Explaining Electromagnetic Fields in Terms of Relativity

The presence of matter literally dilates space itself, as explained in general relativity. If you were to hypothetically take a long tape measure through the diameter of the Earth, that distance would be slightly greater than what you would predict if you took the Earth’s circumference at the equator divided by pi. This is because the Earth mass is denser towards the center than out by the crust, and this excess mass dilates space – in a sense it literally almost generates space.

Although, the increase in Earth’s diameter isn’t too significant, only a few millimeters greater than what we would get if we took the length of the Earth’s equator divided by pi; however, in the case of the sun, the diameter is several kilometers greater than what it should be.

What does this tell us about space? The nature of space is easily explained by Einstein’s relativity, and we can understand how space itself could literally be dilated by going back to the old Einsteian thought experiment considering an observer in free fall: if you were hypothetically in free fall, falling down an endless hole, but the hole had no walls, and there was nothing but darkness, how would you know you were falling? Without there being anything at all to have a relative position to, there is no way to differentiate between falling, flying, or standing still. Things like location are only relative.

What does this tell us about space? Our preconceptions about the notion of ‘space’ are wrong; there are no locations, only relations. What is space then? There is no grid of space, no coordinate plane; there is no real “distance” between things. But this has further implications that I believe explain phenomenon such as electromagnetic fields: if there is nothing between two objects, then there is no distance between them. What appears to be empty space must actually contain ‘something’, and space itself must be ‘something’ - more than likely, space is actually made up of residual radiation, probably dark energy.

Now, what happens when matter propagates through space? Since space must consist of “something”, this “something” must be pushed out of the way by matter as it propagates, since two “things” can not occupy the same location simultaneously (as there is no objective ‘location’). Therefore, when matter propagates through space, it doesn’t actually pass through space, rather it pushes space out of the way.

This “pushing” of space is quite possibly what leads to the phenomenon of electromagnetic repulsion. Whatever “space” is, it has to be “something”, and an object with mass would have to push its way through that “something” in order to propagate. When two pieces of matter come within proximity of each other, their act of “pushing” space causes them to literally push space between each other as they travel, leading to the observed effect of repulsion.

How do we explain electromagnetic attraction then? Or electrons, and other objects with a negative charge? This is more complicated to explain, but I believe I can propose an explanation, again in terms of relativity. Lets consider the nature of light and energy: an electron and a positron (an anti-electron) are known to annihilate each other upon contact with each other, and this annihilation results in the creation of a photon, or rather, we could think of the positron and the electron as combining to form a photon. It is also known that a photon will occasionally separate into an electron/positron pair, shortly before they annihilate each other and return to being a photon - this suggests an implication to the nature of light and energy itself. What is energy? We will struggle to come up with any sort of explanation that doesn’t refer to concepts like velocity, movement, or mass - all of which are relative. If everything that constitutes energy can only be expressed as relative measurements, then energy itself must be relative; what else could energy be, other than the whole of its properties and effects? Force constants, such as the speed of light, are only relative constants. The speed of light was only ever considered “constant” locally, which is tantamount to being relative, if on a macroscopic scale light can travel faster than other light - all light travels at the same speed locally just as all matter has the same mass locally, as being “local” would imply that it is under the same relative conditions and therefore has the same mass, since a measurement of mass is just an expression of matter’s varying relative energy (as mass and energy are equivalent).

Since energy is relative, the only variation between different objects must be quantitative. Since all matter and energy in our universe was once in a singularity before the big bang, any true variation between objects in our universe is determined by how they deviated from the singularity as a result of the singularity’s schism; or to put it more simply, the amount of steps it underwent as a result of the singularity’s schism. Objects with opposite charges (electrons and protons for example) merely have a differing or possibly opposite geometric affect on space, which leads to the phenomenon of attraction; and the appearance of a field is due to the illusory nature of space.

Is it the space that is dilating, or merely the objects within it?

Try this one out; Stopped Clock Paradox.

It’s not actually space that’s dilating, because there is no space. Rather, the perceived ‘dilation’ is an innate consequence of the nature of matter itself when in relation to other matter.

I can’t really put it into a concrete statement for you, but I can tell you with certainty that In the case of celestial bodies with denser cores than surfaces, such as stars, the true diameter of the celestial body is going to be greater than the true length of the equator divided by pi. The easiest way to visualize this is to imagine taking a long tape measure through the center of a star, and then measuring that star’s equator with the same tape measure. The diameter is going to end up being greater than the circumference (equator) divided by pi. Yes, this is extremely counter-intuitive. Yes, it throws our belief in the Euclidean dimensions right out the window.

There is no location, only relations. This also explains the paradox of wave particle duality. The double slit experiment for example, where an electron or small particle demonstrates the bizarre act of first behaving like a wave as it passes through both slits, then behaving like a particle again as it hits the back wall behind the slits.

Those electrons or small particles in the double slit experiment only seemed to be violating logic because of our flawed perception of space; the electron or small particle travels in such a way that it is “filling in” the spaces between whatever objects/particles/whatever that surround it. Remember, there is no space or location, only relations – so the electron or small particle is merely somewhere ‘inbetween’ whatever surrounds it, and has no definite location; it is only after the electron has become committed to an interaction that we can say “the electron must have ended up here”. Interacting with something could be thought of in a way as bottle-necking the route of the electron or small particle. Again, the illusory nature of space. From the electron or small particle’s frame of reference, all of its possible end locations on the back wall behind the slits were right next to each other – since during the act of traveling through both slits simultaneously as a wave, it never had an interaction that committed it to one slit or the other, and the “space” between the two slits didn’t even exist to the electron, because space is illusory.

And as for that stopped clock paradox, that’s concerning special relativity, and doesn’t really have anything to do with the dilation of space (which is explained by general relativity); special relativity just explains the consequences of the speed of light being locally constant…When people talk about such paradoxes in special relativity, they usually neglect to mention that the paradox isn’t paradox at all, it’s just a visual illusion resulting from light being emitted requiring time to travel between observers.
General relativity is where the real Einsteinian mind games begin, as it throws into question the nature of space itself, claims that gravity between massful objects is just a result of their effect on the innate geometry of space-time. In other words, gravity isn’t a force. Rather; the reason objects gravitate towards other objects is because the warping of space-time between the objects limits the options the object has for directions to travel in; there is literally ‘more options for travel’, or what we observe as more space, in the direction of other matter. And yes, it is actually as creepy and paradoxical as it sounds, unlike those wannabe special relativity paradoxes.

“There is no space”??

Well, the first time you said that was better and admirable that you noted it. But this time, you said “the true diameter…”

Where did you get this “true” concept? :confused:

Oh, I completely agree with the results that you point out. I understand the reasons a bit differently than you, but I agree with your asserted results.

Well, I can’t go along with that one exactly. QM is a trick of language. If you don’t learn their twist in language, they mislead you and say things that were not what they saw.

What goes “through both slits” is merely the calculated probability function in the form of a sinusoidal wave. It is not a physical object, merely a calculated graph. The “wave that collapses” is merely the computation because new information gets put into the equation, thus the graph wave collapses, again, nothing physical.

Quantum physicists love to create the ontology that has any possibility of an event as a real physical entity, rather than merely a mental entity, a thought. They support the notion that reality is only what you think… totally subjective.

And I’m not saying anything new really, I’m just fully realizing the implications of Einstein’s relativity when applied to subatomic particles. What I am proposing though is that the equations we have for the subatomic forces such as electromagnetism can not be unified with equations in general relativity, because those subatomic forces are just an extended effect resulting from the same space-time warping phenomenon which causes gravity.

Matter warps space. On a macroscopic scale, this yields gravity. On a subatomic scale, matter warping space causes either attraction or repulsion depending on the quantitative value of the matter in question, as the intrinsic geometric effect matter has on surrounding space depends on which particle it is.

In the same way that electron orbitals form around the nucleus in distinct arrangements depending on quantity, so does the manner that matter warps space depending on the type of particle. And I’m not sure how exactly the bending of space changes intrinsically depending on the particle, but it might just be that the intrinsic geometric properties of a particle cause it to have a higher or lower affinity for certain particles than others.

For example, different quarks might literally just have a different geometrical shape compared to other different type quarks (but we obviously have no way of observing what these shapes actually are) and these varying shapes cause certain quarks to fit together like puzzle pieces, which formed the hadrons.

You’ve got to give me a little bit of leeway. Here let me boil it down so we’re only dealing with perfect circles: imagine you draw a perfect circle with a circumference exactly equal to Pi meters. There is at least one massful particle within the perimeter of that circle. Therefore, the circle’s diameter will end up being measured greater than the the circumference divided by pi.

No, in the double slit experiment they really are saying that the electron/small particle had to pass through both slits, neither, one, and the other, simultaneously in superposition, because of the interference pattern that will result on the back wall behind the slits. And this really means that, from our frame of reference, the electron/small particle defied logic and space by behaving first as a wave and then as a particle. This is much less confusing and easier to accept when we know that space itself is illusory, and from the electron or small particle’s frame of reference, the only objects in its spatial proximity were the ones it was able to interact with. But from our frame of reference, it seems that the electron or small particle must have been in multiple places simultaneously.

This doesn’t explain the presence of an interference pattern.

Well… I don’t believe in “warping space”. Space is a defined ontological entity, a concept. It doesn’t “warp”, only the minds of the people trying to warp it. It is like saying that red is blue under the right circumstances. It is a violation of epistemology that leads to irrational conclusions (as QP has exampled).

And speaking of Relativity, did you look at the Stopped Clock Paradox issue? It seems to reveal a serious problem for the entire notion of relativity.

As far as what causes gravity, I already have all of that very well understood in different terms, not requiring the “warping of space”, nor relativity, nor quantum weirdness… and also the cause for particles to form, their polarity and behavior, and just about everything involved in the subatomic world. Yet I never had to warp anything nor consider everything to be merely relative. All measurements are certainly relative to whatever they are being measured against, but the physical universe is not subjective, altering with every thought or measurement so as to fit Man’s naivety. He language alters. His thoughts alter. Reality doesn’t (except for the current state involving the reality of Man’s psychosis).

THEY explain the interference pattern in the double slit by declaring that a particle IS a wave that just happens to be exactly what is necessary to cause the interference pattern and then prove that mathematically, it would produce that pattern. They are actually “affirming the consequent” or “begging the question”, logically speaking.

"How do you know that the particle is a wave? "
“Because if it is a wave, then it will produce the pattern that we see.”

The biggest problem is that what they are calling a “wavefunction” is merely a probability of detection calculation. That function produces a wave graph that spreads out in front of the source and passes through both slits. Where that calculation comes back together at the screen, the probabilities are added (“superposition”) so as to produce the probability of seeing the pattern that they see.

The “begged” question is then, “why is the probability of detection a wave function to begin with?”

You don’t have to believe it, it doesn’t change the fact that there is apparently “more space” towards the center of celestial bodies like planets and stars. If you don’t want to call it space warping, you can call it whatever you want. I’m taking it a step further and saying that space doesn’t even exist and that’s why it seems like space is violating itself and becoming dilated. There is only individual particles and whatever is in their immediate spatial proximity; on a macroscopic scale, the relations between all those individual particles causes the Euclidean dimensions to appear, with a bizarre phenomenon of gravitation occurring between massful objects in the Euclidean plane.

If you want to explain gravity, you have to break faith in the Euclidean dimensions. They aren’t actually there, they only appear to be there macroscopically

That paradox is concerning special relativity, not general relativity which is what we are talking about. GR explains gravity as an effect of the curvature of spacetime; SR explains the optical effect resulting from light requiring time to travel between observers.

Then please tell us how you understand gravity; I’m probably going to point out that either: A) your explanation is impossible or B) is just another way of wording that the presence of mass dilates space.

I don’t know why that is so scary: mass dilates space. Up, down, left, and right are only consistent locally.

Have you considered that perhaps your tape measure (and anything else you might want to use) is smaller in the midst of a strong gravitational field?

If your tape measure shrinks (and they profess that it does), then your measure will always show that the diameter is larger than what you would see from the outside. No relativity required. No warping of space required, merely the shrinking of matter, just as they properly profess that it does.

…and with a great deal of explanation, I can even tell you why it does.

And no, I don’t.
Why do you presume such a thing?

And btw, if SR does really work, neither can GR.

I’d also like to point out that general relativity and the notion of spacetime ‘dilating’ are not just one possible explanation out of many for explaining gravity, rather we know it to be true from empirical evidence. The predictions general relativity makes are consistent with all experimental results to date.

Also, the notion of there being literally “more space” towards the center of celestial bodies is predicted by the same equations used to make other predictions of general relativity that were consistent with all experimental results to date; we merely lack experimental results for that one point because there’s currently no way for us to measure the distance through the exact center of the sun.

People have been predicting things accurately for thousands of years (amongst all of their inaccurate predictions that you don’t hear about until the politics changes). It is well known that an accurate prediction is NOT verification of an accurate theory.

Accurate predictions merely testify that your theory is not necessarily wrong - the limit of the scientific method.

My understanding concerning gravity come from Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology and are based on logically indisputable facts. But even more, I have built a “metaspace” emulator just to verify my reasoning. The results were even better than I was expecting (after it correcting one error that I had made).

Gravity is formed by what you could envision as extremely, extremely small wavelets of EM, so chaotically dispersed that they express no over all charge, either positive or negative. But down on and extremely small scale, they are merely electromagnetic wavelets. Those wavelets cause mass particles to MIGRATE toward each other. The particles are made of those wavelets. That is what “mass” is. The particles literally rebuild themselves constantly and more so toward the stronger field of those wavelets - the other mass particle.

And that is why gravity exists. I can prove all of the details, if you have the time, interest, and patience.

Smaller relative to what? The reason I’m using a tape measure for an example is because its physical and remains the same size relative to itself locally.

If you don’t like the tape measure example, then consider we measure the time it takes for an electromagnetic signal that is hypothetically able to travel through the Earth without being blocked by it, and then use the speed of light to figure out the distance. That distance through center is going to be greater than the circumference divided by pi whether you use a magic tape measure, an electromagnetic signal, or any other conceivable way of measuring the distance through the center of a planet/star

Then tell me how you explain gravity.
And that SR “paradox” has nothing to do with gravity at all. That clock paradox is pointing out how the passage of time changes for an object traveling at relativistic speeds, and has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. The flow of time is also altered in a gravity well, and that also ties in with distance being altered in a gravity well; hence “spacetime”, as they are both intertwined. If it takes something longer to travel from point A to point B then that increase in travel time is indistinguishable from an increase in distance.

You don’t need to consider special relativity at all for explaining gravity, all you need to explain gravity is the notion that all location is relative, and a direct consequence of that is gravity.

Everything always stays the same size relative to itself.

You were comparing a measurement made from the outside of a sphere across its center versus a measurement made with a tape measure inside that same sphere. That is what I am talking about. When the tape measure is brought into the mass center, it shrinks compared to what it was and would be seen as from outside.

I gave an extremely brief explanation in the last post concerning gravity. The real question is whether you really want to read all of the details.

In graph form, it looks something like this;

An emulation of the principles involved produces something more like this;

Imagine you have point A, B, C, and D, but there is no coordinate grid and the only way to describe the location of one point is by making comparisons to other points, like “point A is farther away from point B than point C)”. Now, instead of just 4 points, imagine you have a point for every “thing” in the universe. Now, keep in mind that there is no grid, and the only way to express location is by making comparisons.
Now, whatever comparisons we can make in that manner for an individual object is all the ‘location’ that object has.
So, plot this out on a macroscopic scale, and the effect of gravitation is inherent for any moving object. An object will tend to gravitate towards other objects when it travels. Since all matter above a temperature of 0 degrees kelvin experiences a constant Zitterbewegung (trembling), matter will begin to noticeably “fall” in the direction of other matter if the mass of the other matter is significant enough

So do you want to debate relativity or gravity first? They are very different things although there really is a relationship involved. The relationship between the two concerns is not what defines what they are nor causes them to be what they are.

This is largely an issue of ontology (your “points A, B, C, and D”).

What I meant was you could take such a hypothetical tape measure, measure the distance through the center of the Earth, and then use that same tape measure to measure the Earth’s circumference and know it was not a fault of the measuring device.

It doesn’t get smaller; what you are actually trying to describe here is space dilation. Since there is more space towards the center of a celestial body, you could in a way think of objects entering that dilated space as getting smaller; but smaller denotes a change in local volume – as soon as the tape measure left out the other side, it would be the same size as when it entered.

What you’re saying would be the same as saying, “objects that are far away appear small because they got smaller”

Well, I’m going to go dig for the math and post that so we can’t argue words and semantics

Here, johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/stcurve.pdf
It goes on for several more pages than whats in the quote below, I just don’t feel like copy/pasting it all


One thing that’s ironic about that is that the Einstein field equation in general relativity uses pi, even though the theory then points out that using pi to find out the circumference or diameter of circle won’t yield accurate results in reality.

So I take it that you want to debate relativity first?

Posting the words of other people doesn’t get us away from potential semantics issues. We have to agree on the meaning of the words we choose to use ourselves.

For example;
Standing outside the Sun and measuring its diameter with an extremely long measuring rod, from the outside, I would get one reading, “X”. And then if I let the rod, affixed at that size, fall into the Sun, assuming that it didn’t burn up of course, by the time it got to the center of the Sun, it would no longer reach from edge to edge.

By definition, the rod “shrank”.

Isn’t that true?