## See: BOOK: The Disturbance Theory

Let’s start from the beginning. The theory of relativity started with the observation that Space and Time cannot be absolute and independent.

Einstein then postulated ‘c’ to provide a precise relationship between Space and Time. You may call it “speed of light” or a constant ratio between wavelength (space) and period (time). This leads to a combined entity “spacetime”.

The use of separate units for space (meter) and time (seconds) has generated confusion because space and time cannot be measured separately and absolutely when relatively is taken into account. We cannot use separate units for space and time. We must have a single unit for “spacetime”.

Since the ratio of wavelength to period is postulated to be the constant ‘c’, that single unit for spacetime has to be “frequency”.

This provides a relationship between spacetime and energy. This is the starting point of Disturbance Theory, which asserts that Spacetime and Energy cannot be absolute and independent.

The Disturbance Theory may simply be stated thus,

**Space is an undisturbed field of (theoretical) zero frequency. This space is the elusive aether. Light propagates as a disturbance in this space. Time is bound by a constant wavelength to period ratio in this disturbance.**

The Disturbance theory uses “frequency” as a measure of motion (energy) in spacetime. This leads to a spectrum that defines electromagnetic, electronic, and nuclear fields as characteristics generated by increasing frequency. In this definition we also have an atomic structure that is continuous with space.

Inertia is a property of frequency. Inertia increases with frequency. When very high frequency collapses as mass in the nucleus, inertia becomes the property of mass.

By equating space-time with energy-mass, Disturbance Theory hopes to bring about an interpretation that combines the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics into a unified theory.

.

## Comments

The theory of relativity compares transportation of matter to transportation of energy. Is this comparable?

I understand what “rigid” means and that is why I am using that word. Our conditioned senses extend the sense of rigid from physical objects to space, which brings forth the idea of measuring rods to measure distances in space.

I also understand that a “reference frame” does not describe a physical object. But when x- and y-coordinates are use to describe physical distances as if measured by “measuring rods” then one has to wonder about the conditioning.

I see this conditioning underlying the Theory of Relativity. The only part of the theory of relativity that is correct is that Space and Time are not absolute and independent of each other. But I am very suspicious of the use of Lorentz Factor.

The above response is on the following thread on quora.

https://www.quora.com/The-theory-of-relativity-assumes-space-in-each-inertial-frame-of-reference-to-be-rigid-Is-this-assumption-consistent-with-reality

.

Also some other of my responses on the above thread are:

“Space is not material but it is physical. It has definite values of permittivity and permeability. I believe that the elasticity of space is tied with electromagnetic frequency. The math should be simple.”

.

“What is missing is the proper description of the elasticity of space. It is my conjecture that space is completely elastic at near zero frequencies of the disturbance in it, and it is very rigid in the upper range of gamma frequencies.

It is only in the gamma range of frequencies that this rigidity becomes appreciable. Below those frequencies it is very elastic, and this elasticity increases with decreasing frequency.

I think it is about time that I use math to check this out.”

.

“The basic idea is that the illusory aether is space itself [as described in the Disturbance Theory].”

V:”I believe that the elasticity of space is tied with electromagnetic frequency.”

I agree. Now, what geometric form would the space most likely take to manifest this property?

I get a picture of alternating electrical and magnetic fields. Euclidean geometry comes into picture only in upper ranges of gamma frequencies where mass is formed. It does not exist for lower frequencies in space.

V:”It does not exist for lower frequencies in space.”

Why not? There should be a consistency of geometry from the bottom (zero frequency) to the top.

Center of mass is the property of material objects. The electromagnetic field is a physical object but it is not a material object. The electromagnetic field does not have a center of mass.

Einstein’s inertial frame applies to material objects. It does not apply to electromagnetic fields. Einstein’s inertial reference frame cannot be applied to the speed of light as attempted by the theory of relativity.

The theory of relativity brings the conditioning of the human mind into focus.

V:”The electromagnetic field does not have a center of mass.”

Sure, the EM

fielddoesn’t have a center of mass (if there even is an EM field of uniform background character), but a propagating EM photon may be a different thing. It all comes down to the model for space and the mechanism of propagation. If your model can quantize space then it should also permit EM propagation by transfer of momentum between space quanta.Propagation of EM across vacuum-space quanta does not need to involve gravity until you reach frequencies at the top end of gamma. Beyond gamma, as you have also speculated, condensation to matter occurs. At that point we now have a need for a “center of mass” and quantized gravity will manifest iitself.

In my view, photon exists only during energy interactions. Otherwise, there is only electromagnetic wave propagation. It is difficult to picture that space, because it is not hard or rigid like Euclidean space except in upper ranges of gamma radiation.

Space is rigid only near the surface of material objects. Otherwise, it is quite elastic. When we extend Einstein’s measuring rod into space, the space becomes rigid only near the surface of the measuring rod.

.

Here is a graphic of phase velocity.

The “speed” of light is a phase velocity.

Here are some challenges that the Disturbance Theory needs to overcome.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Space-Time-absolute-and-independent-of-Energy-Matter

.

How can we show the following:

1. Space is energy-elastic or that it can hold varying degrees of stress-energy.

2. Particles are not isolated systems from its native inertial frame.

3. Particles are themselves made of smaller point particles (neutral charge and gravitationally attractive, hint — dark matter).

4. Space is discrete units that can overlap, are expanding, and each contain a set number of point particles.

Speed of light seems to be very high in space because of total absence of inertia and not because of high elasticity.

The speed of any wave depends upon the properties of the medium through which the wave is traveling. Typically there are two essential types of properties that affect wave speed – inertial properties and elastic properties.

Elastic properties are those properties related to the tendency of a material to maintain its shape and not deform whenever a force or stress is applied to it.

High elasticity (rigidity) = high speed

Inertial properties are those properties related to the material’s tendency to be sluggish to changes in its state of motion. Thus, a sound wave will travel nearly three times faster in Helium than it will in air. This is mostly due to the lower mass of Helium particles as compared to air particles.

Low inertia (sluggishness) = high speed

Electromagnetic waves travel in the medium of space. Because the speed of light is so high, space must have high elasticity and low inertia. It seems that elasticity of space is fixed by the values of permeability and permittivity, and the inertia of space is zero.

But I have a suspicion that frequency plays a part in determining the speed of light, specially in the upper ranges of gamma frequency.

Somehow, inertia comes into picture with high frequency.

.

As I understand, from the viewpoint of philosophy the universe is a harmonious and consistent whole. Therefore, anything that appears disharmonious and inconsistent points to missing knowledge.

Quantum theory is simply a mathematical description of a part of the universe that is missing an interpretation that could be called consistent with reality. Same can be said for the theories of relativity, which is no less mathematical.

This points to something missing in the knowledge of mathematics itself. Is the universe fundamentally discrete or continuous?

Here are some of my thoughts.

https://vinaire.me/2016/01/18/mathematics-and-reality/

.

In the Subjective Universes (Minds), Time is independent of Space. It is SEQUENCE. (Mental concepts, ideas and creations have no space except that separation generated by the mind to simulate Objective positioning and accomplish differentiation.)

Does this enter in, in the One “Objective” (Physical) Universe? No, unless you consider Time to be a theoretical absolute (Space being the other – between which absolutes space and time interweave).

The possibility of this being the case is found in examination of the Uncertainty Principle…

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html

…which may also account for “miracles” in which natural laws governing the space-time continuum are ever-so-slightly “bent” to accomplish a seemingly impossible task (like lifting a huge piano to help someone escape death by fire).

Mental concepts are semi-structured consciousness. The outer form of semi-structured consciousness per extended Disturbance Theorry is the electronic field that has frequency characteristics. Space and time occurs in ratio ‘c’ in such frequency.

This is consistent with the post above.