Trying to understand liquid space theory

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#1
I’ve been missing with the liquid space theory.

So far I understand the theory is a play on Einstein’s special theory of relativity were:

an object of length l moving with velocity v with respect to the “ether” should be contracted to length l` given by
l` = l/(1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)

But the original length is subtracted out and the additional length in respect to velocity is treated as a force of the “ether”.

Cool :)

In reply to: http://discuss.timetravel.institute/threads/want-to-time-travel.4681/#post-48584
 

David

New member
Jul 29, 2015
38
1
0
51
#2
The “liquid” of this Superfluid space theory , is the interaction mass with the background, due inequalities in between the inertial mass of the moving object and the barycentric medium formed by the background the oscillations are not at the second derivative of the acceleration which would be Newtonian and minimal at any velocities less than the speed of light. but as the object approaches the velocity c, (relativistic) the density of the virtual matter becomes equaled to that of the inertial mass and would increase the total mass less than c and would be considered as a Superfluid vacuum limit E^2 adhoc to the mean vector of p^2. under a curved space limit it would be listed in a many-body quantum reaction along the curvature and under the this condition, the invariance takes on some unique properties indeed
 

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#3
interaction mass with the background, due inequalities in between the inertial mass of the moving object and the barycentric medium formed by the background the oscillations
as the object approaches the velocity c, the mass would be infinite.

The problem I’m having is understanding the inverse perspective, would particle decay interact with barycentric medium as a force? confused*
 

David

New member
Jul 29, 2015
38
1
0
51
#4
Gamma, Alpha, Beta all need time my friend , you may meditate on the translation of the frames of reference of the observer to the traveler at relativistic velocities. The inference regarding your inquire is that we are working in a velocity free space in which subatomic reactions and decay rates would effect the vacuum of free space to actual apply a Newtonian transition of the travelers at the speed near the speed of light?
 

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#5
So in a nutshell, Liquid Space theory is Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy without the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.

It stipulates all energy including matter (mass), light, velocity, is made of this ground state energy (length). The properties of the ground state energy is similar to a super-fluid and states the folding of the length (ground state energy) is the cause of matter (mass), Light (electromagnetic spectrum) is the oscillation of this length (ground state energy), and velocity is the interaction or causality.

Original: l` = l/(1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)

Theory: F = {[(m/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-m}a

Where F is the force of the ground state energy (length) on mass as it approaches the speed of light.

I may be wrong, but I’m still working on it; I wonder if this ties in with John Titor’s E^8=E^8 :)
 

David

New member
Jul 29, 2015
38
1
0
51
#6
Not quite , We are working with velocities at or close to the speed of light, so that all matter, whether they may be atomic quantum state or any macro state are governed by the same laws of all matter at this velocity (c). The fluid dynamics of free space are only seen at this speed within a 99.98% of the velocity. Question was regarding Super-Fluid space which should be synonymous with Super Fluid Vacuum , In a Super Fluid Vacuum the fundamental Quantum Mechanic are non- removable for the Background of space time so that ground state approximation are with a range to large to be considered for a length contraction l` = l/(1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2) of the reference frame the velocity of the moving frame and the speed of light c are instantaneous to the relative to the Background. the E^8 =E^8 is an identity and there is no energy manifold that would be at an exponential to itself? the summation of the photon limit would as a momentum as it propagates at or around E^2
 

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#7
I believe I understand, this is a Lorentz symmetry and what you explain is Lorentz invariance violations.

But to further explain, looking into OP’s posts, it states the length of l’ is “time” or frame of “space-time”.

It also states as a mass at rest approaches the speed of light, the mass increases due to time “space-time”.

According to OP, time adds mass at speeds approaches the speed of light, OP also states this is why gravity affects time “time dilation” because mass is time (gravity is misunderstood, nonexistent).

Really weird, never heard that before.

I tried looking up the theory, but it doesn’t exist; only in this forum.

I’ll keep researching.
 

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#8
Tests need to be conducted and inconclusive at the moment.

In special relativity space-time with co-ordinates (t,x,y,z,) where t is the time co-ordinate and (t+t’,x,y,z), where t’ is the time interval you can measure between two points, the interval between the two points is (t’,0,0,0) and according to this theory has a force, F = {[(m/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-m}a

This is linear and has no functional purpose at the moment, but I think the idea is important.

I’ll keep researching.
 

Robot

New member
Jun 30, 2014
158
24
0
East Coast
#10
Be aware, the whole "mass increases" thing is often a useful analogy. The massed object may act this way, but many Physicists and my Modern Physics undergrad text made note, this isn't "really" happening.

Regarding Lorentz contraction etc, be sure to remember this is all reference frame perspective. What I view from my frame is not necessarily the same from your frame.

The distance from Earth's upper atmosphere to ground is shorter(Lorentz) for the Muon, than it is for the Pilot in the Airplane. (The Muon proves this).

All of this is "relative" to the chosen reference frame.
 
Last edited:

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#15
This is what I am working on...

Original: l` = l/(1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2) = (the norm)





The Theory:

F = {[(m/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-m}a = F = (gamma)a ?

The theory removes the original mass and leaves the constant as the force applied to the mass.
 

Robot

New member
Jun 30, 2014
158
24
0
East Coast
#16
From the above link:

" Einstein’s Energy equation has nothing to do with the abstract principles of time dilation and distance contraction of special relativity. Einstein’s energy equation is shown to involve nothing more than Newtonian physics corrected for an omission in Newton’s treatment of force."

I'm not sure who Joseph A. Rybczyk is, but much of what he says is contrary to what I was taught in Undergrad Modern Physics and Modern Physics in general. E=MC^2 and Newtonian Physics are worlds apart.

There doesn't seem to be much said about him on Physics Forums:

Search Results for Query: Rybczyk | Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community


Just my .02
 
Last edited:

Robot

New member
Jun 30, 2014
158
24
0
East Coast
#18
This statement contradict the entire thread, this is Super-fluid vacuum space that is subject to ultraviolet divergence under the Quantum Field theory, this would generate a wave-function as it crosses the FTL barrier
I think this is my point, I don't believe the thread has a solid foundation on proven physics.

There is some very advanced Physics being discussed here, but I don't see any credible links to back up the discussion.

You talk about Super-fluid space, this is only a untestable model correct?
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-liquid-spacetime-slippery-superfluid.html

String theory is interesting, but it is also a currently untestable model.

It is fun to have thought experiments and hypothesize, but it seems like some "matter of fact" statements in the thread that are not based on any solid physics. Just my .02
 
Last edited:

Robot

New member
Jun 30, 2014
158
24
0
East Coast
#19
I can find no good physics that suggests FTL will ever occur.

A related article:

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-dont-superluminal-einstein-universe.html

In the article Miguel Alcubierre is referenced regarding superluminal velocity, but he himself says "does not violate the physical principle that nothing can locally travel faster than light", He proposes distorting space. Problem is, such a distortion requires huge amounts of energy. If you distort space, you aren't really "super luminal", you could stand still and let space move around you.

Miguel Alcubierre - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

578123

New member
May 14, 2005
53
2
0
#21
Perhaps I'm taking the thread too seriously and being a wet blanket on the conversation :)
the wet blankets are usually are the ones who things get done, but with any distortion to space-time the wavefunction of the distortion is asymptotic to infinity, FTL is possible due to this condition, the distortion is local to the ship but the effect of the distortion on spacetime approach infinity due to the continuity of spacetime
 
Likes: Cosmo