on Sorce Theory a couple of years ago and I've yet to find any argument or findings that shake my comfort in accepting his model of the physical universe.

Here isn't the place to discuss Lebau's theory at any length but he does point out in his exposition that our idea that the universe consists of hard particles separated by a void comes from the ancient Greeks as a solution to permit things to move. They apparently didn't consider that matter itself, the stuff of which everything is made, might be elastic and deformable.

This assumption has shaped physical science ever since and had a critical influence on the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment which was compounded by widespread disregard of Dayton Miller's superior and more complete work after the world had plumped for Einstein.

This a shame because the notion that the universe consists entirely of a compressible superfluid in which standing waves and vortices are perceived as particles avoids the need to invoke spooky action at a distance, particles communicating across space, the means by which forces are transmitted and especially the transmission of light

According to Lebau, there is no space and what we perceive as space is actually substance