World Science Database
Home Scientists Abstracts Books Events Journals Experiments Topics Index More Find Login
Scientists Interests Profession Websites Notables Countries World Map Recent Memorials Memorial More


Cameron Y. Rebigsol
crebigsol@gmail.com
Tel: 360-433-9215

P.O. Box 872282
Vancouver, WA 98687
United States

Map It

View count: 572
Rebigsol, Cameron Y.     (Easy Link: http://www.worldsci.org/people/Cameron_Rebigsol)
retiree (Retired)

Interests: Relativity, Cosmological Evolution, Solar system Formation, Human Evolution
Nationality: Chinese / USA
Member since: 1998

Related Websites:
Aqua Soil


Books:
Aqua Soil

Abstracts Online:
2000Letters
2000Mathematical Description on Hubble's Law
2009Relativity's Length Measurement Inconsistency
2010Mathematical Inconsistency in Relativity's Original Paper of 1905
2016Relativity Is Self-Defeated(1 of 3) —In Terms of Mathematics
2016Relativity Is Self-Defeated(2 of 3) —In Terms of Physics
2016Relativity Is Self-Defeated(3 of 3) —Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether
2016Newton’s Gravitational Law over Dark Matter
2017The Highly Collimated Jet Streams of Quasars
2017The Solar System Resulted by Random Collision
2016Relativity Is Self-Defeated (3 of 3) - Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether
2017Sunspot Cycle, Gravity, and Magnetism

Event Attendence:
2017-07-19CNPS 2017 International ConferenceConference will attend
2016-07-202nd Annual Chappell Natural Philosophy Society ConferenceConference will attend
2011-07-16Motions of Observable Structures Ruled by Hierarchical Two-body Gravitation in the UniverseVideo Conference
2010-06-25Sagnac Awards BanquetAwards
2010-06-2317th Natural Philosophy Alliance ConferenceConference
2010-06-23Relativity GroupGroup
2000-08-01Physics as a Science IIConference
2000-06-057th Natural Philosophy Alliance ConferenceConference

Biography

Aka Cameron Wong.

Like many retirees, Cameron Rebigsol spends much of his time in continuing activities and studies that he felt interested when he was a youngster but had no chance to put his hands on. They include traveling, ballroom dancing, music, history, social study, evolution, literature, and physics. Usually, jack of many trades ends up with not a single specialty in any trade. In Rebigsol's case, he cannot even say that he has made any sense to himself in any ?trade?, particularly in some topics that he feels he has been so locked out. Among topics that he feels most incompatible in understanding are relativity, evolution, and American democracy. These areas have been monopolized by theories from elites despite inconsistencies and contradictions. Rebigsol feels that new ideas need to be proposed. The few ideas Rebigsol feels earnest in proposing to share are:

  1. Relativity -- Back and forth calculation leads him to believe that this theory only works for situation of zero speed.
  2. Evolution -- All popular theories seem to leave a void in discuss. With this void, modern dominating evolutionists and anthropologists advocate that human beings are all descendants of a ?person? from Africa. Rebigsol feels that basic logic deduction can only discredit this belief in tracing the pedigree of Homo sapiens. Evidence must tell us that our direct primate ancestors started our lineage in water and never completely isolated from water living until this one or two million years (even later for Caucasians' ancestors). African indigenous had no African primate origin; their ancestors were colonists to Africa from non-African world. As to the ancestors of other apes, they started from the treetops not because they originated there, but because they were ?exiled? from the water hometown, where they once shared with our ancestors the same great-grand-ancestors.
  3. American Democracy -- While people believe that democracy is freely practiced in the American society, a new slavery system is underway in the making in America. The force that formulates and pushes forward this new slavery system, while peddling erroneously glamorized low merits, will eventually destroy the great United States of America. The day of devastation should not be too far away unless something can be done. Christians will be seen as the only force that can save America, a Christian country, but they must first unite and set aside the difference between branches and denominations. If they fail to unite, folks, prepare to welcome the Untied States of America.

Rebigsol puts his ideas on these three topics in a book titled Aqua Soil, which also offers a $50,000 award for anyone that can help Rebigsol rescind from believing Relativity as an erroneous theory. Aqua Soil is published by Xlibris in 2009 with ISBN number 978-1-4415-9284-2. Rebigsol has a website, which is: http://www.aquasoil.net/.

Rebigsol also has opinions that are different from those of modern astrophysicists. Mainly, modern astrophysicists believe that our universe begins with the Big Bang. Rebigsol believes that no matter how big the Bang is, once it bangs, its energy contents must be limited by a finite figure.  However, such limitation is not presented in our cosmological observation. Furthermore, if relativity becomes questionable, then concept of light cone should not be there to force people to accept that space and time are dimensions that are created by the Big Bang but have been left over as remnants, not to mention other dimensions that are said created by the same but have collapsed.Of course, if Big Bang is not a reality, then theory concerning how earth is formed should also be reexamined. Rebigsol has presented related ideas in a previous NPA meeting (see titles below) and he plans to publish his ideas in another book in the near future.

Articles:

  • The Baptism of Fire for the Universe [Versus Big Bang] (1994)
  • The Primordial Marriage [Formation of the Solar System] (1994)
  • Mathematical Invalidity of Relativity (1996)

Books by Cameron Y. Rebigsol



View count: 43878
Aqua Soil

by Cameron Y. Rebigsol

Publisher: XLibris

Websites: www.aquasoil.net/
Buy it now

Description

This book renders discussion in depth on human beings' evolution, both biological and cultural. In addition, it offers an award of $50,000 to ask people to help liberating this author from a difficulty that he encounters: Why 0=c (speed of light) can be found with relativity?

Intelligence that includes logical deduction, a mental ability that is uniquely possessed by human beings, has enabled Homo sapiens to dominate the world of living beings for million of years. Without it, human beings should have been the most unfit creatures in the wild. However, through the long history of exploiting this unique ability, human beings have unfortunately accumulated many inaccurate theories, which turn back to torment people themselves. Many of such torments can be so costly that they must even require human beings to spill blood in order to insist such theory.

It appears, so far, human society has three popular but costly theories. They are 1)Socialism for social advocacy; 2) relativity in physics for science study; and 3) straddling across social study and natural science, the theory of evolution about human beings.

The so called Socialism is the number one high cost theory among all of them. One can call it the bloodiest theory, but coated with a robe that is permanently new from some Emperors. Socialism was introduced to people who hope to restrict or even remove all ugliness caused by monopolization of capital. The end result that Socialism brings in, however, is a far bigger ugliness: monopolization of governmental power, or, absolute monopolization of everything, of which capital monopolization is only a tiny constituent. Ignoring both historical facts and logical derivation led by genuine intelligence, but hurdled by human instinct of greed, an overwhelming number of people ceaselessly feel so intoxicated by the Socialist sweet slogan of absolute fairness to everyone. They are so willingly blindfolded themselves to follow the few whose ambition is nothing else but to achieve the goal only tyrants will aim at: absolute monopolization of everything. They must make themselves plunge into a barn of maximal slavery only because they see a smaller monopolization, i.e., the capital monopoly, being intolerable. They don?t know that, with much less effort and much lower cost but higher grade of mentality, they can well put capital monopolization under control and, meanwhile, are able to prevent absolute monopolization from stepping in to enslave them.

The second costly theory is relativity in the science of physics.  Although being way less costly than Socialism, it has been diverting a tremendous amount of time and energy to a waste from enthusiastic youths of more than a generation, who are so anxiously taking part in scientific research with a hope of grasping the insight of a superb intelligence. Unfortunately to these youths, sooner or later, they must wake up to learn that they have been misled for too long by some incurable self contradictions found in this theory. It is so unbelievable that these mathematical contradictions can escape the attention of so many scientists and make them so drunk.   To bring back the true nature of the part of the world that has been masked by relativity, this author posts an award of $50,000 to give relativity an open test. The hope, however, of this author is not to put down this theory; what motivates this author is a belief that truth of nature cannot and should not be compromised. If someday the revelation of these self contradictions is accepted, relativity should still be respected as a chapter of human?s diligent effort in history.  Who can guarantee that he/she will not happen to step on a path pointing at a direction with bigger deviation from the true destination when searching in an unknown world? In particular, with the overwhelming amount of information at the time of decision making pioneered by relativity, such path seemed almost the only choice. Any visitor interested in the $50,000 award posted by this author can click at the button ?$50K award vs. Relativity? on the left to find out more details.

The third costly theory is what we have visualized about evolution. The idea of evolution pioneer by Charles Darwin is not mistaken, but inspiringly revolutionary. Evolution is part of God?s design process about living beings, particularly human beings. What is mistaken is how a dominant population of scholars have visualized the path of evolution that human beings ever walked through. With the illusionary idea that our ancestors once lived in treetops, they even assert that Africa is the only possible land to serve as a cradle for all human origins. Not only logic deduction must refute the ?Out-of Africa? theory, even unearthed fossils and the physical features of all living primates coming together will reject this assertion. Indeed, on the contrary, only acceptance of a concept of ?Into Africa? will lead us to understand why human beings are also found on this land before the era of large scale of modern immigration happens. This concept of ?Into Africa?, together with the ?live fossils? that we found on our faces and limbs and that of all other living primates, must further make us believe that our direct ancestors have never lived on treetops but ?comfortably? in water. As a matter of fact, this concept of water cradle for human origin is nothing new but has been pioneered by few insightful scholars, such as Dr. Elaine Morgan of England, long time ago. This author is so inspired by these pioneers and would like to follow them to relate even more of our physical features to the water cradle of our ancestors.

It must be benefiting to mankind if human beings can have less inaccurate theories to shackle them. Motivated by such a desire, this author publishes the book Aqua Soil. This book deals with both biological and cultural evolution of human beings; this book also offers an award of $50,000 for people to test relativity, in the hope that what is true should come back to be recognized as truth


Papers by Cameron Y. Rebigsol



Letters

(2000)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215
Journal of New Energy, Volume 5, No. 3, pp. 184-186

2000, Physics as a Science II, K?ln, Germany




Mathematical Description on Hubble's Law

(2000)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215

2000, 7th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States
Keywords: Hubble's Law

Lookup: law (61), hubble (8)




Relativity's Length Measurement Inconsistency

(2009)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215





Proceedings of the NPA, Volume 7, pp. 421-427

2010, 17th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Long Beach, CA, United States

Abstract:

1=0? One must feel inconceivable after he found that he is so led by one of the most revered mathematical piece in human history. To expose what is found as an error is to confront, no pleasure but only shock can be found when one feels to be compelled to slip into such a stand. This author wish so much that this 1=0 is a result of his mistaken calculation, but not something led by relativity. However, even setting this inconceivable result aside, calculation via different route shows that zero speed is found to be the only physical state in which special relativity can claim validity for itself; and the equations generated by special relativity can verify just that. It can be found, as demonstrated in the case study presented in this paper, that relativity dismantles the constancy of speed of light, and that relativity ?enables? material points of a moving rod to complete extraordinary distance without time consumption in the process of ?length contraction?.

It is well known that constancy of speed of light is the absolute foundation for this theory to be constructed. If light cannot maintain its constancy on speed, it must be of interest to know what is left to support the validity of this theory. While relativity has equations to forbid the appearance of speed that exceeds the speed of light in nature, the same equations either pushes some speed to exceeding such a speed limit or imposes c/2 as another speed limit. Shouldn't we feel irresistible to ask: Why the key points have been so well camouflaged in the derivation of this theory that it can escape the fine-combing done by so many scientists for more than a century? This author believes it is time for us to answer this question. In presenting this review, this author never ceases to wish some people would come forward to help this author realizing how mistakenly this author has been but relativity's integrity is left unchallengeable. Immeasurable thanks to the people who would spend time to examine this paper, or even to correct this author if he would like to do so, are hereby given in advance.




Mathematical Inconsistency in Relativity's Original Paper of 1905

(2010)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215



Proceedings of the NPA, Volume 7, pp. 416-420

2010, 17th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Long Beach, CA, United States

Abstract:

A criticism has been found quite popular in scientific study that the acceptance of relativity is based on faith. Tragic to relativity, this criticism is found to be supported by the most fundamental equation from relativity's original paper ?On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies? (herein after referred to as The Paper), published in 1905. Believing in relativity, two observers moving with respect to each other may not feel troublesome to accept that they do not have the same time readings regarding the same sequence of events. What must trouble them is to accept whose time reading should have dilated to match the time reading from the other observer. Of course, to someone who has followed relativity well with an unshakable faith, it may be only a simple mathematical matter to find out. However, can relativity really make things so simple for the two observers? With the same principle that relativity allures them to accept the concept of time dilation, relativity also agitates arguments that are equally legitimate between them to disagree with each other. When they finally settle some physical quantities that both can commonly accepted for time comparison, they found relativity has only left them with 1=0. Faiths from each of them toward relativity only end up with confronting each other, as well as confronting with acceptable mathematical rules.



Relativity Is Self-Defeated(1 of 3) —In Terms of Mathematics

(2016)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215
(3 pages)
Keywords: Lorentz factor, speed of light, diameter of the Milky Way, length contraction.

Lookup: speed of light (35), length contraction (3), light (157), speed (58), lorentz (73), length (9), factor (7), milky (2), way (3), contraction (12)

Abstract:

If c = 0 is what a physics theory leads itself to conclude for the speed of light, anyone would reject this theory without question. However, c = 0 is exactly what relativity "impeccably" leads itself to, with its own mathematical derivation. Not only this conclusion must violate a well-known fact c = 300,000 km/sec, which relativity takes as an indispensable assumption for the development of its calculation, but c = 0 thus also directly destroys the Lorentz factor: 1/ [ 1−(v/c)^ 2]^(1/2). How much tolerance can the Lorentz factor have if c = 0 is forced in its denominator? If the Lorentz factor’s validity must be removed, all concepts found in relativity, such as length contraction and time dilation and speed limit brought up by relativity, will no longer find any space to survive in the science world. However, c = 0 is a result that relativity’s derivation inescapably leads itself to. The Lorentz factor is an inevitable and solid mathematical outcome of the phenomena called aberration. Invalidating the Lorentz factor by putting up c=0, relativity must ruin its own validity. To see how the Lorentz factor is inevitably brought up by the aberration of a light source, which is typified by the so called stellar aberration, a reader is cordially invited to visit the other two articles of the same series by this author: Relativity Is Self-Defeated (2 of 3) —in terms of physics, and Relativity Is Self-Defeated (3 of 3)—Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether.




Relativity Is Self-Defeated(2 of 3) —In Terms of Physics

(2016)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215
(6 pages)
Keywords: medium, ether, projectile, frequency shift, aberration, Michelson-Morley experiment, Ives-Stilwell experiment

Lookup: aether (102), medium (14), aberration (16), shift (15), experiment (56), frequency (10), michelson (4)

Abstract:

The velocity addition theorem that witnesses the "impeccability" of relativity is actually an exact declaration rejecting the existence of the physical world fantasized by special relativity. The physical reality brought up by frequency shift related to movement, or the so called Doppler effect, must also ruin the concept of time dilation advocated by relativity. As relativity can only end up invalidating the physical world it promotes, human beings should have good reason to revive the concept of ether that relativity asserts not existing. 

The Michelson-Morley experiment, devised to verify the existence or nonexistence of ether, turns out that it has just placed itself in a wrong environment for its performance. Therefore, this experiment has actually never done anything to confirm or reject the existence of ether. Of course, then, it has never offered any physical evidence that relativity can use as a support. Possibly it is to many people’s surprise that the Ives-Stilwell experiment and stellar aberration are actually physical evidence demolishing the credibility of relativity while they are still thought supporting.




Relativity Is Self-Defeated(3 of 3) —Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether

(2016)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215
(12 pages)
Keywords: frequency shift, ether, stellar aberration, light bulb aberration, Lorentz factor, mirage, mirage section, time dilation, Michelson-Morley experiment, Ives-Stilwell experiment

Lookup: aether (102), stellar aberration (8), time dilation (19), time (100), shift (15), light (157), lorentz (73), experiment (56), stellar (14), frequency (10), aberration (16), factor (7), michelson (4), dilation (23)

Abstract:

The Lorentz factor is an inseparable mathematical outcome of the so called aberration phenomenon. This article will show that the aberration phenomenon, an illusion, potentially appears in all observations in which an observer has movement in relation to the light source that he examines.

Detailed analysis on the true nature of aberration ends up giving us confidence on the existence of ether. Without ether, no aberration of anything is possible. Unfortunately, the conventional explanation of this illusion has been misled even long before the debut of relativity, but relativity, with its miss in calculation, just "legitimizes" the misleading, which then in turn gives relativity physical "evidence" galvanizing the "indisputable" look of relativity.

The conventional explanation about stellar aberration relies heavily on one equation, which is tanβ = v/c, where v is the orbital speed of the earth and c is the speed of light. Simple trigonometry mandates that this equation requires the existence of a right triangle that has a hypotenuse of value of √ c^2 +v^2 > c . During the observation of stellar aberration, on the inertial frame attached to the corresponding telescopes, it is exactly along such a hypotenuse that the light leading to the discovery of the apparent position of the star is found. As such, an observer directly facing the oncoming light traveling inside the telescope cylinder must determine whether the light hitting his eye is traveling at speed c or √ c^2 +v^2  . If the observer has doubt, he can just simply asks himself what if this light is the only light that he ever sees in the world during the time he finds this star. No known reason can support him if he chooses to claim that the light he sees is traveling at speed √ c^2 +v^2 .

A more thorough study on stellar aberration helps us to prove that time as one physical element is absolute; time advancement has nothing to do with any clock movement. The Ives-Stilwell experiment, thought to have helped confirming the nonexistence of ether, turns out to be solid evidence confirming the existence of ether.

With the invalidity of relativity displayed in the articles Relativity Is Self-Defeated (1 of 3) and (2 of 3) by this author, all the upcoming consideration in this article has no need to make separate argument to exclude the interference from relativity




Newton’s Gravitational Law over Dark Matter

(2016)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215
(16 pages)
Keywords: on-axis effect, off-axis effect, dark matter, the Milky Way

Lookup: dark matter (12), matter (67), dark (21), effect (63), milky (2), way (3)

Abstract:

Observation of stellar movement of the Milky Way galaxy shows that celestial objects at distance beyond 10 kpcs from the galactic center appear to move at speed higher than what Newtonian gravitational law predicts and that celestial objects in the inner range at distance between 1 and 8 kpcs from the center appear to move at speed lower than predicted (Please refer to Fig. A in the main text). It appears to a group of people that this phenomenon is suggesting certain failure of the Newtonian gravitational law and that remedy to repair the failure is therefore needed. They mainly propose two ideas as the remedy: (1) dark matter, (2) to modify Newton’s gravitational law.
 
To promote the acceptance of dark matter, it has been popularly advocated that the validity of relativity has enabled the dark matter to exist with unchallengeable legitimacy. A term called space-time fantasized out of relativity plays a key role for dark matter to enjoy a niche where verification never seems able to reach. To reject the existence of dark matter, someone needs first to have relativity refuted. It is so unfortunate to dark matter, however, relativity is exactly a theory that defeats itself, both in terms of mathematical derivation as well as in terms of physical explanation***. Space-time as an independent fourth dimension in the universe does not exist, but space and time as two separate physical elements being absolute can be proven***. If relativity cannot even defend itself, it can only be obvious that it is unable to support the existence of dark matter. Subsequently, the concept of dark matter is refutable.
 
Finding no support from dark matter, this article can only go by the restricted application of the Newton’s gravitational law in exploring the reason governing the speed distribution displayed in Fig. A. However, then, we must encounter the argument that Newton’s law needs to be modified. But how? We will soon find that Newton’s gravitational law can lead someone to have unlimited quantity of dark matter —if it is misapplied.
 
Allowing Newton’s gravitational law to be modified in the science world, we just end up placing ourselves to confront with a school principle that is as ancient as human beings ever have schools: Should a student taking a test be given the flexibility to modify a rule or law from a textbook only because he found this rule or law fails him from arriving at an answer at his satisfaction? In the auditorium of science, we all are students of Mother Nature. Never has she given us the privilege of arrogance with which we can claim that "I have no fault in study. If no answer can be arrived at my satisfaction, it is the fault of the law that I am taught to follow." Nevertheless, Newton’s laws in mechanics study are put up by great minds of many generations including those well respected pioneers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler...besides Newton. It is for sure that we need to have an open mind toward all natural laws that are summarized by human. However, to anyone attempting the modification of a natural law that has been confirmed by numerous practice, he must present the following two indispensable elements before so attempting: (1) miscalculation or mistreatment in the derivation of the law in concern is found, (2) some part of the derivation is found having been decisively misled by irrelevant facts, or inadequate facts, or improperly explained facts. Plunging into modification without presenting these two gravely critical elements is only an excellent expression defining the word recklessness. Frankly, no such attitude should be accepted in any serious business.
 
This article presents several cases needing the scrutiny guided by Newtons gravitational law. After the examination of these few cases, a reader can easily arrive at a conclusion regarding whether the science world has come to a need to modify Newton’s law or a need to modify some people’s attitude of attempting the modification of Newton’s law. Through applying Newton’s law, it also appears to us that the Magellanic Clouds cannot be expected to have been traveling on a close orbit about the Milky Way, but instead, they are only one time visitors to our galaxy. No close orbit means no satellite. It therefore means that the Magellanic Clouds are of no satellite to the Milky Way. Newton’s gravitational law also gives us explanation why two-rotational-arms is a prominently popular phenomenon among rotating galaxies.
 
***Please refer to the following three articles: Relativity is Self-defeated (1 of 3)in terms of mathematics; Relativity is Self-defeated (2 of 3)in terms of physicsRelativity is Self-defeated (3 of 3)Lorentz factor, Aberration, and Ether . All these three articles by Cameron Rebigsol are presented in the CNPS conference of July 20-23, 2016.



The Highly Collimated Jet Streams of Quasars

(2017)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215

2017, CNPS 2017 International Conference

Abstract:

Basic facts common to quasars:

  1. Highly compact both in mass and energy,
  2. Having a super massive material center,
  3. Excluding the material center, the general existence of mass is in a state of plasma,
  4. Rapidly spinning,
  5. Periodical variation in luminosity,
  6. Highly remotely located from Earth with high value of red shift.

In addition to the above common facts, a high percentage of quasars are also found containing jet streams. The strange thing is that the jet always comes in a set, with one from the set pointing in the opposite direction of the other, and both jets are highly collimated.

As far as we know on Earth, to create highly collimated beams of light or particles, technology must rely on lenses; be they optical, mechanical, or electrostatic. Beams that can travel even in the order of millions of light years and still retain their high collimation in many cases should be beyond what artificial lens can handle, let alone that the lens must be able to withstand the destructively high energy that the lens must let through.

As a thumb of rule, the higher the energy content is found in any physical entity, the higher chance of randomness is associated with this entity. Special filtering mechanism must be present for orderly output of anything to come out of this entity. Without a lens-like arrangement, how would the jet stream of a quasar stay highly collimated and remain in pair? Could this pairing have anything to do with the quality of collimation in our interest? In other words, must the collimation rely on some mechanism that produces the pairing? Or, if no pairing were to be present, would the jet stream not be formed at all? In nature, action and reaction always coexist, so do matter and anti-matter, as well as electric and magnetic poles. How should we relate the phenomenon shown by the jet pair of opposite directions from the philosophical aspect in terms of physical interaction?

In modern science, when high energy and high speed are involved, it has been so natural for a big number of science workers to apply Einstein's Theory of Relativity to explain many puzzles about which classic physics seems lead them to no solution. What is odd is that the jet streams from blazars, a special group of quasars, boldly present superluminal movement in our observation. To those who trust relativity, they say superluminal movement so detected is only a mirage, an illusion. Obviously, quasars, with their extraordinarily high energy content, have challenged us with this dilemma: Should this superluminal movement serve as physical evidence to topple the validity of relativity, or should we once again allow our mental work to contort what we observe as illusion? Are we sure we should forever let our mental work overpower the physical world?




The Solar System Resulted by Random Collision

(2017)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215

2017, CNPS 2017 International Conference

Abstract:

Hubble's Law is conventionally expressed with v=H_0 D, where $v$ is the recessional speed of a celestial object, usually a galaxy, $D$ is the distance between an observer and the recessing object, and H_0 is the so called Hubble's constant. However, while this equation does give a straight line diagram between $v$ and $D$ , no publication is found to have given convincing argument regarding what has led H_0 to be resulted. In other words, v=H_0 D is only a convenient summary of phenomenon, but hardly an equation led to by genuine physical analysis.




Relativity Is Self-Defeated (3 of 3) - Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether

(2016)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215

Abstract:

The Lorentz factor is an inseparable mathematical outcome of the so called aberration phenomenon. This article will show that the aberration phenomenon, an illusion, potentially appears in all observations in which an observer has movement in relation to the light source that he examines.

Detailed analysis on the true nature of aberration ends up giving us confidence on the existence of ether. Without ether, no aberration of anything is possible. Unfortunately, the conventional explanation of this illusion has been misled even long before the debut of relativity, but relativity, with its miss in calculation, just "legitimizes" the misleading, which then in turn gives relativity physical "evidence" galvanizing the "indisputable" look of relativity.

The conventional explanation about stellar aberration relies heavily on one equation, which is tan(beta) = v/c, where v is the orbital speed of the earth and c is the speed of light. Simple trigonometry mandates that this equation requires the existence of a right triangle that has a hypotenuse of value of sqrt(c^2+v^2) > c . During the observation of stellar aberration, on the inertial frame attached to the corresponding telescopes, it is exactly along such a hypotenuse that the light leading to the discovery of the apparent position of the star is found. As such, an observer directly facing the oncoming light traveling inside the telescope cylinder must determine whether the light hitting his eye is traveling at speed c or sqrt(c^2+v^2) . If the observer has doubt, he can just simply asks himself what if this light is the only light that he ever sees in the world during the time he finds this star. No known reason can support him if he chooses to claim that the light he sees is traveling at speed sqrt(c^2+v^2).

A more thorough study on stellar aberration helps us to prove that time as one physical element is absolute; time advancement has nothing to do with any clock movement. The Ives-Stilwell experiment, thought to have helped confirming the nonexistence of ether, turns out to be solid evidence confirming the existence of ether.

With the invalidity of relativity displayed in the articles Relativity Is Self-Defeated (1 of 3) and (2 of 3) by this author, all the upcoming consideration in this article has no need to make separate argument to exclude the interference from relativity.




Sunspot Cycle, Gravity, and Magnetism

(2017)

Cameron Y. Rebigsol
P.O. Box 872282, Vancouver, WA 98687, United States; crebigsol@gmail.com, 360-433-9215

2017, CNPS 2017 International Conference

Abstract:

No material we know of on Earth can withstand the temperature of nearly 6,000k found on the surface of the Sun and still stay in one stable structure as how the sunspots show. The heaviest element Osmium has a mass density of  22.6 g/cm^3 with a boiling point of 5285k, above which no one stable piece of osmium can be found. The next material found with higher mass density is neutron stars. All these potentially lead us to believe that sunspots are composed of material of mass density far higher than osmium. But what is its material nature?

With volumes that can reach even 1,000 times of that of the Earth, together with the unusually high mass density, the sunspots must have response to the gravitational influence from all the planets conspicuously different from the fluidic materials in their environment. The gravitational influence from the planets on the Sun is just an inescapable reciprocal response to the gravitational force from the Sun onto the planets. Therefore, as part of the Sun, the sunspots must be responsible of the exertion of the influence as well as sharing the corresponding reciprocal response from the planets.

When the size of the sunspot is mentioned in our study, we have been getting used to a concept that is portrayed by terms like contract, expand, and decay. If gravitational influence from the planets cannot be excluded in a reasonable speculation, we may have to include one more concept that is portrayed by the term ``buoyancy". As such, the visual effect of contracting in our view happens when a sunspot sinks deeper and deeper below the Sun's surface, whereas the visual effect of expanding happens when the sunspot resurfaces and exposes itself more and more in our view. So, given the unusually high mass density of the sunspots, true decaying of them in the sense of material integrity may not be a reality that our study can pursue.

Looking at whether the sunspots should have response to the gravitational influence from the planets, we cannot escape from the awareness of two numbers that are very close in value. One of them is the more or less than 11 year beat of the rhythm shown by the maximum and minimum of the sunspot population; the other is the 11.86 year period of Jupiter's orbital movement. In case the gravity of Jupiter does have influence on the cycle of sunspots, what about other planets? Further, we must be aware of that the Sun's spinning axis tilts by an angle of 7.5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, but when a solar maximum begins, the initial few spots always show up near the 45 degrees latitude, north or south. Will the Sun's axial tilt also play a role in affecting the sunspot cycle?

Documents show that the Sun's magnetic field strength distributes itself differently across the surface of the Sun. At its polar field, the strength is found to be 1-2 gauss, whereas it is typically 3,000 gauss in areas where sunspots populate, and 10-100 gauss in solar prominences. Such field strength distribution thus reveals to us the following typical features: (1) the field strength at areas near the equator is far stronger than that near the polar area; (2) while the field is strong near the equator, it is further concentrated at where the sunspots show up; (3) number of the sunspots in our vision displays no direct proportional relationship with the overall strength at where they show up; (4) that 10-100 gauss is found in solar prominences conversely means that the field strength of each sunspot is comparatively weak until some chance is introduced together with a prominence.

Features (1) and (2) can be hypothetically realized by such an arrangement: A strong magnetic bar is placed deep below the surface of the Sun and this bar always has its pole pointing at about the equator, but never at either of the Sun's poles. Feature (3) removes the possibility that the strong magnetic strength near the equator is solely contributed by the sunspots; therefore this reasoning further emboldens a believing that a separate magnetic source other than the sunspots owns this strong field. Being not the source, however, the sunspots' appearance can serve as an index to help tracing how this source has been moving. Is it only coincidence that sunspot never appears at the pole where the magnetic strength is so weak? Feature (4) further witnesses that each sunspot is a weak magnet compared to the one hypothetically assumed existing far below the Sun's surface.

Reasoning in this article based on observation leads to a believing that the Sun is consisted of three basic material layers: (1) the out-most layer, which, in a state of plasma, is the layer in our daily view, and shall be called the fluidic crust of the Sun in this article; (2) deep below this crust is a zone that hosts the absolute major thermonuclear reactions of the Sun; (3) further below the nuclear reaction zone is the core body of the Sun, a spheroidal volume of exceedingly high mass density. This spheroidal dense volume shall be called the yolk of the Sun in this article. This yolk is embraced by numerous nuclear reactions, which happen all over on the yolk's surface in an isotropic manner with respect to the center of the Sun. Floating on this dense massive yolk is a gigantic magnetic material body MMB), which should have contained no less mass than all the sunspots put together, and its material nature should be essentially the same as that of the sunspots.

Floating on the yolk with mass far exceeding what our Earth has, this MMB cannot escape from the governing action exerted on it by the gravitational force from the planets, particularly Jupiter. Being a gigantic magnetic carrier, its whereabouts must in turn orchestrate the debuting and hibernation of the population of those magnetic sunspots through magnetic reaction. In comparison to this giant MMB, each sunspot is merely a magnet droplet, even if such droplet may reach a volume as big as 1000 times of the Earth. From this thread of reasoning, let's further pursue how the MMB and each sunspot are to form various magnetic "tube" that guides the appearance of prominence, solar flare, and subsequently the coronal mass ejection.


hotmail iniciar sesion hotmail inicio de sesion