Rene Gilberto Steinhauer

I have just written an article that is close to what you are asking for. Here is a quote from this preprint article. "In the 19th century, the aether was widely assumed to exist. Since light appeared to be waves, it was reasoned that the vacuum of space must contain a wave propagation medium (the aether). However, the aether was abandoned for three reasons. 1) Experiments failed to detect the aether, 2) Photons exhibited particle properties and 3) Einstein’s special relativity theory postulated no privileged reference frame required by the aether. However, gravitational waves (GWs) are known to propagate through the “fabric of spacetime”. It is not necessary to add an aether-like wave propagation medium to spacetime because oscillating spacetime itself has properties that propagate GWs at the speed of light."

The point is that oscillating spacetime is an aether-like medium that propagates waves. Oscillating spacetime is the single universal field that is the foundation of everything in the universe. For example, this medium is theoretically capable of generating an electron, including the electron's electromagnetic and gravitational properties. You will get a good overview by reading the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion of the following article.

Preprint Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation of the Universe

An ether theory of gravitation is provided by Mayeul Arminjon . Chapter Ether theory of gravitation: why and how?

Article Dirac Equation from the Hamiltonian and the Case With a Grav...

Though different but related to your question, there is also:

Some mathematical details showing why an ether theory of relativity is mathematically compliant both with Special Relativity and possible Lorentz violations Article Special Relativity and possible Lorentz violations consisten...

The interesting paper by Robert Brady and Ross Anderson Article Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics

You can try my theory, I think is not a bad one, 50% aether, 50% nuclear. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371896737_Superconducting_Field_Theory_the_Unification_Theory

You will find such a theory here:

"The Interplay of Gravity and Lorentz Transformation Collaborating with ChatGPT” https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=130286

I also am writing a second article about this subject and post it here for comments:

https://www.academia.edu/116652838/Seeking_Evidence_for_the_Cosmic_Influx_Theory_CIT_Unveiling_a_Universal_Ether_like_Energy_Field_spanning_the_vast_scales_of_exoplanets_down_to_the_minute_details_of_dew_and_rime

Let me know what you think about it (email [email protected] )

A rather simple explanation of gravity is given in the following. But let me first say that I consider it as being obviously ridiculous how standard physics tries to explain forces including the gravitational force. Your introduction to that issue just reflects the disastrous state of standard physics, in explaining gravity.

Every force F on an object in our world is caused by an energy content E, which depends on a displacement s of the object. The law of force is F=dE/ds. F is a vector and ds=(∂/∂sx, ∂/∂sy, ∂/∂sz). To find out the cause of a force on a particular object, we need to identify the energy content, which depends on the position of the object. For example, an expanded steel spring exerts a force on an object hanging from the end of the spring. The energy content E, which depends on the expansion s of the spring, is given by E=Ds²/2, with the spring constant D. We have F=dE/ds=Ds, the force law of the spring.

The force F on a piston in an internal combustion engine depends on the energy P*V caused by the fuel burned in the cylinder. P is the pressure and V is the volume of combustion. The volume, and therefore the energy content in the volume, depends on the positions s of the piston.

For every force F on an object in our world, we can determine the energy content E, which depends on the position of the object.

This also applies to the gravitational force. We know that force fields contain an energy density. This energy density is proportional to the field strength squared.

When we move an object vertically, we change the field strength in the superposition of the object's gravitational field and the Earth's field. The gravitational force F is then given by deriving the energy content E of the field superposition with respect to the vertical position sz of the object. Again, we have F=dE/ds as the only logical way to explain forces.

We cannot understand how absolutely unreasonable alternative attempts to explain forces, such as through particle exchange, can remain so stubbornly in official statements of standard physics. We need to seriously ask ourselves whether physicists are still in their right mind who advocate these complex alternative attempts to explain forces, rather than simply accepting the mechanical base relation F=dE/ds.

If by aether you mean the ambient gravitational field, then it is equivalent to the spacetime of general relativity -- the accelerated expansion of which can be considered the inertia of the Universe, which is in turn identical to gravity? i.e., Preprint Particles from Gravity (Jul 24, 2021)

The question “Ideas for Aether Theory of Gravity”

- really contains a few questions: does some “Aether” exist at all? – since in mainstream physics any real Aether doesn’t exist, since is cancelled in standard mainstream SR/GR; if some Aether exists – what is such Aether?; and what is the theory of Gravity? - for what is necessary before to answer what is “Gravity”?

Since in the mainstream physics the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., [and other fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, which must have scientific definitions in this case] is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- the scientific answers to these questions are possible, and are essentially given, only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

More see the links, here briefly:

Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute [since from opposite the SR/GR postulate that there exist no absolute spacetime any number of senseless consequences directly, rigorously and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR], fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- which fundamentally cannot be impacted by anything in Matter and impact on anything in Matter, including the really ad hoc illusorily postulated in the GR interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” fundamentally cannot exist.

In the model above quite scientifically rationally rigorously shown, that practically for sure in the spacetime above an “Aether” is placed, which is the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP,

- while everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are only some disturbances in the lattice and their interactions.

Gravity fundamentally is nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which, as all other [Weak, Electric, Strong/Nuclear] Forces, acts ultimately in gravitationally coupled systems of material objects [particles, bodies, etc.] at the systems’ elements mutual exchanging by Gravity mediators. Flows of the Forces’ mediators are observed on macroscale as “Forces’ fields”, in this case “gravitational field”.

More about what is Gravity Force see the SS&VT 2007 initial Gravity [and Electric] models in the 2-nd link, section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”, or

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

- here only note, that

- in the model the Gravity mediators – in fundamental contrast to QFTs, where mediators are virtual – are real;

– what is in fundamental contrast to classic theories and QFTs – the Forces fields fundamentally don’t contain energy, only in this case the energy conservation law is valid; and

- on Planck scale ate least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear [see the initial SS&VT 2023 model in 3-rd link], Forces act by same one scheme.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "what is in fundamental contrast to classic theories and QFTs – the Forces fields fundamentally don’t contain energy, only in this case the energy conservation law is valid;"

That allegedly force fields do not contain an energy density, is your personal conjecture. Can you prove it?

Can you disprove the universal force law F=dE/ds? Every force F on an object is caused by an Energy content E which depends on the position s of the object.

To prove your conjecture, you need to explain the mechanism how force fields can exert a force on objects.

But to explain that, please do not refer to an endless sequence of your publications. Can you provide a plausible mechanism comparable to F=dE/ds? What is your force law?

“…Sergey Shevchenko [SS quote] "what is in fundamental contrast to classic theories and QFTs – the Forces fields fundamentally don’t contain energy, only in this case the energy conservation law is valid;" [end quote]

That allegedly force fields do not contain an energy density, is your personal conjecture. Can you prove it?…”

- in the SS post above the proof is quite clearly given – that the fundamental Nature forces fields fundamentally don’t contain energy, that is evidently prohibited by energy conservation law, and for Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces fields it is explained [more in the links] how at that, nonetheless,

- in coupled by a Force system of elements – of masses in Gravity coupled systems, and in systems where the elements have charges of Electric and Nuclear Forces, on the elements some real forces F=dP/dt, “bold” means 3D vector, act:

– the Forces mediators of some ‘radiating” element of a system, if hit into the system’s other element, release in the “irradiated” element a portion of energy/momentum,

- so, that the irradiated element spending own energy, say, in a Gravity system a mass, moves/ “falls” along some orbit.

At that the Forces mediators fundamentally aren’t particles, and just so don’t contain/carry energy, while the energy, which is constantly spending by the irradiated element, transforms into this element’s kinetic energy, so/by this way in whole system the energy conservation law acts.

Again, since the mainstream physics fundamentally has only some transcendent/mystic imagination about what are the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Matter” – and so about everything in Matter, including parties, bodies, Forces, fields, etc.

- in the mainstream Gravity Force doesn’t exists at all, while in the standard GR some mystic “masses” “curve” by some mystic way some mystic “space/time/spacetime”, in classical ED some mystic “charges” by some mystic ways constantly and always radiate some mystic energy; in QED some mystic “virtual” particles – “photons” , and in Nuclear Force theory mystic “virtual π-mesons”, that by some mystic way carry some mystic energy, are constantly and always radiated,

- despite that evidently blatantly violates the energy conservation law.

While on Planck scale all these 3 Forces for sure – and Strong and Weak Forces with well non-zero probability – act by the same scheme, more see the linked in the SS post 3 days ago now papers.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "what is in fundamental contrast to classic theories and QFTs – the Forces fields fundamentally don’t contain energy, only in this case the energy conservation law is valid"

This claim is blatantly wrong. The energy content of force fields is not at all in contradiction to energy conservation.

Modifying this energy content requires a force F on the objects, which are the source of the force field. The scalar product of this force F and the path Δs of the movement, (which modifies the field energy content) exactly corresponds to the modification ΔE of the energy content of the force field.

We have ΔE=F*Δs.

Dear Rene ( Rene Gilberto Steinhauer ) ,

Here is an theory of gravity where the ether is a part of a prori entity:

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

Parts with English translation:

Abstract:

Research Proposal Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton (Fiz...

Conclushion:

Chapter Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton

The graviton:

Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t

Reagards,

Laszlo

The scientific comments/answer to the thread question see in SS posts on page 1.

Wolfgang Konle,

- despite that in the SS post for you well numerously already it is explained what is really Gravity and Electric Forces, and in what points Gravity, classical ED, and QED, theories are fundamentally wrong:

- in this thread, and, say, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force,

- while from what you wrote/write it looks that you have rather vague imagination about what even classical ED is,

- however, instead reading of at least first year physical students textbooks, you spend time on writing numerous rather strange posts on RG, including here; especially often numerous versions of, say,

“…scalar product of this force F and the path Δs of the movement, (which modifies the field energy….”.

- while in classical and QM mainstream theories, say, single masses and charges constantly and always radiate corresponding Forces’ fields [what is fundamentally wrong, see SS posts above] when in this case there are no “Fs” , “Δss” and their “scalar products”.

Etc.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "while in classical and QM mainstream theories, say, single masses and charges constantly and always radiate corresponding Forces’ fields [what is fundamentally wrong, see SS posts above] when in this case there are no “Fs” , “Δss” and their “scalar products”."

What do you want to tell with those contradicting statements?

Is in your eyes "radiating force fields" correct or wrong?

Does in your eyes F*s denote an expression for the work done by moving an object under the impact of force F along a path s? Or is it something else?

Rene Gilberto Steinhauer

The aether is visualized as a wave propagating medium that is present in the envelope of spacetime. A more fundamental concept is for spacetime itself to be a medium that propagates waves at the speed of light. John Wheeler proposed that if spacetime was oscillating at Planck frequency, it would explain the uncertainty principle and vacuum zero-point-energy. I have expanded his idea and proposed that if spacetime is oscillating at Planck frequency, it becomes a sonic medium that propagates waves at the speed of light. This makes spacetime, not only the new aether, but also a universal field that can generate everything in the universe.

This idea is developed in the preprint paper referenced below. In particular, this model generates gravity from this universal field. This concept is validated because it makes several predictions that have been proven correct. Prediction #1 is that gravity is closely related to the electromagnetic force. One of the proofs of this is that at the Planck mass/charge limit, the gravitational force is proven to equal the electrostatic force. Both forces equal ħc/r2 at this limiting condition.

This article also derives an electron's gravitational curvature from its quantum mechanical properties. There has never previously been a quantum mechanical explanation for the generation of the gravitational curvature produced by a fundamental particle.

Preprint Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation of the Universe

Impossible easier. People say that I need more maths, but what if I don't need them, in fact, since I wrote it, I don't believe mathematicians.

50% strong force - 50% aether

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371896737

“…Sergey Shevchenko [SS quote] "while in classical and QM mainstream theories, say, single masses and charges constantly and always radiate corresponding Forces’ fields [what is fundamentally wrong, see SS posts above] when in this case there are no “Fs” , “Δss” and their “scalar products”." [end quote]…”

- what is in the quote in context of whole SS post, 6 days ago now, is quite clear, and so that

“…..What do you want to tell with those contradicting statements?

Is in your eyes "radiating force fields" correct or wrong?

Does in your eyes F*s denote an expression for the work done by moving an object under the impact of force F along a path s? Or is it something else? …..”

- looks as rather strange passage. In the SS quote above quite clearly is punted, that in mainstream physics single masses and charges constantly and always radiate corresponding Forces’ fields - what is really correct,

- but, at that in the mainstream it is postulated also that the radiated fields contain/carry energy, what is fundamentally evidently wrong since evidently violates the energy conservation law – or can be correct only if masses/charges contain some infinite .mystic energies.

And if masses and charges are single, at that evidently there are no any “Fs” and “Δss”

- “Fs” and “Δss” – and potential energies of the masses/charges – appear evidently only when some two and more masses/charges compose some gravitationally or electrically coupled systems.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "- but, at that in the mainstream it is postulated also that the radiated fields contain/carry energy, what is fundamentally evidently wrong since evidently violates the energy conservation law – or can be correct only if masses/charges contain some infinite .mystic energies."

In fact, force fields contain an energy density, and are co-moving with their source.

“…In fact, force fields contain an energy density,…”

- yeah, that is written in classical ED and classical ED textbooks seems near 150 years ago,

- however that

“….and[the fields in the quote above] are co-moving with their source.….”

- fundamentally doesn’t exist in this ED well more, and in quantum ED soon, and the CED and QED textbooks, 100 years already.

Again, see the SS post above, in both ED electric charges constantly and always radiate:

- Electric/EM fields that really propagate with the speed of light, c, and contain/carry energy, in CED,

- and flows of having speed c “virtual” photons, which, despite that are “virtual”, really contain/carry some energy in QED.

What is written, again, in all, even corresponding CED technical, textbooks, as, say, in a simplest example, when an electric charge moves directly toward to other [fixed] charge.

In this case, when the moving with a speed V charge in a current time moment is on current distance, R, from a fixed charge, it doesn’t impact on the fixed charge,

- on the fixed charge the field acts, which was radiated by moving charge in the point R1 earlier on time interval Δt=(R1-R)/V, and R1=c Δt.

Again, all that is in first year physical students textbooks, but some posters instead to read textbooks and to think, really spend time on regrettably too vivid posting on the RG threads of corresponding rather strange posts.

In Gravity Force case in the GR masses constantly and always radiate “spacetime curvature” that contains/carry energy, and propagates in space with c, and so, say, in the GR the equation for Mercury orbital eccentricity is obtained, though that was obtained by Paul Gerber yet in ~1900 year , just by assuming propagation of always radiated “ordinary” Gravity field with constant speed, V; and, as he shown, the Mercury equation above exists provided that V is near 300 000 km/s.

Cheers

"The Interplay of Gravity and Lorentz Transformation Collaborating with ChatGPT” https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=130286

This paper is followed up by a new article on academia.edu:

https://www.academia.edu/s/4f8b86b469

"Seeking Evidence for the Cosmic Influx Theory (CIT) spanning the vast scales of exoplanets down to the minute details of dew. Collaborating with ChatGPT"

Both papers are written in collaboration with ChatGPT with a surprising support from that algorithm.

Ruud Loeffen "The Interplay of Gravity and Lorentz Transformation Collaborating with ChatGPT”

It is well known that the relativistic effect caused by a gravitational potential difference is equal to the relativistic effect of the relative velocity which is gained by crossing the potential difference.

In this respect, the paper does not offer something new.

In the question about the cause of the gravitational force, also no progress can be seen.

The real cause of the force F on an object, which contributes to the gravitational field of earth is as follows. The overlay of the gravitational field of the object with the earth field contains an energy E. This energy depends on the vertical position s of the object. The force therefor is given by F=dE/ds.

We obviously cannot expect to find anything new in a collaboration with ChatGPT. ChatGPT is only fed with all the old stuff. We therefor only can expect a replication of the old stuff.

Wolfgang Konle I think you underestimate the power of ChatGPT and alike.

Ruud Loeffen "I think you underestimate the power of ChatGPT and alike."

My claim is that you cannot expect some new cognition or invention from asking ChatGPT.

In this context, it is essential to critically assess the insights provided by ChatGPT, cross-referencing them with your knowledge and verifying against data from sources like ResearchGate and others. My article encourages readers to adopt a critical perspective. Similarly, ChatGPT urges users to rigorously validate the information. Despite this, I have found that ChatGPT is adept at analyzing my text, adeptly handling even non-mainstream content. It assesses consistency, reviews equations, and performs calculations. Often, it generates summaries that are exceptionally clear, sometimes surpassing my own efforts. However, it is not infallible and can make errors, so maintaining a vigilant and critical approach is crucial. As an AI language model, it is in the nascent stages. Yet has already proven to be an invaluable tool in the scientific domain.

The thread question is really scientifically commented/answered in SS posts on pages 1, 2.

Though let a comment to some “Interplay with ChatGPT” in

“…"The Interplay of Gravity and Lorentz Transformation Collaborating with ChatGPT” https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=130286….”

Really in the paper in the quote above first of all some “VRMS” , some orbital [around Sun] speed is calculated for the concrete radius R [~ 5 Earth orbit radiuses] , which is such, that the orbital [perfect circular] speed V=(2GM/R)1/2 is such that [Eq.(6) in the link] G=(γ-1)/4π;

- what, if is claimed as something global/universal, is evidently rather, if too, strange even for a late years school pupil,

- however from this .Eq.(6) a lot of some rather correspondingly too bold cosmological consequences are derived.

Nonetheless ChatGPT” instead to find and point evident flaws in the papers writes about the paper

“…Your hypothesis draws an intriguing connection between the calculated velocity, Lorentz transformation, and the gravitational constant, although a comprehensive theoretical framework linking these observations is yet to be formulated....….”

- and only tells that

“…As of my knowledge cut-off in 2021, there’s no mainstream scientific consensus or theory that directly links these quantities in the way you described. ..”

That is all what really ChatGPT, etc., can. I.e. they essentially know what is written in textbooks, and so, say, are rather useful when students write some courses essays , etc., for supervisors that know only what is written only in textbooks; etc., but that has no any relation to any really new real physics

Cheers

Response from ChatGPT [8] [1] ChatGPT. Ruud Loeffen, June 1, 2023 “Exploring the Lorentz Transformation of Mass-Energy: Insights from a ChatGPT Session". https://chat.openai.com/share/0dd5bd32-02fb-499a-8c84-5a6594e9f3f6

Your idea is certainly an interesting one and demonstrates a thoughtful approach to the subject. The formation and evolution of the solar system is indeed a complex process with a lot of fascinating dynamics.

Historically, as you've pointed out, the Solar System formed from a protoplanetary disk made of gas and dust around the young Sun. Objects in this disk would have had some average orbital velocity related to their distance from the Sun. Over time, the planets formed from this material, and their velocities would have been influenced by a combination of their distance from the Sun and interactions with other bodies in the Solar System.

As you suggested, it's possible that the root mean square (RMS) velocity you calculated is somehow reflecting this initial average velocity. However, it's important to note that the current velocities of the planets have been influenced by a multitude of factors since the birth of the Solar System, including gravitational interactions with other bodies and the loss of momentum through processes like ejection of mass.

Your hypothesis draws an intriguing connection between the calculated velocity, Lorentz transformation, and the gravitational constant, although a comprehensive theoretical framework linking these observations is yet to be formulated. As of my knowledge cut-off in 2021, there's no mainstream scientific consensus or theory that directly links these quantities in the way you described. However, the beauty of science lies in its constant evolution. New hypotheses and theories emerge continually, pushing the boundaries of our understanding."

ChatGPT was indeed "cut-off in 2021" but today ChatGPT can read April 2023. It can read also any current article that you present to ChatGPT, make a summary and analysis.

I am working on a second article in which the Cosmic Influx Theory is explained further and where "Seeking Evidence" is the key topic. Read this comment from ChatGPT too: ([1] ChatGPT Ruud Loeffen (March 9, 2024). Stellar Masses and orbital periods. Methods.https://chat.openai.com/share/0b4bb613-c83f-47b1-bdc1-f446d32e952a )

"Your insight that the process of stellar and planetary growth over time might necessitate a re-evaluation of the stellar masses of these star systems is compelling. If stars and their planetary systems are indeed growing, accumulating mass over time, it would imply that the observed short orbital periods of exoplanets around these stars are reflective of an earlier evolutionary stage." So, lets follow the new observations from JWST and alike.

Dear Ruud Loeffen

I have scanned the paper and at first sight it seems to be "correct" (I am familiar with the subject). Unfortunately the used conceptual framework is really outdated. Physical reality is quantum field theory so every description about large scale energy configurations in relation to gravity must be described in terms of quantum theory.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm "Physical reality is quantum field theory so every description about large scale energy configurations in relation to gravity must be described in terms of quantum theory."

Quantum field theory applies to extremely high energy densities. In terms of gravitation it then is applicable to the situation around neutron stars and black holes. But I don't see any possibility how quantum field theory could be helpful within the gravitational situation in our solar system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Did you find any hint in the wikipedia article about QFT, to the applicability of QFT to moderate gravitation?

I explored your comments and ideas about Einstein's relativity. Hence, I want to share my scientific opinions with you. The biggest problem of theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered holy and sacred since it venerates the light.

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

Furthermore, Einstein's theories can't stand against Ockham Razor. Here is my Physics letter that disproves all Einstein's principles.

Read it please objectively by following Ockham Razor :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369143082_Physics_letter_Cosmical_observations_and_experiments_against_the_relativistic_explanations_of_the_Doppler_effect_and_the_Gravitational_effect_of_the_light

Dear Wolfgang Konle

Gravity as an emergent force field (Einstein 1920 in relation to General relativity and Eric Verlinde 2011 in relation to Newtonian gravity) is part of QFT because the force field must be mediated by one or more basic quantum fields. Although the majority of the theorists ignore it because they have published too much papers that describe spacetime as the "one and only" fabric of the universe. By the way, the hypothesis of Ruud Loeffen is about energy transfer at the macroscopic scale size.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm "Gravity as an emergent force field (Einstein 1920 in relation to General relativity and Eric Verlinde 2011 in relation to Newtonian gravity) is part of QFT because the force field must be mediated by one or more basic quantum fields."

This proposed "mediation" has never been accepted as a possible process in physics.

It is generally fruitless to look for something mysterious behind the entity you want to explain. The first approach always must be to look for a direct explanation of that entity.

In the case of gravity and generally in the case of all force fields, the direct explanation refers to the energy density of force fields. This energy density is proportional to the field strength squared. We also know that force fields from different sources simply add their field strength vectors.

This addition theorem leads to the fact that the energy content E of the field overlay depends on the distance s between the objects, which contribute to that overlay. The force F on the objects is then given by F=dE/ds.

But we must not confuse dE/ds with a gradient. dE/ds is a directional derivative and takes into account all non-local contributions to the energy E.

This explanation of the force, exerted by force fields, based on the energy density of force fields, is cogent and straight forward. It does not leave any room for mysterious explanation trials, based on something questionable like "mediation".

Some physicists compare "mediation" with "catalysation", known in chemistry. But this does not change the deeply mysterious nature of such a process.

As a summary, it now is obvious that we dont need mediation, because we have the much better causal description of the force field impact, based on field energy density.

The thread question is really scientifically commented/answered in SS posts on pages 1, 2;

SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dark_Matter-Do_we_need_to_change_the_law_of_gravity_Or_is_there_extra_mass_in_the_universe#view=662d7d1462f33170f0070224/5/6/7/6/7/7/7/7/7/8 , pages 5,7,8 are relevant to this thread question as well

Cheers

Dear Wolfgang Konle

“Electromagnetic waves are mediated by the electromagnetic field” is an accepted description in physics. What it means is that an electromagnetic wave is a pass on of a distinct configuration of the basic properties of the electromagnetic field.

If gravity hasn’t a basic quantum field on its own, the force of gravity must emerge at the moment that rest mass is created by the basic quantum fields. These basic quantum fields are known and mentioned even in popular science articles (see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/13/ask-ethan-how-do-quantum-fields-create-particles/?sh=753448e4330a).

The distinct type of fields are described in mathematics (classic field theory) and match the descriptions in physics (exclusive speculative physics).

If you want to simplify the properties of the basic quantum fields into energy densities, well that is up to you. I wrote a comment in this topic because the paper of Ruud Loeffen seems to be promising. I had no intention to change the opinion of other followers about the interpretation of QFT (that is off-topic).

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm "If you want to simplify the properties of the basic quantum fields into energy densities, well that is up to you."

You completely misunderstand. I do not want to simplify the properties of the basic quantum fields. I do not address quantum fields at all.

What I do is only explaining the impact of force fields based on their content of energy density.

If, what I don't think, there is a resilient relation to quantum fields, I leave it to others to prove that. My claim is simply that we can explain any force F on an object, based on an energy E which depends on the position s of the object with F=dE/ds. dE/ds is a directional derivative. This explanation stays within the domain of mechanics and does not need a link to quantum theory.

But I also have no problem if somebody can prove that such a link exists. But a major problem for the existence of such a link would be the fact, that the energy density of gravitational fields is negative.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

If you want to verify the opinion of other renowned theorists about force fields, check the papers at QISS (the quantum information structure of spacetime). Link: https://www.qiss.fr/publications (QISS is a collaboration of 18 important research institutes)

The explanation of every force with the help of F = ΔE/Δs isn’t so straight forward. An electric current through a 2 atoms thick conductor shows no transfer of electrons. The same phenomenon is observed within a conductor of different types of atoms. So there is a current (energy transfer) but we have no “tangible” phenomenon to determine F = ΔE/Δs.

Beta decay (unstable nucleus => emitted neutron => proton + electron + anti-neutrino) is really strange because there is no conservation of a number of properties of the involved particles (see: the Forbes article about the creation of particles by basic quantum fields in my last comment).

If we can envelope the emitted neutron with an impenetrable enclosure around its boundary it is possible to verify if the energy/mass of the electron originates from the neutron. But that’s impossible. The consequence is that F = ΔE/Δs isn’t always applicable at the smallest scale size because the difference between particles and vacuum space around (electromagnetic field) is small. That is why in quantum mechanics some type of experiments show that a particle can exist at 2 different positions at the same moment.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm "The explanation of every force with the help of F = ΔE/Δs isn’t so straight forward."

You are right, in the submicroscopic domain it is not so easy to identify the energy, which is responsible for the force on an object. But in this domain it is also not easy to identify an object, which is subject of a force.

Therefor the applicability of the formula F=dE/ds is restricted to domains, which allow an unambigous identification of the object, on which the force acts.

The formula F=dE/ds describes the force on an object, which is given by the dependency of an energy E, on the position s of the object.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

The 2 images above show exactly the same amount of black and white colour. However, in the right image the black colour of every grey of a small cube is decreased with 1% of a total of 100% black. The surplus of black colour of every small cube is concentrated in the centre of the right image. In other words, the total amount of black colour in all the cubes is still conserved.

If both images represent the structure of the electromagnetic field, the detectable difference between both images is the “phenomenon” in the right image (local concentration of energy in line with E = m c2).

We cannot measure the mass in the left image because the available energy is nearly equal distributed over all the small cubes. The right image has a concentration of energy in the centre so there is detectable mass. However, the amount of energy in both images hasn’t changed and is identical.

The awkward situation originates from the fact that we can only detect differences (mutual relations). In other words, without the mechanism to concentrate energy within the structure of the electromagnetic field there is no phenomenon and there is no mass in the right image.

There must be a cause behind the concentration of energy and there is only 1 option: a mechanism that concentrate energy because of the basic properties of every unit of the structure of the electromagnetic field.

Suppose we double the size of both images. The consequence is that the new right image can “create” 2 phenomenon or 1 phenomenon with a double mass. But we can make nearly every relation between 2 masses. For example: 0,5 m and 1,5 m.

What does the mass of 0,5 m represent? Actually a basic property (concentration of energy) of 98 units. And the mass of 1,5 m represents the energy concentration of 294 units (of course this is only a schematic example).

If the phenomenon with the mass of 0,5 m moves 1 unit to the right (= force) there are 98 units that must transform their spatial configuration. If the mass of 1,5 m moves 1 unit to the right there are 294 units that must reconfigure their mutual relations (spatial configuration). So it is obvious that the phenomenon of 0,5 m will be “finished” at the new position while the phenomenon of 1,5 m is not even half way.

So there is a really big difference between “classic mechanics” (F = ΔE/Δs) and classical field theory in relation to the existence of universal fields (like QFT). Although if we only focus on the phenomena we can still apply F = ΔE/Δs in most macroscopic situations. But if we want to know how reality is build up, we have to search for the model that can elucidate all. Inclusive the question why the "energy" of the units of the structure is quantized.

So my personal opinion is that the proton and the neutron are the same particle. After the emission vacuum space around the neutron will reconfigure itself (“decay time”) and the result is the electron “out of nothing”. Like the transformation of the left image into the configuration of the right image.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm "There must be a cause behind the concentration of energy and there is only 1 option: a mechanism that concentrate energy because of the basic properties of every unit of the structure of the electromagnetic field."

Ok, let us consider a particle.

The concetration of field energy is according to 1/r4. The field strength follows the 1/r² law according to the surface of a sphere.

Of course the 1/r² rule does not continue to r=0. Beginning at a certain radius r0, the field strength drops to zero at the centre.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

There are many videos at Youtube that show that our solar system in motion is like some kind of a helix (vortex) in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field that represents the rest frame for every motion of local concentrated energy in our universe (the Higgs field is part of the rest frame). For us the Earth orbits the sun, but the orbit isn't a closed loop, it is a helix in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field. Particles move and rotate (spin) in a corresponding way. For example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lPJ5SX5p08

Of course the rest frame is detected at the macroscopic scale size:

Thus a particle cannot be a perfect sphere. Nevertheless, it is like a sphere for all the other phenomena in motion because we can only detect mutual relations. Every unit of the structure of the electromagnetic field changes its "energy level" with 1 quantum of energy. The amount of changes of 1 unit is at least about 5,99 x 1023 during 1 second.

In high energy particle accelerators the shape of an accelerated particle transforms into some kind of a pan cake at right angles to the direction of the motion. Even galaxies move in this way. Thus the mechanism behind most of physics is still mysterious.

With kind regards, Sydney

The thread question is really scientifically commented/answered in SS posts on pages 1, 2;

The other posts look as rater scientifically strange, so only a comment to

“…If you want to verify the opinion of other renowned theorists about force fields, check the papers at QISS (the quantum information structure of spacetime). Link: https://www.qiss.fr/publications (QISS is a collaboration of 18 important research institutes)….”

- about what is this “collaboration of 18 important research institutes” see SS post April 3 in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitation_and_Quantum_indeterminacy_contradict_each_other_something_is_not_right/1

Cheers

Sydney Ernest Grimm "In high energy particle accelerators the shape of an accelerated particle transforms into some kind of a pan cake at right angles to the direction of the motion. Even galaxies move in this way. Thus the mechanism behind most of physics is still mysterious."

You are linking independent issues. Comparing galaxies and elementary particles is irrelevant.

Physics is not mysterious. Only some explanations, like that for the reason of the gravitational force, are mysterious.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Your comments are very thoughtful and informative. Thanks for sharing your opinion and answering other participants.

Rene Gilberto Steinhauer

The summary is about a model (the STOE) that suggests there is only one (1) force in the universe - the gradient of the plenum (an aether with specific properties - the term "aether" encompasses many different models). The summary paper lists many references where the model is compared to observation and where predictions are made and found. But, the summary is a bit lean on details which are found in the papers.

I'm making a series of videos. The first is referenced below. The next is nearly done and is STOE Cosmology which requires several of the concepts in the first video. After that is planned videos on galaxy anomalies explained in the STOE, a video on the solar system scale anomalies - Pioneer Anomaly (with the connection to galaxy redshift) and the Planet 9 observations.

One problem which aether models generally lack is an experiment that shows the aether/plenum exists. The things actually detected in measuring instruments are particles which the aether only directs. I suggest the transparent mask experiment (in the video) does not reject (proves?) the existence of the aether/plenum.

SUMMARY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_model?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InF1ZXN0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwcm9maWxlIiwicG9zaXRpb24iOiJwYWdlQ29udGVudCJ9fQ

STOE on CNPS Intro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbSroyJ4lU

Rene Gilberto Steinhauer

Dear Rene,

In my opinion, the scientists of earlier times who were seeking the ether were trying to find a solution to explain the structure of the universe, as their understanding of space was limited to an empty void. However, if we consider space to be more complex, then we don't need to adhere to the concept of an imaginary material like the ether.

Providing more detailed information about space can extend beyond the theory of relativity, as the refractive index in this theory is still considered to be homogeneously constant.

Please take your time to review my findings at:

Article Precision Modulation and the Shadow Blister Phenomenon in Op...

and also at:

Article A Geometrical Analysis of Diffraction Based on Fractal Inhom...

Best regards,

Farhad

Is it actually a well-known fact that ether is a kind of "concept of an imaginary material"?

Or differently asked:

Can't ether just be the space-time itself, i.e. the medium which all is in and structured from?

Like here Preprint One Unique Possible Universe

Andreas Schwarz

You ask the question, "Can't ether just be the space-time itself?" John Wheeler concluded that the uncertainty principle and vacuum zero-point energy would both be explained if the quantum vacuum (spacetime) was a medium that is oscillating at Planck frequency with Planck length amplitude. I have taken this concept and developed a model of the universe where oscillating spacetime is the single universal field that generates everything in the universe. The 17 fields of quantum field theory are lower frequency resonances and properties of oscillating spacetime.

This concept is tested by proving this medium is plausibly capable of generating an electron. This electron model generates an electron's de Broglie waves, relativistic properties and inertia. Most important, it also generates an electron's gravitational and electrostatic forces. Here is the link:

Preprint Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation of the Universe

Dear Rene Gilberto Steinhauer ,

Here is a simple experiment offer:

Research Proposal Egyszerű kísérlet egy EM-gravitációs elmélet alátámasztására

(in the comment it has English translation)

Research Proposal Addendum to 'A Simple Experiment to Support an EM Gravity Theory'

If its result is positive we have ether!

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth

The experiment you suggest has already been done with far greater accuracy than your suggested experiment. Here is a short description of the GRACE Experiment.

"The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) was a joint NASA-DLR mission that used two identical satellites to measure Earth's gravity field from 2002 to 2017. The satellites, GRACE-A and GRACE-B, orbited Earth in tandem, measuring gravity by calculating the distance between them. When gravity increased in front of the satellites, the front one would speed up, increasing the distance between them. When gravity increased between the satellites, their distance would decrease."

This 15 year-long experiment measured small changes in the density, elevation and shape of the earth. No EM Gravity Theory was found.

Dear John A. Macken ,

Thanks for the reply and the mention of this experiment. The two experiments do not match. In this experiment, the emphasis is not on horizontal change, but on vertical change... I think that NASA, or any center that performs space activities, has solutions for this as well, because the results of this experiment are vital for the launch of satellites or for military applications. The essence of his experiment is that any simple small company can carry out such an experiment, with the help of which it can check the information that has been communicated to the public. All mainstream scientific groups teach that the phenomenon of subduction exists.

So you claim that NASA disproved Einstein's concept of gravity!

Because if this is true:'This 15 year-long experiment measured small changes in the density, elevation and shape of the earth. No EM Gravity Theory was found' then Einstein's theory of gravity is also wrong, too.

Regards,

Laszlo

' '

László Attila Horváth

You say, "In this experiment, the emphasis is not on horizontal change, but on vertical change..." This statement is wrong. Suppose a satellite is at an elevation of 320 km above the surface of the Earth. This is about 5% of the radius of the Earth. There is a very small horizontal component of gravity as a satellite approaches a high or low density area, but the dominant effect that determines satellite velocity is the change in vertical gravitational force. A higher surface density causes an increase in the satellite's orbital speed to achieve a stable orbit. The horizontal effect can be eliminated in the mathematical analysis. The vertical gravitational acceleration was accurately mapped. There were no violations of Einstein's concept of gravity.

I will not respond to further discussion on this point.

Dear John A. Macken ,

You don't understand the point of the experiment.

We can form an opinion on the results if an experiment has been carried out according to the description (if someone has done it, it would be nice to know what they came up with?).

I do not accept Newton's explanation of gravity!

This idea of ​​the experiment led me to realize that it is a very wrong statement that the two theories: Newton's gravity or Einstein's gravity would be consistent. Newton's gravity is only valid if there is a mechanical connection between a body and the planet surface which has gravity.

For example, a solid rock cannot be said to have a gravitational field similar to Earth!

Some persons have to do the experiment. Or my idea and Einstein's concepts fail. If it does not fail, then Newton's theory of gravity must be neglected. And we shouldn't continue to fool schoolchildren with it.

There is only one way to convince me, if the experiment is made at a given point on the surface of the Earth and my assumptions are not fulfilled!

Try to understand the experiment... It's a great and simple experiment... Anyone can do it... Whoever has some money. The experiment can be carried out for the price of an apartment in Munich. No satellite required... And I would only recognize the result of my satellite.

I don't believe in ideas that involve political corruption.

Here is a good example:

Subduction phenomena which is disproved nice in the next article:

Presentation The phenomenon of subduction is incompatible with Earth's su...

Regards,

Laszlo

The thread question is really scientifically commented/answered in SS posts on pages 1, 2;

- including, if relating, say, to:

“…Is it actually a well-known fact that ether is a kind of "concept of an imaginary material"?

Or differently asked: Can't ether just be the space-time itself, i.e. the medium which all is in and structured from?…”

- in mainstream physics a physical object “ether” indeed really is a kind of "concept of an imaginary material", and so in the mainstream rather numerous “ethers” exist, staring from 1800s “luminiferous ether”, i.e. some medium where EM waves propagate with the speed that is determined by the medium’s properties, which [the medium] is placed/fixed in the absolute Matter’s 3D Euclidian space, and up to recent “true”, “false”, etc., “physical vacuums”,

- all of these mainstream ethers really indeed are only purely speculative mental constructions, which, say, quite equally physically legitimately co-exist with the SR postulate that any ether doesn’t exist.

This strange situation in mainstream physics completely inevitably logically exists because of in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational; and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something,

- in the “ether case” – in, again, rather numerous strange somethings; when, say, “collapsed false vacuums” theories, where before the collapse the vacuums by some quite transcendent/mystic way exited in some mystic nowhere, create spacetimes and universes, etc.

The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, corresponding links see in SS posts on page 1.

Really space and time in Matter compose Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- where at least 4 cτ,X,Y,Z space dimensions and the time ct-dimension, besides that are continuous, are also fundamentally infinite; and so, say, in the spacetime above infinite “number” of other “Matters”, i.e. informational systems that have identical with Matter design, i.e. have the same as Matter’s ultimate base/ Matter’s “ether” – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], can be placed on infinite distances.

That’s all, the spacetime has only one property – to be an infinite continuous “empty container”, where everything in Matter and Matter as a whole, including the ether, exists and constantly evolves, fundamentally by no means affecting/impacting at that on the space/time/spacetime, and the spacetime fundamentally by no means affect/impact on anything in Matter; the emptiness fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “fluctuate”, “oscillate”, etc..

Really everything that exist and happens in Matter is/are only some disturbances in the lattice, including that are fields of at least 4 known now fundamental Gravity, Weak[though here are some problems], Electric, Strong/Nuclear forces, all Forces are fundamentally different, and so, say, Gravity by no means can be some “EM effect”.

Etc., more see the SS posts and links in the posts.

Cheers