No Preferred Frame
Aether
Maxwell’s equations are well known, but many scientists seems to have forgotten that these equations describe an aether. Maxwell translated the works of Faraday into mathematical form, and found thereby a value c on the speed of light. However, his theory is not complete, since he could not say what this speed was related to. Since we regard light to be a wave motion, we need an aether to define light’s state of motion, v. However, we do not know the value of v. We have failed in our efforts to identify v as a frame entrained by our planet, and also as an autonomous frame. These mistakes has opened the way for an absurd idea that light speed should take the same value in all inertial frames.
As a consequence of these mistakes it seems logical to test a more general concept, namely a field, v(r), instead of a frame. Since Maxwell found the wave equation by means of a second order differential equation it is logical to expect the general solution, c, to be completed with a constant (in relation to time) of integration, v(r). There is no logical reason stating that v(r) must be a frame. The complete solution is c+v(r), dependent on the aether wind. There is a very important advantage with representing aether wind with a field, namely the fact that such an aether wind can explain gravity. Another advantage is that such an aether wind can approach zero far away from our planet, meaning that our planet does not have to entrain the aether in the whole Universe. This makes the theory more realistic.
Although vector addition is allowed between c and v(r) we must remember that these two concepts are very different. c represents a process, but v(r) is a motion. Interferometers, cavities and light clocks have parallel mirrors defining boundary conditions that are relevant for the wave motion c, but not for the aether wind v(r). This means that the wave vector c is forced to be oriented ortogonal to the mirrors. The wave fronts in standing waves are therefore always parallel to defining mirrors, and aether wind blowing inside the plane of the mirrors becomes irrelevant for light behavior transverse to the mirrors, and aether wind transverse to light motion not observable in a coherent system. That means systems where light is generated by feedback and also systems where light is detected coherently in telescopes. The irrelevance of transverse aether wind means that, in coherent systems, we instead should describe light as c(1+s/c). Here s is component in v(r) parallel to c. This is the direction of a ray defined by c only.
The vector sum c+v(r) is valid for the direction of a focused beam, defined by max amplitude in a focused beam, but rays inside the beam do not depend on the aether wind in transverse direction. Since c is about one million times v this fact is easily missed, but there is a small difference between direction of light in coherent and in not coherent systems. The irrelevance of transverse aether wind means that stellar aberration reveals observer motion only, and cannot tell us anything about aether motion. We can also conclude that there is no effect of the aether wind in the transverse arm in MMX, and not in a light clock either.
Atoms in a crystal control their separations by means of the aether . What else? They cause changes in the aether , and these changes propagate with the speed c between atoms in two opposite directions and carry positional information. Michelson sent light with the speed c carrying positional information in two opposite directions. This means that two-way speed of light is reduced by the aether wind by the same amount as the reduction of atomic separations. The searched effect is thereby compensated, and MMX is a useless method in relation to the aether wind.
Detecting Aether Wind
We have seen that it is not possible to gain information about the aether wind by means of the stellar aberration, and not by Michelson and Morley’s method either. What we need is a system that can detect the one-way speed of light. Such a system has been available for many years. It is called the global positioning system (GPS), and is based on the times for one-way propagation of radio signals. The calculations are based on a frame translated, but not rotated by our planet and on one universal time.
The system provides positions with very high precision, and this indicates that the aether can be represented by an entrained frame, but this can be misleading. We can see this by regarding the fact that all transmitters are on the same distance from our planet, and all receivers are close to our planet, and the system can automatically eliminate constant range errors. This means that v(r) can be a field that is spherically symmetric in relation to our planet.
Gravity
An aether wind represented by a spherically symmetric field is very interesting in relation to gravity, since such a system can explain gravity. If the aether is falling in direction towards our planet we can use the model for pushing gravity provided by Fatio and Le Sage long time ago. A statement by Petr Beckmann can be changed a bit from ‘gravity controls light speed’ to, the aether wind is the cause of gravity.
No time dilation
No effect in the transverse arm in MMX can indicate that we have a contraction of physical bodies that is 2 times the Fitzgerald length contraction (and 2 times Einstein’s space contraction). This can mean that we do not need the metaphysical time dilation, and not the GAMMA function either. The real effect in GPS clocks can instead be explained by an effect analogous to the effect in MMX. Orbiting electrons in GPS clocks move forth and back in relation to the aether wind. Although electron speed is lower than light speed the relative effect of the quotient v/c can nevertheless produce the same effect that was real, but not observed, in MMX. Therefore we can have a clock frequency changing as f[1-(v/c)^2], due to the aether wind.
The Falling Aether
By assuming an aether wind radial to our planet, and equal to the speed of a satellite, in circular orbit, at the same altitude as the aether wind, we can arrive at the same clock behavior as predicted by SRT plus GRT. The satellites will see aether winds tangential and radial to orbits of about 3.9 km/s in each direction. The satellite clocks are oriented transverse to radius of orbit, but they are not stabilized in relation to tangential orbit direction. This means that the effect of ether wind in tangential direction is reduced by half. This value is found as the average value of a squared cosine function. We get agreement to the theory of relativity.
Based on the same simple assumption we can find an explanation to the Pioneer anomaly as described in The Pioneer Anomaly and the Aether Wind. The 2-way speed of light, affected by ether wind from our sun, changes with range and causes this effect. It is also possible to predict the light bending near our sun due to the gradient in ether wind longitudinal to light. This is demonstrated in The Falling Aehter. Fatio’s aether model is also supported by different observations during solar eclipses, as demonstrated in About the Wang Eclipse.
Summary
Failures regarding consistent aether theories based on autonomous or entrained frames can indicate the need for a more general concept. An aether as an entrained field can be united with the high precision in the GPS system. An aether of this kind can explain gravity.
An other important notion is that boundary conditions implied by mirrors in cavities and interferometers have relevance in relation to the wave motion c, (defining ray direction) and not in relation to the vector sum c+v (defining beam direction). Therefore, transverse component in v becomes irrelevant in coherent systems.
Time dilation is not a needed concept. The behavior of atomic clocks in the GPS system can be explained as one effect of the aether wind, instead of as two effects of SRT and GRT.
Testing
This theory predicts that time dilation, due to GRT, should disappear if an atomic clock is changed from horizontal to vertical orientation.
Dr C C Su has suggested a method for measuring one-way light speed by a scaled down version of de Witte’s test. Two HeNe lasers, near in frequency, are connected with an optical fiber over a couple of meters, and compared in an interferometer. By using an advanced platform, elevation and azimuth angles can be changed. A small and linear phase error can be eliminated after the test.
References
John-Erik Persson
John-Eric,
I agree we detect a preferred frame is not likely.
Maxwell described a mechanical model to help visualize the dynamic curl function between the magnetic and electric fields. He attempted to expand this to an ether model that included other force/matter relationships but was unsucsessful. It not only has internal mechanical conflicts but due to its rigid structure is not compatible with other ether models, including yours, that rely on fluidlike properties (wind?).
As you say atomic clocks vary in frequency based on the strength of the gravitational field. However from what I have read the orientation of the atomic fountain used in the clock requires that it be parallel to the gradient in the accelerating field in order for the atoms behavior to be measured while weightless. This would seem to mean that at least this type of clock could only be sensitive to overall gravitational field strength not gradient direction.
Cornelis
Cornelis
My model is not an entrained ether, but an entrained ether property, namely the ether wind. My model is not an entrained frame, but an entrained field with spherical symmetry. I do not think that someone has tested that idea before.
I think that in atomic clocks microwave field motions and atom motions must be equally oriented. However, this does not mean that the orientation of the clock is irrelevant.
John-Erik
John-Eric
Your comments lead to more confusion.
ENTRAIN | Definition of Entrain by Merriam …
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › entrain
1 : to draw along with or after oneself. 2 : to draw in and transport (as solid particles or gas) by the flow of a fluid. 3 : to incorporate (air bubbles) into concrete. 4 : to determine or modify the phase or period of
“an entrained ether property, namely the ether wind.”
A clearer definition of what you consider wind is needed. Clearly the common definition is not adequate as it applies to your usage.
WIND is the movement of gas. On the surface of the Earth, wind consists of the bulk movement of air. In outer space, solar wind is the movement of gases or charged particles from the Sun through space, while planetary wind is the outgassing of light chemical elements from a planet’s atmosphere into space.
FIELD, In physics, a region in which each point is affected by a force. Objects fall to the ground because they are affected by the force of earth’s gravitational field (see gravitation).
So is the set of points in this field purely mathmatical representations moving in the ether wind or is your ether in motion.
Your description is very unclear.
I deal only with the propagation of tension energy so no physical motion occurs. You seem to have discrete moving parts. Are they real parts or quantized/idealised energy packets.
Cornelis
Ether wind is the state of motion of the ether, providing the needed reference for c, the wave vector. I hope that you are familiar with the Fatio model.
Field is a mathematical term for something depending on position in space. In physics we have to what we mean. We can have force fields, potential energy field, density field and velocity field like the ether wind.
You must learn about the Fatio model to understand this. Take also a look at my article Physics without Paradoxes. It is available at:
http://www.gsjournal.net
Regards from___________________John-Erik
“My model is not an entrained ether, but an entrained ether property, namely the ether wind.”
“Ether wind is the state of motion of the ether”
If the state of motion of the ether particles (as you claim ether to be particulate) is entrained then by logic the ether wind (which is a grouping of particles) must be entrained.
If you are now instead saying that the ether wind is simply a dynamic relationship of the property of ether “field” where there is no material motion, then you simply redefining a mathmatical model of gradients in the gravity field in terms of velocity vectors instead of tensors. This is only appropriate if you are describing a media that moves relative to itself. As I have said before to support light as a transverse wave the ether can possess no such fluid or particlute like property.
I am familure enough with the Fatio model to have shared some of its failings. I have little desire to study it further.
Cornelis
You seems to have missed the difference between the state of motion of the ether and the state of motion of ether particles. Ether particles are moving in all directions with very high speeds. The sum is near zero but slightly changed near a massive body, producing an ether wind that causes gravity. See my articles at GSJournal.
Best regards from__________________________John-Erik
John-Erik
I think I did not miss the point as you say. I clearly refer to your ether wind as group motion “(which is a grouping of particles)”. An average motion of particles with a preferred offset towards mass is still fluidic behavior and frame dragging in my book. Yet you still miss the point that the behavior of a transverse wave (light) requires a solid not particulate ether to propagate it. I have seen your article and if it provided any clarity we would not have need for this correspondence.
Sincerely,
Cornelis
Cornelis
Fatio’s model is not a grouping of particles. It is particles moving in all directions producing zero ether wind.
An average motion of particles towards mass produces gravity proportional to ether wind squared.
The statement that transverse waves can only propagate in solids is only an unproved hypothesis.
With best regards from___________________________John-Erik
Maxwell’s equations found a value c for a wave which has come to be associated with light generally referred to as electromagnetic waves. Waves have a characteristic velocity in a medium and this is what the speed is related to. Alas, this medium has been difficult to apprehend leading to new modelling and mathematics which have often led to counter-intuitive conclusions. By virtue of light wave properties and experiments conducted we can decipher some of the properties of the medium.
Excerpts from my book, ‘Hypotheses Fingo’:
The wave properties of light imply that it is a disturbance propagated over distances that can sometimes be astronomical. Its polarization properties further make it clear that light is a transverse, rather than longitudinal wave. Unfortunately, this has posed a riddle that has turned out difficult for physics to resolve for more than 150 years. The reason is that the required medium for light to be a transverse wave could not then be a gas or a liquid since transverse waves are not possible in these but must be a solid-like medium. For light to also travel at its very high speed and frequency such a solid-like medium must be more rigid than steel and more compact than lead. Alas, Space the obvious medium that can be so disturbed did not seem to be that way, at least from our preconceived notions about what “solid-like” means. This is the way Einstein put it in his previously mentioned Leiden lecture: “It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarization that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of the “quasi-rigid” luminiferous ether, the parts of which can carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves”.
And before him, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), “Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the æther, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge”.
Then the master himself, Isaac Newton ponders, “May not Planets and Comets, and all gross Bodies, perform their motions more freely, and with less resistance in this Æthereal Medium than in any Fluid, which fills all Space adequately without leaving any Pores, and by consequence is much denser than Quick-silver and Gold? And may not its resistance be so small, as to be inconsiderable? For instance; if this Æther (for so I will call it) should be supposed 700000 times more elastic than our Air, and above 700000 times more rare; its resistance would be above 600000000 times less than that of Water. And so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the Motions of the Planets in ten thousand Years.” – Opticks, Query 22 (quoted in The Ether of Space, by Oliver Lodge). ”
Food for thought:
If we think out of the box, can we apprehend the compact, dense and solid-like nature that Space might have?
A line of space has points lying on it according to Euclidean geometry. Is this not a compact and dense structure? If according to Euclid in Elements, book 1, definition 1, a point cannot be divided into parts and therefore a line cannot be cut in the usual sense of cutting, can we not attribute a solid-like property to Space? Two eminent mathematicians, Richard Dedekind (1831-1916) and Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) tried to but were unsuccessful in cutting a line into two without contradicting Euclid’s axioms. The solid-like nature of Space appears to be an inferred possibility.
The second nature that Space must have as Newton observed is that it must have an elastic-like nature. A line must be capable of being extended and shortened. Apart from the theoretical evidence discussed in the book, yet to be fully verified experimental claim from the Advanced LIGO collaboration team announced the observation of a rhythmical stretching and shortening of the 4 km line between the two mirrors of an interferometer arm, one at Livinston, Louisiana and the other at Hanford, Washington, both in the United States of America. Whatever can stretch and shorten is by any inference certainly elastic.
It is therefore becoming apparent that Space is endowed with the required physical qualities to make it a medium for light wave propagation.
As to the debate over a preferred frame, the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation appears to have settled this question. It also settles the question of a wind as originally conceived, with a measured velocity of earth relative to it of about 370km/s.
Finally, we have dark matter which does not require entrainment or Fresnel dragging. Like all matter, it can be gravitationally bound to earth surface like an atmosphere. We are told it is abundant and unlike familiar matter. However, it was an unknown participant at the time of the Michelson-Morley experiments in 1887. George Stokes and others sort such a dragged along medium to explain the null Michelson-Morley result. We now seem to have such a medium that can restore Galilean relativity.
Akinbo
Akinbo
The ether must not be a solid, or a gas, or a liquid. It can have its own (fourth) state of aggregation.
If the cosmic background radiation really represents some kind of velocity in relation to something, that something must not be the ether wind near us.
Regards from_____________________John-Erik
John-Erik,
While your opinion is respected, if you claim transverse waves can be propagated in liquids or gas, you must explain how. Apart from Einstein’s quote, there are many other references. For example, “Transverse waves cannot propagate in a gas or a liquid because there is no mechanism for driving motion perpendicular to the propagation of the wave” (ref. Hyperphysics website, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/tralon.html). And this interesting paper, ‘The optics and electrodynamics of moving bodies by Janssen and Stachel’, “Polarization phenomena had made it clear that light waves are
transverse rather than longitudinal, which, in turn, implied that the ether, if it could be modelled
as a mechanical system at all, could not be a gas or a fluid, but had to be an elastic solid which had
to have a high degree of rigidity to explain the high speed of light…”
Then as for the possibility of an Absolute and therefore preferred reference frame, i.e. a frame against which other motion can be measured, it is becoming clearer that the cosmic background radiation might just represent such a frame, i.e. a marker for something motionless. And Special relativitist are already trembling at its discovery since their theory is based on the absence of such a frame of reference. Or are you suggesting that the CMBR is moving and if so how and in what direction? Rather what has been measured is earth velocity against this motionless frame at 370km/s. The CMBR represents zero velocity, the only signpost that is not moving relative to another thing. Again there are a number of references that the CMBR frame is a preferred absolute frame of rest.
Regards,
Akinbo
Okinbo
Thank you for the link. The State of aggregation for the ether is not known, and we cannot say that the ether must be a solid. This is just an assumption. Stating that something does not exist cannot be proved. Perhaps there is a fourth state of aggregation.
An ether as a frame cannot explain gravity; an ether as a velocity field can do that, if it has spherical symmetry (and does not have to entrain ether in the complete Universe).
Even if CMBR represents an average of velocities this does not mean something to be an absolute reference. The wave motion c needs a reference in every point, but the reference must not be the same in every where.
With the best regards from _________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
If three can do a job, why look for a fourth? Going by Euclid’s axioms of geometry Space will be solid-like, and light being a transverse wave looks like a proof. Or can you cut a line in two? If so, how given that you must encounter a point at the incidence of cutting.
Perhaps, you misunderstand me. CMBR does not represent average of velocities. It represents ZERO velocity, a state of rest. Indeed the only thing at rest in the universe. Every other thing is moving.
I sympathize with your desire to explain gravity but the original model of the ether was something that itself has zero velocity.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
Euclid’s logic cannot reveal the structure of space and ether. I do not understand why you are talking about cutting a line? We cannot know if CMBR represents an average value. A frame cannot explain gravity, a velocity field can do that.
I do not understand all your questions.
Regards _______________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
Probably I have not made myself clear enough.
“Euclid’s logic cannot reveal the structure of space and ether”
Geometry is the study of space and its properties. Euclid was one of the earliest to put forward axioms and definitions that can guide our understanding of space… unless you disagree.
It is only something travelling from an origin to a destination that can have velocity. CMBR is like an ever present fog. It does not travel.
Your ether wind or velocity travels. Where from is unclear. Whereto is unclear. Its sole design is to explain attraction. But even then, we observe repulsion between gravitational bodies, e.g. between earth and sun after perihelion and the moon is gradually moving away from earth by some millimetres every year. The ether wind does not prevent this.
I think the purpose of discussion is to defend individual pet theories against absurdities pointed out in them and not to hold on to them at all cost.
Best regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
Geometry is our model of empty space. Physics is about the content in space.
I regard CMBR as a radiation moving with the speed c.
The ether wind is the cause of gravity. Like the force of gravity the ether wind approaches zero far away from its cause. This is the Fatio model.
We should discuss and avoid absurdities.
Regards ______________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
I appreciate people’s attachment to their pet theories. I like pointing out obstacles that will help improve them or in the alternative lead to abandonment.
On “Geometry is our model of empty space. Physics is about the content in space.”
Several physicists are of the opinion that Space is not empty. An empty thing for example cannot have properties like permittivity and permeability, two properties that help calculate light velocity.
On “I regard CMBR as a radiation moving with the speed c”
Moving from where to where? Some have likened CMBR to a kind of fog without discernible source. Attributing c to it must have a basis for your doing so. Is it just because it is given a temperature 2.74K?
On “ether wind is the cause of gravity. Like the force of gravity the ether wind approaches zero far away from its cause.”
If the ether wind is stronger nearby can you explain what happens to the earth and sun at perihelion? Note that they move away from each other (repulsion).
Nice exchanging ideas. At least you don’t shy away from giving your response to difficult questions.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
Variations of radius in planetary motions in elliptical orbits is explained by variations in the balance between kinetic and potential energy. There is no problem in that.
Regards from _________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
Variations in the balance between kinetic (K.E.) and potential (P.E.) energy is a result of alternate interchange between K.E. and P.E. For this change to occur force is needed. To convert P.E. to K.E. an attractive force like gravity is required. However K.E. CANNOT be converted to P.E.without the agency of a different force.
A single force cannot be held responsible for converting P.E. to K.E. and also for K.E. to P.E.
To use the simple pendulum as an example, gravity converts P.E. to K.E. as the bob swings downwards. To convert K.E. back to P.E. a different type of force is required. For the pendulum, it is the tension force in the string that converts K.E. back to P.E.
Does your ether wind play any role in converting P.E. to K.E. or K.E. to P.E.? Is your ether wind the only force acting and is it an attractive or repelling force?
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo,
There is a need for only one type of force. The difference between KE and PE only depends on if the force is symetric about a location in space.
Cornelis
The interchange between K.E. and P.E. that we see in the simple pendulum for example suggests that more than one force is required.
What is gravity’s symmetry in elliptical orbits?
Do you not see repulsion between the Sun and Earth at perihelion, and do you attribute this to gravity which is an attraction force?
Akinbo
Akinbo,
This reply may be out of sequence due to the ineffective design of this web page.
I see all forces as attractive (imbalances of tension). The overall direction of the force is dependent on the surronding tension geometry and where it falls on the tension curve of the carrier. (ether, or space in your terminology)
Cornelis
Akinbo
I regard the ether wind to cause gravity. Two bodies are attracting each other, since the ether is pushing them together. A satellite is hold in orbit by a balance between inertia and gravity.
Regards ___________________________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
Only a force can balance a force. According to Newton’s law of motion, inertia is not a force.
Why does ether wind stop pushing Sun and Earth together making them to separate after perihelion?
Akinbo
Akinbo
In my opinion there is a balance between gravity and inertia. Gravity is pushing all the time even if inertia sometimes is winning.
Regards ___________________ John-Erik
Akinbo,
If you are going to accept it as a solid with no movable parts (and I do), you need to clarify the word wind. The current common definition I am aware of requires the relative motion of parts. They have disassembled the first generation of dark matter detectors locally to make way for a next generation one. After several years of operation not a single piece of evidence was found. Particulate matter and wind imply relative motion of parts and this can not be so in a solid. The concept that the earth or any matter (dark or otherwise) is separate from the solid of space and can move through it as a discrete and separate part is in conflict with the concept of solid space! All of existance (not only light) must be explainable as systems of waves in this solid homogenous space. LIGO did not show that this solid could expand or contract but only that when measured by the speed of light it could dynamicly alter the characteristics of it’s propagation path based on what was calculated to be the changing strength of gravity. This fact is already demonstrated to us, on a static basis, by the behavior of the GPS system.
Sincerely,
Cornelis
Cornelis,
It is clear that if we are to apprehend the physical qualities of space, we have to do so without allowing our preconceived notions distort our vision and at the same we must retain our common sense.
I propose that Space is solid-like as I have explained above. It is compact, dense, uncuttable. It is also rigid in the sense that it cannot be distorted UNLESS there is a loss/change in its volume/ length. Even a steel bar can be distorted WITHOUT any change in volume. In that sense, the resistance of Space to distortions that DO NOT involve change in volume is far higher than that of steel. This explains the incredibly high speed and frequency that light travels in Space.
On how there can be motion of parts of Space. One part of Space cannot move to another part. Space is what defines that part so it cannot leave its definition behind and acquire another. For example when Cornelis moves, he must carry Cornelis with him. Cornelis is a place. Cornelis cannot leave his place, that place called Cornelis. Same applies to other ‘moving’ bodies.
It is also important to note that Space is not a container. It is the content. Different arrangement or patterns of its constituent parts is what gives rise to matter, electrical charges, etc. So when earth moves or other bodies move, they do not leave their intrinsic places but the distances between objects lengthen or shorten as the space between moves from “somewhere” to “nowhere”, and “nowhere” to “somewhere”. This is the only movement that actually takes place in the universe.
I have my reservations on the LIGO reports. But what they purportedly detected was that parts of the solid line between the mirrors in the interferometer arms moved from somewhere to nowhere (shortened by ) and alternately moved from nowhere to somewhere (lengthened) in an oscillatory manner. I use this way to explain the phenomena that depict that indeed Space can exhibit and can possess the elastic and solid-like nature required for it to serve as a mechanical medium for light propagation.
On dark matter, the researchers are currently looking down the wrong hole. The questions they should address are whether given its claimed abundance, dark matter could or could not form a gravitationally earth bound medium whose density can vary with altitude, enhanced density nearer earth surface and thinner density with increasing altitude towards the background galactic density? Whether such a scenario would not have effect on light speed as it travels the varying density? Whether light from distant sources, e.g. Pulsars can have their arrival times hastened or delayed by the motion of the Earth towards or away from the incoming light contrary to the Lorentzian/ Special relativity claim that the motion of the observer cannot affect the RESULTANT speed of light? If they answer these questions dispassionately and consider all the experimental results at our disposal, i.e. Michelson-Morley (earth bound medium rather than Lorentz transformation which Pulsar timing measurements have faulted), bending of light near celestial bodies and increases in light speed with altitude and reduction of speed with altitude such as with Pound-Rebka, Gravitational lensing observations, Pioneer anomaly, etc (due to variation of matter density with altitude) they will move closer to identifying dark matter first from its effects then later its actual nature.
Further exposition in a single post may be too long to be classified as a comment.
Best regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo,
As you know we have similar views on solid space but I do not subscribe to the appearance and disappearance of any part of it regardless of how small or for how short a time. I deal only with tension waves for tension can move without motion or separation of its carrier. In this way all matter and energy such even Akinbo are defined by, and relocate as tension wave patterns. Under this theory there is no need or valid reason for dark matter or the momentary popping in and out of distance.
Sincerely,
Cornelis
Okay Cornelis. Our views are similar in many respects. As you say, “… (you) do not subscribe to the appearance and disappearance of any part of it regardless of how small or for how short a time”. May I ask, has the universe been eternally existing in your view?
As for dark matter, we have this Newtonian equation applying to orbiting bodies, i.e.
v = √(GM/r) or v^2 = GM/r
where v is the orbital speed, M is the mass within the radius r and G is the gravitational constant. If a very high v is being observed at a distance r as is the case with thespeed of outlying stars in our galaxy for example. If you don’t agree that this must be due to a higher M that prevents the stars from escaping and dispersing the galactic structure what is your own explanation?
Akinbo
We have discussed these types of things before in emails outside of this format.
The ether may have always existed but the universe is continually evolving and emerging from it as more and more complex patterns of interacting waves. I have also talked about gravity bending gravity/mass waves not just electromagnetic waves as a cause of the galactic rotation question. This behavior of tensionable media (of which ether is the most fundamental) is not only responsible for the galactic rotation but is essential for the emergence of matter waves patterns.
Since this is not compatible with particle based ether theories discussed here, I suggest starting a separate thread on this page to continue the discussion.
Sincerely
Cornelis
Dear Cornelis,
Can you please differentiate or clarify your answer as to whether the universe has been eternally existing?
You say the universe emerges from ether. Can ether exist without universe? Yes or No.
Then your statement, “…more and more complex patterns of interacting waves” points to a time arrow with more and more simplicity in the past. Why must what exists do so eternally? Why can what exists be incapable of perishing? This is the Parmenidean curse placed on our physics.
Akinbo,
The universe is defined by the wave patterns that propagate and form patterns in the ether. The ether is the force carrier that is defined by its properties which govern the propagation and interactions of waves into these patterns. So yes the ether can exist without the universe but the universe can not exist without the ether. As waves converge, diverge and propagate they result in the emergence of all form of energy/matter patterns.
As to “Why must what exists do so eternally? Why can what exists be incapable of perishing? “, I have no need to speculate on such things as the emergence and evolution of the universe as a unified field is explainable without them. Although you catch me again unaware of such scholarly issues as Parmenidean curse, I choose to leave the placing of curses on physics to others.
Sincerely,
Cornelis
Dear Cornelis,
An ether that can exist without the universe is a model that is very much unusual. I don’t want to use the word absurd. The most common definition of the universe is “all there is”, so an ether that IS will already be a universe by definition whether waves are present in it or not. I am of the opinion that if there is no infinity of space and time, the universe, ether and all there is have not always existed in part or in whole.
I go back to the above Newtonian equation applying to orbiting bodies, i.e. v = √(GM/r) or v^2 = GM/r and your statement about gravity bending gravity/mass waves and the behavior of tensionable media, how does this fit into this equation? How is the observed higher v at a distance r explained? Or do you disagree with this equation?
Regards,
Akinbo
*I may have caused confusion by putting in too many ideas in my post so I now narrow things down.
Akinbo,
The current equations do not deal with gravity bending energies. They assume all gravitational forces are communicated in straight lines between masses and use simple vector addition to calculate the force of gravity at all points in space. When more than two large masses are involved errors in these types of calculation can lead to speculations of invisible massive particles.
This however is not related to the topicline and should you should start a seperate discussion on it.
Sincerely
Cornelis