Member

Theories abound as to how dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures could have grown to such immense sizes, inconsistent with the spectrum of sizes for today's creatures and Earth's living conditions. Some focus directly on changes in the governing physics of the universe, such as a different gravitational constant. Some postulate that, rather than this difference, the earlier Earth experienced lower gravity due to differences in its size and mass. The majority focus on biological and aerodynamical anomalies that may have prevailed to explain these gargantuan sizes. This paper focuses on the latter group, offering an independent means by which to test the hypothesis that a (much) thicker atmosphere provided the buoyancy needed by these creatures to exist on land. This means is astronomical, an examination of possible differences in the rate of impact cratering on Earth due to atmospheric differences. With the Earth's atmosphere allegedly experiencing eras of much greater thickness than current, and alternating between these "thick" and "thin" atmospheric eras, it is postulated that, in addition to the biological and aerodynamical anomalies, a difference in the cratering rate from meteor impacts on Earth should be evident. Thicker atmosphere would "burn up" more meteors, reducing the cratering rate when compared to that during thinner atmospheric eras. This paper explores this, using the cratering rate from meteor impacts on the Moon as a "control" since it has no atmosphere to attenuate meteors but also is in Earth's orbital vicinity and should have experienced a nearly equivalent rate of meteor influx per unit surface area.

Shaw has proposed an aether explanation for gravity, publishing several papers over the current decade (see http://www.duncanshaw.ca/). These have evolved into his "Aether Concept of Gravity," by which inflowing aether into cosmic bodies produces an accelerating "ram force" that manifests as the "attractive" gravitational force without the need to postulate "action at a distance." While examination of the full theory is beyond the scope of this paper, it is feasible to examine three of the key aspects which lend themselves to modeling in the form of mathematical constructs. While no attempt is made to explain the physics behind Shaw's theory, an investigation into its plausibility, at least from a mathematical perspective, is undertaken and appears to support at least this level of plausibility.

Since first proposed by Fatio in 1690 and allegedly enhanced by LeSage in 1748, one possible explanation for gravity is that it is a pushing force theory that involves "shadowing" of omnidirectional gravity particles that impinge on all matter so as to make gravity appear as an attractive phenomenon. At least for a special case (large distance between spheres), a mathematical model that assumes gravity to be a pushing force, with shadowing and including the possibility of acting throughout the shadowed corridor of the sphere with attenuation effects, suggests a possible alignment with one of the known effects of gravity, namely that it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the spheres' centers. This hopefully lends some credence to the theories first proposed by Fatio and LeSage, and since supported by many dissident physicists, including Schroeder, et al., and members of the Gravity Group of the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. It is offered as one small contribution to furthering examination of this possible explanation.

Famous dissident physicist, Bill Gaede, has a unique theory as to the nature of light.  He postulates that light consists of electromagnetic “ropes” where electric and magnetic “threads” intertwine to connect all atoms in the universe.  This is akin to a concept I have entertained that the “aether,” if it exists, can be viewed as standing waves making similar connections.  Such “waves” may consist of contiguous “aether particles,” each the size of the electron or smaller (neutrino?).  At least on a cursory level, it appears that these two independent concepts may be consistent with light speed being constant with respect to its source, but variable with respect to an observer when the observer or the source (or both) are in motion.  Of course, in the presence of an all-pervading aether whose perturbation constitutes light itself and limits its speed to c, this variation in light speed would not occur, but would be manifest instead as Doppler shifts.

Ever since the Laser Interferometer Gravitational–Wave Observatory (LIGO), one each at Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana, allegedly detected gravity waves from merging binary black holes on September 14, 2015, there have been numerous challenges to the claim (and to subsequent claims for further detections, including even gravity waves from merging binary neutron stars on August 17, 2017).  These challenges range from denying the very existence of black holes to “liberties” taken with the interpretation of the signals received at the different sites, especially the fact that these signals were pre-simulated to align with the theory of gravitational waves themselves, such that their “detection” was no more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.  One particularly astute challenge stems from the claim that, if a gravity wave were to distort space-time, then not only light waves, but also the physical dimensions of LIGO itself, would be distorted, such that any alleged “perturbation” claimed to be a gravity wave due to generation of an interference pattern from the LIGO lasers could not be due to gravity waves.  This possibility is examined here, with an alternative as aether disturbances included as what LIGO actually has detected.

Molecular hydrogen H_2, virtually undetectable from space, has long been a viable candidate for the alleged 'dark matter' supposedly accountable for the 'flattening' of the galactic rotation curves. Presented here is a simplified analysis, assuming such molecular hydrogen is uniformly distributed throughout the Milky Way Galaxy's disk, that examines the plausibility of such 'dark matter' providing a definitive gravitational explanation for the observed rotational behavior.

'Dissident' physicists have postulated various alternative explanations for the alleged cosmic expansion due to the Big-Bang-induced and dark-energy-sustained ever-increasing expansion of space(-time). Among these is the effect of gravity which allegedly 'stretches' light waves (and allegedly also bends them via gravitational lensing) as they pass large masses, such as stars, galaxies or galactic clusters. The stretching phenomenon is an increase in wavelength, and corresponding decrease in frequency, required by the assumption that light speed remains constant (within a medium). If light speed is variable, would there also be a gravitational cosmic redshift, i.e., one that alters light speed without affecting the waveform itself (i.e., no 'stretching')?

Observing galactic density as a function of increasing distance (and, correspondingly, earlier times given the travel time of light) should provide evidence as to whether a 'steady-state' (non-expanding) or Big-Bang-driven expanding universe is the more defensible cosmology. Working independently, but later discovering additional recent work in this area by Heymann, I attempt to address this question by simulating galactic densities for the two types of cosmological model. Results suggest that the non-expanding universe may be more consistent, or at least less inconsistent, with both observation and expectation. Further, they are consistent with conclusions drawn by Heymann from his recent studies.

Photon-particle interactions, both 'classical,' such as Compton Scattering, and 'speculative,' such as ones associated with 'tired light' theories of the cosmological red-shift, are explained with the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. For classical interactions, reciprocal variations in light frequency and wavelength occur under the constraint that their product always equals constant speed 'c.' Proponents of a cosmological red-shift claim that the universe is expanding due to expansion of space (or space-time) itself as light, traveling at 'c,' is stretched as the distance between the source and observer increases due to this space (or space-time) expansion. Counter arguments to this interpretation often fall into the realm of 'tired light,' dismissed by mainstream physicists for various reasons, but still advocated by various 'dissident' physicists, since the term was first coined by Zwicky in 1929. In this paper, I examine a classical photon-particle interaction, Compton Scattering, and one of the more popular 'tired light' theories to show that the assumption of a constant speed of light is unnecessary, i.e., similar results evolve from assuming a variable light speed.

Despite the long-accepted claims by mainstream physicists that the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment 'proved' that an aether did not exist, based on its alleged 'null result,' 'dissident' physicists have long contended that it proved the opposite, some citing the 'null result' as evidence of its existence due to 'aether drag,' others lending credence to the relevance of the alleged 'noise' that was dismissed when arriving at the 'null' conclusion. The latter group attest that the alleged null result was anything but, with an 'aether wind' on the order of 10 km/s detected but dismissed as 'noise,' thereby opening the door to Einstein's special relativity. Repeated interferometer experiments even more sensitive were performed by Dayton Miller, including several with Edward Morley, in the first part of the 20th century, allegedly confirming an 'aether wind,' again summarily dismissed as anomalous 'noise' to preserve Einstein's relativity. Now there may be as many aether theories as there are dissident physicists who postulate an aether, some believing it to be fixed against absolute space, others that it can be 'dragged' by massive bodies such as Earth (and hence the alleged 'null result'), and some that believe it flows between 'sources' and 'sinks' throughout the universe. Some believe it comprises all matter and energy, with light just being one of its various manifestations. I know not whether there is an aether. All evidence appears to be circumstantial, as nothing material has ever been detected (if that is even possible), and I do not begin to claim to even know how such would be possible. My goal here is to examine some phenomena for which an aether, if it exists, could offer an alternate explanation, neither confirming nor denying its existence.

Maxlow’s extensive analysis of (paleo-)geology, paleomagnetics, space geodetics, paleogeography, paleoclimatology, paleobiology, fossil fuels, past extinctions and metallogenics suggest that Earth’s radius has grown exponentially over the past 1.6 x 10⁹ years by a factor of 3.75, with sufficient increase in mass to ensure that surface gravity has not decreased, and quite possibly has increased.  A much more cursory examination of this assumption from the perspective of astronomical physics, particularly conservation of Earth’s orbital and rotational angular momentum, suggests a much more “modest” rate of increase, not necessarily exponential.  And, while quite limited in comparison to Maxlow’s analysis, this simplified one still raises apparently valid discrepancies that should be addressed.  Hopefully, further research and analysis, or validation of different assumptions, can bring these two competing arenas into closer agreement.

Theories abound as to how dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures could have grown to such immense sizes, inconsistent with the spectrum of sizes for today’s creatures and Earth’s living conditions.  Some focus directly on changes in the governing physics of the universe, such as a different gravitational constant.  Some postulate that, rather than this difference, the earlier Earth experienced lower gravity due to differences in its size and mass.  The majority focus on biological and aerodynamical anomalies that may have prevailed to explain these gargantuan sizes.  This paper focuses on the latter group, offering an independent means by which to test the hypothesis that a (much) thicker atmosphere provided the buoyancy needed by these creatures to exist on land.  This means is astronomical, an examination of possible differences in the rate of impact cratering on Earth due to atmospheric differences.  With the Earth’s atmosphere allegedly experiencing eras of much greater thickness than current, and alternating between these “thick” and “thin” atmospheric eras, it is postulated that, in addition to the biological and aerodynamical anomalies, a difference in the cratering rate from meteor impacts on Earth should be evident.  Thicker atmosphere would “burn up” more meteors, reducing the cratering rate when compared to that during thinner atmospheric eras.  This paper explores this, using the cratering rate from meteor impacts on the Moon as a “control” since it has no atmosphere to attenuate meteors but also is in Earth’s orbital vicinity and should have experienced a nearly equivalent rate of meteor influx per unit surface area.

Shaw has proposed an aether explanation for gravity, publishing several papers over the current decade (see http://www.duncanshaw.ca/).  These have evolved into his “Aether Concept of Gravity,” by which inflowing aether into cosmic bodies produces an accelerating “ram force” that manifests as the “attractive” gravitational force without the need to postulate “action at a distance.”  While examination of the full theory is beyond the scope of this paper, it is feasible to examine three of the key aspects which lend themselves to modeling in the form of mathematical constructs.  While no attempt is made to explain the physics behind Shaw’s theory, an investigation into its plausibility, at least from a mathematical perspective, is undertaken and appears to support at least this level of plausibility.

In an earlier paper, “Who Needs Dark Matter?  An Alternative Explanation for the Galactic Rotation Anomaly,” this author examined a possible electromagnetic phenomenon as an explanation for the ‘galactic rotation anomaly,’ whereby the rotational speeds of stars in a spiral galaxy exhibit a relatively constant value despite increasing radius.  There, this author assumed that angular rotation speed remained relatively constant, so as to preserve the stability of the spiral arms as they rotate.  Several other authors’ theories were presented along with one by this author himself, which cited the magnetic field within the plane of a galaxy resulting from rotation by both the spherical galactic core and flattened ‘disk’ containing the spiral arms as possibly yielding the constant angular speed.  However, many galactic rotation curves exhibit constant tangential rather than angular rotation speed, inconsistent with a ‘pinwheel-like’ galactic rotation which would preserve spiral arm stability.  The possibility that this is really an ‘optical illusion’ masking the actual pinwheel-like rotation, and corresponding constancy of angular, not tangential, speed is considered here.  Finally, speculation as to the phenomenon responsible for this ‘illusion’ is offered.

At least three authors have proposed the concept of light as a traveling series of ‘matter waves.’  Such a concept does not require an ‘aether’ medium as does the more prevalent concept of light, if behaving as a wave, doing so analogous to other types of ‘disturbance waves,” such as sound or water.  One author’s concept is examined mathematically for plausibility and, when found to be so, extended qualitatively to incorporate that of the other authors’ to at least what is hoped may be viewed as a reasonable extent.

Electric Universe Theory (EUT) offers serious objections to the current concept of pulsars (neutron stars) as almost unbelievably dense, very small diameter, possibly incredibly rapidly rotating, collapsed star cores with densities comparable to an atomic nucleus, composed entirely of neutronium.  Objections are both physical, phenomenological and geometrical/mathematical.  This paper examines the last set, geometrical/mathematical, comparing what might derive from the current theory with that postulated by EUT, namely that “pulsars” are really binary “strobe” stars.

Three proposed models for an ‘electric sun’ are examined here, with evaluation of their plausibility based on the required mass-density relationship of the proposed composition assuming our sun is comprised purely of hydrogen (an idealized examination).  The three models include (1) the ‘Electric Sky’ hypothesis, first proposed by Juergens and since then championed by advocates of a plasma/electric universe; (2) a sun comprised of an interior of liquid metallic hydrogen, proposed for more than the past decade by Robitaille; and (3) a sun composed of a superconducting, ‘cold’ solid hydrogen core, more recently developed by Burchell.  The three models are not necessarily contradictory, as each includes aspects of the other.  An overview of each is presented, followed by a simple analysis of the required mass-density of a sun composed of a solid hydrogen ‘core’ with a gaseous hydrogen surrounding annulus, potentially consistent with each model.

The 19^th century novella “Flatland” has often inspired comparisons of inter-dimensional phenomena, particularly how phenomena in dimension n + 1 would be manifested to observers restricted to dimension n.  With n = 2, a possible analogy for the phenomena of light and Coulombic repulsion and attraction is examined for its potential extension to n = 3, given the impossibility of our even physically imagining a fourth dimension, purely spatial (i.e., not-temporal, in contrast to Einstein’s time or space-time) like the three we know (length, width and height).

Molecular hydrogen (H₂), virtually undetectable from space, has long been a viable candidate for the alleged ‘dark matter’ supposedly accountable for the ‘flattening’ of the galactic rotation curves.  Presented here is a simplified analysis, assuming such molecular hydrogen is uniformly distributed throughout the Milky Way Galaxy’s disk, that examines the plausibility of such ‘dark matter’ providing a definitive gravitational explanation for the observed rotational behavior.

Following some earlier work by Antoci and Abrams, Crothers has spent at least the past decade arguing the mathematical impossibility of the black hole.  Following a brief review of the mathematical argument, a physical one is presented, based on analysis of the ‘irresistible force’ of increasing gravity allegedly collapsing a neutron star with an even greater ‘immovable object’ of increasing density into a black hole.  This physical argument supports Crothers’, et al., contention that a black hole is both a mathematical as well as physical impossibility.

I tackle the topic of quantization of intrinsic QSO redshifts, especially based on the lifetime work of Halton Arp, examining first the potential relationship between intrinsic QSO redshift and QSO mass, then the phenomenon of quantization for both QSO mass and redshift.  My approach is primarily a mathematical one, as developing a theory for intrinsic QSO redshift, let alone its quantization, is beyond my expertise.  I postulate a geometric explanation of intrinsic redshift given a possible dependence on mass to the 2/3 power, related to possible attenuation of light energy (and therefore frequency) within the “emitting nucleus” of a QSO, compounded by a further “dilution,” and therefore energy (and frequency) decrease due to spread over the surface area.  To do the quantization aspect justice, I summarize three theories by other experts and examine the plausibility of the two within my realm of knowledge.  Finally, I offer at least a mathematical representation of the quantization aspect as “food for thought.”

Hubble’s law of cosmic expansion is typically based on fitting data for relatively low (on a ‘universal’ scale) redshifts and distances.  Extrapolating Hubble’s law to the entire observable universe, proponents of the Big Bang Standard Cosmological Model claim the universe is expanding (possibly faster than their sacred speed of light due to a repulsive acceleration being produced by ‘dark energy’) because galactic redshifts increase linearly with distance from the earth.  To them, this ‘proves’ there was a Big Bang and the resulting universe will continue without bound to expand until all dies out in the absolute cold of space.  However, a relatively simple analysis of galactic redshifts vs. distance spanning the full range of the observable universe, not just the ‘nearby’ galaxies, suggests that there is an anomaly in the reputed increasing recessional speed with distance.  The nature of this anomaly is examined here, and speculation offered as to one possible explanation, albeit far from definitive.

The Earth’s diametrically opposed, presumably symmetric, tides are due to the Moon’s differential gravitational force varying across the Earth.  This is not intuitively obvious, but becomes clear when the physics is examined mathematically.  The presumed symmetry is due to an approximation that holds when the radius of the affected body (e.g., the Earth) is much less than its center-to-center distance from the affecting body (e.g., the Moon).  The exact solution indicates an asymmetry, which becomes more pronounced as the assumption loses its applicability.

Classical Newtonian gravitation is considered to be an attractive force, although the mechanism by which this is manifested remains unknown.  Speculation includes graviton particles, space-time warping, etc.  LeSagian gravitation is considered to be a pushing force, the net result of which appears to be attractive.  It coincides with, but does not necessarily depend on, various aether theories where the universe is filled with moving ‘particles’ capable of exerting forces on whatever they contact.  ‘Pushing’ gravity occurs when two objects ‘shadow’ each other by blocking the flow of these particles so as to create an area where the density of the particles is less than that ‘outside’ the shadow.  The higher density outside the shadow impinges on a greater surface area than the lower density within the shadow, resulting in a net pushing force which appears to be an attraction between the two bodies toward one another (gravity).  This paper examines how the results for ‘pushing’ gravity between the sun and a planet compare to those for ‘pulling’ gravity, as per Newton.

Despite the long-accepted claims by mainstream physicists that the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment ‘proved’ that an aether did not exist, based on its alleged ‘null result,’ ‘dissident’ physicists have long contended that it proved the opposite.  Now there may be as many aether theories as there are dissident physicists who postulate an aether, some believing it to be fixed against absolute space, others that it can be ‘dragged’ by massive bodies such as Earth (and hence the alleged ‘null result’), and some that believe it flows between ‘sources’ and ‘sinks’ throughout the universe.  Some believe it comprises all matter and energy, with light just being one of its various manifestations.  I know not whether there is an aether, but of all the theories so far encountered, one by Steven Rado appears to be quite plausible a

Einstein’s relativity contends that time, as measured by clocks, slows with increasing speed, becoming especially noticeable as the speed of light is approached.  Discussions of this usually focus on constant speeds, albeit near the speed of light, and phenomena such as muon decay (near light speed), or even the Hafele-Keating experiment (at much slower speeds), are cited as ‘proof.’  Dissident scientists often contend that time remains invariant, although clocks may appear to run slower at increasing speeds.  At least one such scientist contends that accelerated clocks can run both slower and faster, an interesting departure that I decided to examine via some examples.  To the extent that my examples are correct, I too would agree with this conjecture, namely that, while time remains invariant, clocks can run faster and slower when accelerated (but not at constant velocity).

Linked with the concept of a cosmological Doppler red-shift is an expanding universe with rapidly receding stars, galaxies, etc. Assuming no form of matter, especially a reasonably macroscopic and tenuous one like a star, let alone an entire galaxy, could possibly travel at speeds approaching that of light and remain ‘intact’ (except, perhaps, something as dense as a neutron star), the only possible way for such an entity to exhibit recession speeds approaching that of light would be for space itself to be expanding. And whether one accepts the traditional or Galilean Doppler red-shift as the correct explanation, one is still left to conclude that ‘something’ is ‘racing away.’ I endeavor to cast doubt on the traditional explanation of a cosmological Doppler red-shift due to universe expansion. A Galilean Doppler red-shift may be an equally plausible explanation for those who adhere to the premise of stars, galaxies, etc., receding for whatever reason.

Photon-particle interactions, both ‘classical,’ such as Compton Scattering, and ‘speculative,’ such as ones associated with ‘tired light’ theories of the cosmological red-shift, are explained with the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. For classical interactions, reciprocal variations in light frequency and wavelength occur under the constraint that their product always equals constant speed ‘c.’ Proponents of a cosmological red-shift claim that the universe is expanding due to expansion of space (or space-time) itself as light, traveling at ‘c,’ is stretched as the distance between the source and observer increases due to this space (or space-time) expansion. Counter arguments to this interpretation often fall into the realm of ‘tired light,’ dismissed by mainstream physicists for various reasons, but still advocated by various ‘dissident’ physicists, since the term was first coined by Zwicky in 1929. In this paper, I examine a classical photon-particle interaction, Compton Scattering, and one of the more popular ‘tired light’ theories to show that the assumption of a constant speed of light is unnecessary, i.e., similar results evolve from assuming a variable light speed.

Observing galactic density as a function of increasing distance (and, correspondingly, earlier times given the travel time of light) should provide evidence as to whether a ‘steady-state’ (non-expanding) or Big-Bang-driven expanding universe is the more defensible cosmology. Working independently, but later discovering additional recent work in this area by Heymann, I attempt to address this question by simulating galactic densities for the two types of cosmological model. Results suggest that the non-expanding universe may be more consistent, or at least less inconsistent, with both observation and expectation. Further, they are consistent with conclusions drawn by Heymann from his recent studies.

Borrowing concepts from the Electric/Plasma Universe theories [1], I examine a possible explanation of at least part of the observed behavior for the galactic rotation anomaly for spiral galaxies by considering an idealized case where the combined magnetic fields from the galactic core (assumed to be a rotating charged sphere) and spiral arms (assumed to be a rotating charged disk exhibit a trend toward the ‘flatness’ in these rotation curves as one proceeds outward radially from the galactic core to its edge. This hopefully is a plausible addition to the various alternate explanations for this anomaly that do not invoke the likely fiction of ‘dark matter,’ alleged to comprise roughly 85% of the total matter in the universe (and, with the other likely fiction ‘dark energy,’ alleged to comprise roughly 95% of the total mass-energy of the universe). In the process, I provide at least an introduction to some of these other alternative explanations for the galactic rotation anomaly.

The Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment of 1887 is often cited as one of the cornerstones (and perhaps THE cornerstone) upon which Einstein built his theory of special relativity. Allegedly, it “proved” there was no aether. Once Einstein postulated that the speed of light was invariant, the only explanation that became accepted was that time slowed and length contracted due to relative motion according to the Lorentz Transformation formulae, adopted by Einstein as tenets of his special relativity. Despite subsequent experiments contradicting the alleged “null result,” reanalysis of the results indicating positive (“non-null”) results, and even maintaining the validity of the null result but explaining it via classical physics, the M&M Interferometer Experiment remains a special relativity foundation. However, if the limitation of the invariance of the speed of light is removed, the “null result” can be easily explained without resort to special relativity and its postulates of time dilation and length contraction. Yet this is seldom done.

Formation of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is traditionally assumed to have occurred primordially when a group of planetesimals formed protoplanets that, through gravitational perturbations from Jupiter, were imbued with too much orbital energy to accrete into a planet, until violent collisions shattered most of the protoplanets, thereby forming the asteroid belt. Electric Universe theory contends there was an electrical discharge interaction on a planetary scale when a planetesimal closely encountered Mars, causing not only Mars’ material to be ejected, but also disintegrated much, if not all, of the planetesimal. The ejected debris eventually formed the asteroid belt; and possibly Valle Marineris which scars nearly 20% of Mars’ circumference, is the ‘smoking gun.” Here I examine not the electrical discharge phenomena, but crudely estimate whether or not the total mass of the belt could have arisen from such an interaction.

Hubble’s law of cosmic expansion is typically based on fitting data for relatively low (on a ‘universal’ scale) redshifts and distances. Extrapolating Hubble’s law to the entire observable universe, proponents of the Big Bang Standard Cosmological Model claim the universe is expanding (possibly faster than their sacred speed of light due to a repulsive acceleration being produced by ‘dark energy’) because galactic redshifts increase linearly with distance from the earth. To them, this ‘proves’ there was a Big Bang and the resulting universe will continue without bound to expand until all dies out in the absolute cold of space. However, a relatively simple analysis of galactic redshifts vs. distance spanning the full range of the observable universe, not just the ‘nearby’ galaxies, suggests that there is an anomaly in the reputed increasing recessional speed with distance. The nature of this anomaly is examined here, and speculation offered as to one possible explanation, albeit far from definitive.

‘Dissident’ physicists have postulated various alternative explanations for the alleged cosmic expansion due to the Big-Bang-induced and dark-energy-sustained ever-increasing expansion of space(-time). Among these is the effect of gravity which allegedly ‘stretches’ light waves (and allegedly also bends them via gravitational lensing) as they pass large masses, such as stars, galaxies or galactic clusters. The stretching phenomenon is an increase in wavelength, and corresponding decrease in frequency, required by the assumption that light speed remains constant (within a medium). If light speed is variable, would there also be a gravitational cosmic redshift, i.e., one that alters light speed without affecting the waveform itself (i.e., no ‘stretching’)?

Since first proposed by Fatio in in 1690 and allegedly enhanced by Le Sage in 1748, one possible explanation for gravity is that it is a pushing force theory that involves ‘shadowing’ of omnidirectional gravity particles that impinge on all matter so as to make gravity appear as an attractive phenomenon. At least for a special case (large distance between spheres), a mathematical model that assumes gravity to be a pushing force, with shadowing and including the possibility of acting throughout the shadowed corridor of the sphere with attenuation effects, suggests a possible alignment with one of the known effects of gravity, namely that it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the spheres’ centers. This hopefully lends some credence to the theories first proposed by Fatio and Le Sage, and since supported by many dissident physicists, including Schroeder, et al., and members of the Gravity Group of the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. It is offered as one small contribution to furthering examination of this possible explanation.

One of the long-standing ‘proofs’ of Einstein’s relativity is the alleged time dilation effect that muons created during cosmic ray collisions with particles in our upper atmosphere experience as they plummet downward at nearly the speed of light. Given the assumption that all are created at one high altitude, relativists see only a ‘slowing’ of their ‘clocks’ as the means by which their decay can be sufficiently delayed so that an unexpectedly (according to classical physics) large number reach sea level. One of the earliest experiments allegedly demonstrating this was by Frisch and Smith in 1963. Dissident physicists have offered non-relativistic explanations for the relatively high numbers of atmospheric muons reaching sea level, including the possibility that they are created by cosmic ray collisions with particles throughout our atmosphere, not just at a single altitude. The plausibility of this argument is examined here as an alternative explanation to relativistic time dilation as the only acceptable answer offered by mainstream physics today.

Despite much obeisance paid to black holes by ‘Standard Model’ cosmologists (not to mention Hollywood, e.g., the recent film “Interstellar,” alleged to have a basis in physics, but really pure science fiction), dissident physicists, led by Stephen Crothers, have re-examined the original analysis by Karl Schwarzschild which, due to an error by David Hilbert, has provided much of the basis for the alleged existence of black holes. This substantial body of work suggests black holes cannot exist, leading me to the logical conclusion that the densest stars possible are neutron stars (or perhaps, if such are possible, ‘quark’ stars) which have relatively small but ‘non-singular’ dimensions. Both the mass and “pulse” rate of many neutron stars (also known as pulsars) have been recorded. Examination of these data opens an avenue of speculation based on their angular momenta that perhaps could aid in the understanding of how ‘heavy” (relative to our sun) rotating stars might evolve into pulsars.

The classic double-slit experiment, first performed by Young in 1801, is often cited as proving the dual wave-particle nature of light, with an emphasis on the wave aspect. In fact, when first conducted, the conclusion refuted newton’s postulate of a corpuscular nature to light in favor of light being purely a wave. Not until the discovery of the photoelectric effect did light’s potential behavior as a particle become rejuvenated. This paper examines a possibly enhanced role for light’s corpuscular nature beyond what is currently assigned as a result of the double-slit experimental results in hope of opening yet another avenue of exploration into the still mysterious nature of light.

The Earth’s diametrically opposed, presumably symmetric, tides are due to the Moon’s differential gravitational force varying across the Earth. This is not intuitively obvious, but becomes clear when the physics is examined mathematically. The presumed symmetry is due to an approximation that holds when the radius of the affected body (e.g., the Earth) is much less than its center-to-center distance from the affecting body (e.g., the Moon). The exact solution indicates an asymmetry, which becomes more pronounced as the assumption loses its applicability.

The Earth’s diametrically opposed, presumably symmetric, tides are due to the Moon’s differential gravitational force varying across the Earth. This is not intuitively obvious, but becomes clear when the physics is examined mathematically. The presumed symmetry is due to an approximation that holds when the radius of the affected body (e.g., the Earth) is much less than its center-to-center distance from the affecting body (e.g., the Moon). The exact solution indicates an asymmetry, which becomes more pronounced as the assumption loses its applicability.

The Electric Universe (EU) theory postulates that gravity is just another manifestation of electromagnetism, albeit at an almost inconceivably lower force (~10^-39 as strong). This paper examines the EU conjecture about an electromagnetic basis for gravity based on simplified mathematical analysis for an idealized arrangement of three hydrogen atoms. Results suggest that the possibility of an electromagnetically-induced distortion of a hydrogen to create an atomic dipole is at least plausible.

A friendly debate between the authors characterizes one that is prevalent among the community of ‘dissident’ physicists who do not accept Einstein’s relativity as the final explanation for the behavior of light.  They wonder whether or not light acquires the velocity of its source.  Maxwell’s equations strongly suggest a fixed speed for light upon its emission from a source.  Is the emission point fixed in space?  Would motion of the emitter alter the trajectory (and speed?) of the emitted light?  Light’s immense speed makes determining this extremely difficult to answer on a scale less than astronomical.  For example, despite supposed ‘definitive’ proof that there is no aether and light speed is universally constant alleged by proponents of a ‘null’ result from the 1887 Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment, debate continues over both of these subjects.  The authors propose experiments using current technology that might be able to offer a definitive resolution to this debate, or possibly open up even more speculation.

Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision and other books inspired founders of the Electric Universe Theory with its implication of plasma-based electrical interactions between planets, as recorded in historical records such as the Bible. While his theories sparked great controversy by implying close encounters between some of the inner planets (Venus, Earth and Mars) within recorded human history, but were summarily dismissed as fiction by mainstream scientists and continue to be dismissed today. Nonetheless, Electric Universe theorists contend that there may be truth in Velikovsky’s conclusions when these “interactions” are considered in light of a “plasma/electric universe.” Having also read Velikovsky’s works, and Electric Universe Theory, I endeavored to perform a simple set of calculations to ascertain if any of Velikovsky’s interactions could have been possible.

The following is an attempt to explain that time dilation in relativity is an apparent phenomenon only, i.e., when one frame moves relative to another at a constant speed, it only appears that its clock runs slower than the other. In the first (simple) case, the box remains stationary. In the second, it moves horizontally at speed = 0.5c. By having lights flash simultaneously at the ends of the box, the “photos” that reach the observers (at positions = 0 in each frame) record simultaneous positions for comparison to determine the “true” box length because both photos are taken at the same time, even though they do not reach the observers simultaneously. Each photo records the light flash and the corresponding positions and times in both frames when the flash occurred. The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that, whether or not reference frames are moving relative to one another, time does not vary – any such variation is apparent only.

Linked with the concept of a cosmological Doppler red-shift is an expanding universe with rapidly receding stars, galaxies, etc.  Assuming no form of matter, especially a reasonably macroscopic and tenuous one like a star, let alone an entire galaxy, could possibly travel at speeds approaching that of light and remain ‘intact’ (except, perhaps, something as dense as a neutron star), the only possible way for such an entity to exhibit recession speeds approaching that of light would be for space itself to be expanding.  And whether one accepts the traditional or Galilean Doppler red-shift as the correct explanation, one is still left to conclude that ‘something’ is ‘racing away.’  I endeavor to cast doubt on the traditional explanation of a cosmological Doppler red-shift due to universe expansion.  A Galilean Doppler red-shift may be an equally plausible explanation for those who adhere to the premise of stars, galaxies, etc., receding for whatever reason.

Two very interesting postulates by Calkins and Renshaw can be combined into a reasonable description of the ?observed? constancy of the speed of light from a stationary source in any particular ?medium,? while allowing this speed to vary within the same medium with a moving source. If light travels at a constant speed in a given medium when emitted from a stationary source, and if it is analogous to sound or water waves, then it would not exhibit different speeds when emitted from a moving source within the same medium, only the traditional Doppler Shift, i.e., change in frequency and wavelength, but not speed. Light behaves ?Galileanly? by acquiring the velocity vector of a moving source, allowing for speeds different from c.[1] Renshaw supports this by assuming the source motion ?moves? the observer to a different point on the ?elastic,? or light beam where, while a constant speed is still observed, the ?true? speed differs from c. In air or water, or any other ?material? medium, Calkins acknowledges the role of the medium itself to providing ?resistance? to the wave in addition to that inherently provided by the compression of any electromagnetic fields already present due to the atoms comprising the medium. Thus, a moving source in such a medium has its speed limited by the resistance from that medium itself. However, if the material medium itself were also moving in its entirety, say along with the source, then the net result would be a wave propagating at the constant speed in the medium itself PLUS that speed of the moving medium (summed vectorially), at least to an ?outside? observer (i.e., one not moving with the moving medium). Light has no ?material? medium in the sense of that for sound or water waves ? only the electromagnetic field itself. Therefore, when the source (of light) moves, the electromagnetic field (the ?medium?) moves along with it, since the medium is generated from the source. Could not this be the analogy that allows for ?Galilean? addition of the c and v vectors for a moving source of light? And from Renshaw's Radiation Continuum Model approach, could not this speed of light different from c correspond to being able to observe the ?true? speed from a different ?point? along the ?elastic? beam?

[1] See also ?Questioning the Cosmological Doppler Red-Shift,? by Gallucci.

The ?Electric Universe? Theory (EUT) owes part of its inspiration to the work of Immanuel Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision [1950]), at least for introducing the concept of catastrophism of an electrical nature potentially inducing what EUT proponents see as plasma-arced ?scarring? on some planets and other objects within our solar system, such as Mars.  Though discredited by mainstream physicists and astronomers since the publication of his ideas in 1950, Velikovsky nonetheless ushered in an era where catastrophic events, rather than just immeasurable eons of uniformitarianism, became acknowledged as a potential contributor to the current state of our solar system (and maybe beyond).  Based on my admittedly quite crude calculations in this paper, it still appears too far-fetched to believe the planet Venus arose out of Jupiter and careened through the inner solar system anytime within human history (if ever at all).  However, this does not invalidate the EUT contention that planetary scarring due to electrical plasma-arcing may be responsible for the bizarre surface features seen on Mars and perhaps other celestial objects.  But just what particular planetoids or comets might have been responsible for this remains unknown.

The following is an attempt to explain that time dilation in relativity is an apparent phenomenon only, i.e., when one frame moves relative to another at a constant speed, it only appears that its clock runs slower than the other. In the first (simple) case, the box remains stationary. In the second, it moves horizontally at speed = 0.5c. By having lights flash simultaneously at the ends of the box, the "photos" that reach the observers (at positions = 0 in each frame) record simultaneous positions for comparison to determine the "true" box length because both photos are taken at the same time, even though they do not reach the observers simultaneously. Each photo records the light flash and the corresponding positions and times in both frames when the flash occurred. The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that, whether or not reference frames are moving relative to one another, time does not vary ? any such variation is apparent only.

Einstein resolves the issue of whether or not light travels with the velocity of a moving source by assuming time dilates (and length contracts) in a moving inertial reference frame. Based more on belief than empirical evidence, this resolution enables the theory of special relativity to claim validity, even though there are other explanations and interpretations that are simpler and more consistent with Occam’s Razor. Some dissident physicists counter Einstein both by assuming the constant velocity of light is preserved, albeit without time dilation, as well as assuming light travels with the velocity of its source. While I am in the latter camp, I attempt to examine both sides of the argument from a non-relativistic perspective.