Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Aetheric Constant Proposition

  1. Jun 22, 2004 #1
    While pondering the emmensity of extremely massive egos... I began to think of the cosmological constants, and how one would decipher such things.

    I do believe that the Density of Aether, hence the permeation of any substantial effect such as the ripple of light, is variable, however, the scale of radius to which it alters becomes exponentially unnoticeable, based upon the x^2/(x+y)^2 variable as proposed originally for creating a gateway to accelerate a mass without tearing it to peices.

    Let x represent the astronomical radius from the central distortion, and let Y represent the are covered, usually on a less than astronomical scale.

    For example, if you at at the center of a black hole, or stellar mass, your perpsective of the constant will be greatly different than it would be 10,000 astronomical units away. The key point here is noticeable difference. The question is " how sensitive" is material being used to test such distortions ?

    at 150,000,000,000 m, or ~1 AU, the distortion difference between 1 meter and another, would be 2.25e22 / 2.2500000000300000000001e22,

    or to say

    9.999999999866666666668% similarity. I think it would be even more interesting to calculate in the actual wave/gravitational distortion of the mass itself, which following the electrical scale of reduction, would become exponentially less and less depending on the mass/energy disturbance.

    Thus a black hole may exibit this kind of distortion at much closer range, but only so much as the mass of the black hole is also great (black holes come in all sizes).

    What I also propose is that a magnetar may create a similar disturbance to the units of spacetime when measuring the Constant. In other words, I'm trying to figure out a way of calculating "constant".

    I believe once we have a method of calculating "constant", we can then look at this constant as a "sound barrier" and in similar fashion, exceed it. Of course, we would have to relook at our doppler sciences...
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 22, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Whether C is a barrier speed or not is completely independent of whether C is C to all observers. Regardless, both have been proven to an extrordinary level of precision.
  4. Jun 23, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I disagree; if c is constant to all observers, this would constitute the strongest possible proof that it cannot be exceeded. If it can be proven that c is not constant to all observers, but that it can be seen as "slowed down" to someone who is trying to match its speed, then it may be possible that that speed could be matched and, eventually, exceeded.
  5. Jun 23, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I need to think about this. What I was picturing though is an ether view where you could 'chase down' a photon but still measure the speed of the photon relative to the ether as C. That's not the way the SR constancy postulate reads though (its a uselses way to characterize C as constant), so, yeah, you're right.
  6. Jun 28, 2004 #5
    standing wave doppler

    revised doppler Step 1

    When you think of doppler, you normally might be told that waves compress and expand. I propose we throw this notion out the window.

    I think instead what we are experiencing is the formation of cinematic Standing waves, as the wave patterns begin to overlap each other as the emmanation of the source "flashes" the next "frame".

    I used the term cinematic for the way a movie projector works. When you watch a movie in the theatre, the images aren't truly moving, you are merely seeing a still image flashed upon the screen by a strobe light. That image is immediately followed by dimness, and another flash of light when the second frame lines up through the projection lense. In some respects, it is like the hum of a high RPM engine, it seems constant, but its actually a series of several explosions in sequence.

    Now use this analogy on a peice of transparent grid plastic. Draw the wave pattern of the emission. Now copy it and displace it by overlapping the first wave pattern.
    Now solve for the new wave pattern.

    Note the emphasis on cinematic "movie magic". Is the wave compressing ? No. But just like a movie goer "sees" with their eyes, moving pictures, we "see" blue and red shift. Infact, if you hold your hand up to the light of a window, you will also see blue and red shift on the edge of your hands.

    Now apply this theory to the sound barrier. What if the compression is not really compression, but is actually standing waves ? Standing waves will reach a high almost "scalar wave" peak, and also annihilate each other as the waves overlap.

    How did we break the sound barrier ?

    What did we experience from the sound barrier ?

    1. turbulence
    2. pressure
    3. sonic booms

    turbulance- the fluctuation of the standing wave pattern, as the craft "pops" along, or "skips" along the "Water" i.e., air, they are running into stnading wave cycles where resistance increases on an x^2 pattern, then reach peak, and distill, bakc and forth. This is a micro-acceleration-deceleration effect that will tear a craft apart. Similar events happen when flying through certain vapid storms or chaotic weather, or even distorted heat pockets.

    pressure - this resistance is going to be created by a very slow and steady increase in speed, as the wave reaches its peak. For vice versa of any aether-nut, you might say that if the wave pattern of space = zero, then its energy = lots. This goes back to my notions about nuclear weapon annihilation patterns- as two waves cancel each other out, they create a near zero frequency. Since in my theory, fermions (electrons for instance) are typically higher frequency wave patterns than bosons (like photons) when you average a very low frequency (as is created by two opposite wave patterns ala harmonics) with a high frequency, you get a middle frequency, usually half. Eventually, with the constant reveraging at stupid speed (that means faster than a fempto second - come on have a sense of humor !) the fermions are going to transition into bosons, primarily gamma, x rays, uv, and finally visible light (before descending further).

    now if the peak is inversed to annihilation from standing waves, you might read it as one of two things.

    either A: the peak is the low point of resistance, and the flatline is near infinite

    or B: the peak is the high point of resistance, and the flatline is near zero.

    Either way, when you reach the high resistance point from a scalar wave, you will experience the sensation of pressure. (probably followed by turbulence)

    3. sonic booms. This is in effect the perfect illustration of strobe effect. anyone who's ever experienced hallucinogenics may be aware of the strobing effect and after image. As the after image continues to trail, it eventualyl catches up. I believe the thing that destroys everything my be the shockwave created by the standing waves at peak.
    This is indentical, in some respects to the Wake created by an aircraft carrier or speed boat.

    I believe that if a craft were to somehow travel faster than "the local constant of its medium" it would create a wake which would resemble, at least theoretically, a wormhole. Objects I beleive, could get caught in this vortex and dragged in the "undertow" and I believe that a shock wave would also ripple outwards until the medium returned to normal. This requires us to consider spacetime like malleable plastic, and not as a rigid "nothingness".

    I believe that there will be an equation found to determine the aproximate "local constant of the medium" of space, and ultimately, with unification, everything else.

    - Shin
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Aetheric Constant Proposition
  1. Aether Physics (Replies: 1)