Normally push gravity is associated with LeSage. However LeSage, being particulate has its problems, including not being able to explain how the mass of an atom doesn't increase over time. But by remodelling push gravity as a wave EMR based model one can avoid these theoretical problems. To do this one has to discard any relativistic or Big Bang assumptions.
As the non expanding universe is infinite in size and age, all matter will have relative motions between different regions of space. And one can then postulate that mass in one part of the universe can move at many times the speed of light towards or away from another. This in turn means that emr emitted from one part will also have great relative speed differences to another. So that from any one point an observer will be experiencing isotopic radiation with radiation speeds of many times less than or greater than c. It is this wave emr radiation that in total can be the basis for push gravity. It pushes in and passes through all mass from all directions. Imbalances occur when an observer is near any other mass. For instance the moon experiences from among other sources, a relative imbalance of this push gravity radiation from earth. More radiation pushes the moon down towards the earth than comes up through the earth. Hence an imbalance and the moon is 'pushed' towards the earth.
It is worth pointing out that the push model has no definite speed of gravity but then again it isn't infinite. It must be a range of finite speeds but still on average, much greater than c.
To avoid the theoretical pitfalls of a particulate LeSage gravity this emr based wave gravity must not be absorbed by atoms. It must pass through. Modelling how exactly it can interact with mass while it passes through can only be speculative, but the best scenario is that some directional anisotropic gravity radiation that passes through the atom gets re-radiated isotropically as it passes through. Explaining not only the actual push mechanism but also the other observed forces associated with atoms. Like the strong and electroweak and magnetic forces. While also still being able to explain how no wave energy is stored in the atom itself as it passes through.
Plus, as this is a wave based model, the atom itself can be thought of as a standing wave or nodal point in this infinite sea of energy. Something that is in fact a more correct explanation than other models like the particulate Standard model. Because as the closer we get to looking in macroscopic detail at atoms and electricity, the more wave like and resonant these phenomena appear. As a wave only push model describes.
A good way to visualise a push model is to use the analogy of a vibrating tray of water. Notice that raised nodal points of water appear. These are standing waves in the water created by the passing wave energy from the vibrations. They are analogous to the atom. And like the atom, these raised nodal points in the water are created by energy passing through. No energy stays at one point and builds up. Just as a wave only atom is the sum of many different frequencies of passing wave energy interfering with each other and creating a standing wave nodal point at a specific point in space. Maybe studying vibrating wave tanks would increase our understanding of this model. Research could see if manipulating these nodal points in the vibrating water could create effects similar to gravitational , strong and electroweak etc mechanisms.
One criticism of a push model, is that gravity has to be instantaneous to make its predictions match the observed orbital motions of planets etc. And push gravity by its nature does have to have a finite speed as I have mentioned earlier. But if one looks at the nature of a push model it becomes apparent that in fact the push mechanism will give instantaneous effects, as if it had an infinite speed. This is because if one looks at any point in the gravitational field of any object like a planet, it will at any point in its gravitational field already have the pressure imbalance I have mentioned earlier. Some wave gravity will already be at that point pushing up and more will already be at that point pushing down. You don't have to move into a new position in a orbit around earth to wait for earth to detect you and then reach out at a finite speed to pull you in. There already is push gravitational radiation pushing and pulling at any point in any gravitational field.
An important analogy would be: If you move across the paths of light rays at a distance from a light source, you don't have to wait for light to travel out at c from the source each time you move to a new position. *There will already be radiation* at each point in your path that has already left the source and travelled out to you.
This is an important distinction because it allows a push model with a finite speed to always have an instantaneous gravitational effect at any point in any gravitational field.
Another criticism of push gravity is that to have this imbalance occur in a gravitational field and be able to explain the larger fields near stars then it must infer a sea of great invisible energy permeating the universe which isn't normally detected. In other words each observer would have tremendous forces travelling through their bodies from all directions. This is an unfair criticism as it comes from theorists who at the same time postulate EXACTLY the same thing when speculating about quantum foam. The invisible sea of energy popping in and out of existence at any point in the vacuum.
Thursday, 19 January 2017
Thursday, 12 January 2017
Stellar Abberation
https://youtube.com/watch?v=HMCVZPun_iA
Stellar abberation has always been explained as star light arriving in the inertial solar frame with the earth moving through the incident light wavefronts. Although generally this works, when applied to the water filled telescope the light appears to move slower in the inertial frame and a different angle of abberation is predicted. But not observed. This left the ground open to the claims by SR supporters that only a relativistic calculation can explain all the observations of stellar abberation. However what has been ignored since the effect was first observed is the fact that the abberation angle can be observed by naked eye using a mural quadrant!
In other words the light must already be arriving at an angle in the earth observer frame. Contrary to erroneous assumptions it arrives vertically. Which in turn creates the imaginary problems with, for instance, the water filled telescope. To take into account this important fact one must calculate the angle of aberration by using the following very simple calculation:
Earths speed around the sun is 30 ks and lightspeed arriving is 299792 ks.
So that's a horizontal speed of 30 against a vertical speed of 299792ks.
Putting this information into a right angle triangle to represent starlight arriving at earth from vertically above. Opposite and adjacent sides of the triangle are:
Opposite is 299792ks Adjacent is 30ks (see illustration below)
In other words every second earth moves across 30ks the starlight travels down 299792 ks
This gives an angle of adjacent/ hypoteneuse as approximately 0.00573 degrees
Compare this to the observed 'angle of aberration constant' of 20 arcseconds. 20 arcseconds is 20/3600 = 1/180 degree = 0.00555 degree
The calculated value very closely matches the observed angle of abberation.
In the earth frame the light is therefore arriving at an angle of approximately 0.00573. And to take this into account the telescope must be set at that angle. If the telescope is water filled the slower speed of light in water will not effect the abberation angle as the light is ALREADY arriving at an angle.
The only conclusion is that a classical model can fully explain the observed effects of stellar abberation.
This shows how if one uses the earth observer frame to explain abberation, the light now is seen to be arriving at an angle. The telescope then only needs to be tilted in the right direction, as calculated using the method described above. Furthermore if the telescope is filled with water the slower speed of light in water does not effect the path of the light through the telescope barrel. And still arrives at its correct position at the eyepiece. What is remarkable is how Bradley in the 18th century did not realise this simple explanation. Probably one reason for this misunderstanding was their assumption of an imaginary aether to help them explain how lightwaves propagate. However there never was neccesity for aether in a classical wave emission model of light. Quite why aetherists supported the need for an aether is vague. Probably a lack of understanding of physics. But it must be noted that the same people who supported the need for an unneccesary aether went on to support another unneccesary theory...Spacetime and relativity.
This illustration shows how to calculate abberation angle using a simple triangle method of earth speed horizontally against light speed arriving vertically.
This is the traditional frame used to explain abberation. The starlight arrives vertically and the earth, shown here by the telescope cross section, travels from right to left. The light moves down the tube to the bottom if the angle of the telescope is positioned correctly.
Theorists from Bradley through to current relativists illustrate the water filled telescope moving in the heliocentric frame. However they erroneously assume that the water in the telescope doesn't move in that frame! This is an absurd conclusion as they admit the telescope does move. Ignoring the waters motion and calculating the lightspeed for the water in the inertial heliocentric frame, theorists have erroneously concluded that the light actually moves faster than c for water in the telescope. They do this by assuming the light travels straight down in the inertial frame. Which can only mean it is travelling faster than c through the water as the water is moving in this frame.
A correct calculation should have the light always travelling at c relative to the moving water filled barrel of the telescope. Which means it has to travel diagonally across the inertial frame rather than straight down.
The path of the light through the water is bent forwards in the direction of the motion of the telescope.
As with refraction the light has to travel this path of least resistance. As it is the only path that it can take to travel at c. To deviate means it must travel either slower or faster than c in water. Something it cannot do as the light source does not move closer or farther relative to the telescope
Stellar abberation has always been explained as star light arriving in the inertial solar frame with the earth moving through the incident light wavefronts. Although generally this works, when applied to the water filled telescope the light appears to move slower in the inertial frame and a different angle of abberation is predicted. But not observed. This left the ground open to the claims by SR supporters that only a relativistic calculation can explain all the observations of stellar abberation. However what has been ignored since the effect was first observed is the fact that the abberation angle can be observed by naked eye using a mural quadrant!
In other words the light must already be arriving at an angle in the earth observer frame. Contrary to erroneous assumptions it arrives vertically. Which in turn creates the imaginary problems with, for instance, the water filled telescope. To take into account this important fact one must calculate the angle of aberration by using the following very simple calculation:
Earths speed around the sun is 30 ks and lightspeed arriving is 299792 ks.
So that's a horizontal speed of 30 against a vertical speed of 299792ks.
Putting this information into a right angle triangle to represent starlight arriving at earth from vertically above. Opposite and adjacent sides of the triangle are:
Opposite is 299792ks Adjacent is 30ks (see illustration below)
In other words every second earth moves across 30ks the starlight travels down 299792 ks
This gives an angle of adjacent/ hypoteneuse as approximately 0.00573 degrees
Compare this to the observed 'angle of aberration constant' of 20 arcseconds. 20 arcseconds is 20/3600 = 1/180 degree = 0.00555 degree
The calculated value very closely matches the observed angle of abberation.
In the earth frame the light is therefore arriving at an angle of approximately 0.00573. And to take this into account the telescope must be set at that angle. If the telescope is water filled the slower speed of light in water will not effect the abberation angle as the light is ALREADY arriving at an angle.
The only conclusion is that a classical model can fully explain the observed effects of stellar abberation.
This shows how if one uses the earth observer frame to explain abberation, the light now is seen to be arriving at an angle. The telescope then only needs to be tilted in the right direction, as calculated using the method described above. Furthermore if the telescope is filled with water the slower speed of light in water does not effect the path of the light through the telescope barrel. And still arrives at its correct position at the eyepiece. What is remarkable is how Bradley in the 18th century did not realise this simple explanation. Probably one reason for this misunderstanding was their assumption of an imaginary aether to help them explain how lightwaves propagate. However there never was neccesity for aether in a classical wave emission model of light. Quite why aetherists supported the need for an aether is vague. Probably a lack of understanding of physics. But it must be noted that the same people who supported the need for an unneccesary aether went on to support another unneccesary theory...Spacetime and relativity.
This illustration shows how to calculate abberation angle using a simple triangle method of earth speed horizontally against light speed arriving vertically.
This is the traditional frame used to explain abberation. The starlight arrives vertically and the earth, shown here by the telescope cross section, travels from right to left. The light moves down the tube to the bottom if the angle of the telescope is positioned correctly.
Theorists from Bradley through to current relativists illustrate the water filled telescope moving in the heliocentric frame. However they erroneously assume that the water in the telescope doesn't move in that frame! This is an absurd conclusion as they admit the telescope does move. Ignoring the waters motion and calculating the lightspeed for the water in the inertial heliocentric frame, theorists have erroneously concluded that the light actually moves faster than c for water in the telescope. They do this by assuming the light travels straight down in the inertial frame. Which can only mean it is travelling faster than c through the water as the water is moving in this frame.
A correct calculation should have the light always travelling at c relative to the moving water filled barrel of the telescope. Which means it has to travel diagonally across the inertial frame rather than straight down.
The path of the light through the water is bent forwards in the direction of the motion of the telescope.
As with refraction the light has to travel this path of least resistance. As it is the only path that it can take to travel at c. To deviate means it must travel either slower or faster than c in water. Something it cannot do as the light source does not move closer or farther relative to the telescope
Spin and Orbital angular momentum
Spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum are caused only by the changing polarisation in the beam. It is the orientation of the polarisation within each beam that creates the different rotation axes for the test particles. The following video shows how polarisation angles within a cross section of the beam rotate. And the superimposed bars show the overall direction of rotation of the total thrust of the changing polarisation angles. It is worth noting that the OAM cross section has a double barred overall rotation. This corresponds to the greater momentum observed in OAM.
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
Saturday, 7 January 2017
Earths solid core precesses as it rotates creating high latitude flow in the liquid core
In the model described in my 2009 paper, (available here on this blog in the 2009 section) I predicted that a global equatorial rotation of the liquid core relative to the mantle, as being the driving force in the dynamo that creates the earths magnetic field. Not the opposite as some theorists believe. This rotation of the liquid core is driven by the inner core rotating faster or slower than the mantle. I proposed that the solid cores relative speed to the mantle varies over large time scales and when it's relative speed to the mantle changes from faster to slower or vis a versa, this reverses the dynamo mechanism which in turn reverses the magnetic field polarity. Hence long term flipping of the earths magnetic field can be explained. I also proposed that the solid inner core is malleable and can change shape over time from extended in the north south axis to flattened in the north south axis. As is understood with angular momentum, this action leads to any rotating body slowing down or speeding up its rotation speed. Hence when the solid core is stretched north south, it rotates faster than the mantle. As is observed currently and explained in more detail in my 2009 paper. Further to this I proposed that the solid core also wobbles as it spins. Leading to an off axis solid core. As my paper points out, current evidence suggests that the solid core is not only spinning faster than the mantle but also tilted off axis as it spins. Analogous to a spinning top that wobbles. And recent research has indicated this tilt to be currently at about 10 degrees off the earths north south axis with the north pointing at 10 degrees towards Siberia. In my paper I predicted this off axis core would create an off axis equatorial flow in the liquid core which in turn would create an off axis magnetic field. And that the field would be diametrical opposite to the off axis solid core. Which is also observed. The core currently points 10 degrees to Siberia and opposite to that in Canada, at roughly the same latitude is the magnetic North Pole. However at the time of the writing of my paper I assumed the speed of the wobbling solid cores' north and southern tips were the same as the overall rotational speed of the solid cord. Which is about 0.1 degree a year faster than the mantle eastwards. Hence I a predicted eastwards flow in the liquid core. Also by inference my model predicts the strongest speeds of the liquid core should be at the top and bottom stretched ends of the solid core, as they ascribe a circular path around the north and south poles of the earths rotational axis. (This is best explained visually by the video simulation I posted concurrently with the paper in 2009, the URL being available from the earlier post of this paper on this blog). Being closer to the mantle than any other part of the solid core they will induce the largest speed differential in the liquid core. Very much as the rotating blades of a mixing machine will have the fastest liquid rotation speeds nearest the blade ends itself.
The recent Livermore et al paper has confirmed all these predictions in my paper. Both unique and original predictions in 2009 and now. Most if not all other theories incorrectly assume convection.
The Livermore paper confirms a high speed liquid core flow centered above Siberia at 10 degrees off axis from the earths rotational polar axis exactly as my 2009 paper predicts. However, with one important caveat. The assumption in Livermore’s paper is a westward flow of the outer part of liquid core
This initially seems to rule out my model because although my model has accurately predicted most of the rest of the Livermore papers conclusions, his westward flow seems to contradict my models overall predicted eastward flow.
However on analysis, I realise now, that Phil has misinterpreted the westward movement of Earths dipole magnetic field with a westward flow of the liquid core near the mantle. In other words he hasn’t observed a westward flow of the liquid core. He has used satellite data showing anomalies in the earths field at those latitudes. And then made assumptions about core flow directions. Based on the flawed convection model. A model which is not only fundamentally different from my model. But to date has been consistently unsuccessful in all of its predictions made by various theorists over the decades.
The recent Livermore et al paper has confirmed all these predictions in my paper. Both unique and original predictions in 2009 and now. Most if not all other theories incorrectly assume convection.
The Livermore paper confirms a high speed liquid core flow centered above Siberia at 10 degrees off axis from the earths rotational polar axis exactly as my 2009 paper predicts. However, with one important caveat. The assumption in Livermore’s paper is a westward flow of the outer part of liquid core
This initially seems to rule out my model because although my model has accurately predicted most of the rest of the Livermore papers conclusions, his westward flow seems to contradict my models overall predicted eastward flow.
However on analysis, I realise now, that Phil has misinterpreted the westward movement of Earths dipole magnetic field with a westward flow of the liquid core near the mantle. In other words he hasn’t observed a westward flow of the liquid core. He has used satellite data showing anomalies in the earths field at those latitudes. And then made assumptions about core flow directions. Based on the flawed convection model. A model which is not only fundamentally different from my model. But to date has been consistently unsuccessful in all of its predictions made by various theorists over the decades.
Sunday, 25 December 2016
Correct calculation for classical predictions for Ives Stillwelll
Below is the *correct* method to calculate c+-v for classical theory. In the original paper below Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculated the offset for classical theory to erroneously conclude no offse for classical theory. A mistake later aped by Einstein himself and continues till this day to be incorrectly cited by relativists the world over. I wonder, did Ives Stillwell make a mistake or did they deliberately falsify classical theories predictions in a desperate attempt to bolster the pseudoscientific theory called SR?
H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock 2", JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941).
Note that in the 1941 paper on the title page 369 is the quote..."the H2 particles give a shift of 0.11 A as against the previous maximum of .0.047A The papers do not actually supply v for the source but the online wiki page for Ives Stillwell gives 0.005c for the experiment.
The rest wavelength is 4861A=frequency of 6.1673 ^14 hz.
Using the following formula Classical theory predicts the following offset:
(c/{(1+v/c) x f}+ c/{(1-v/c) x f})/2.
1.005c X f =f1 (forward) =6.1981365 = 4836.808A
0.995c X f. =f2( rearward) = 6.1364635 = 4885.419A
Average is therefore 4861.11A
Offset predicted for classical is 0.11 A
As observed in the 1941 paper
The above formula also gives the correct velocity for the source. Contrary to that
assumed using the assumed mass of the H2 ions. Which themselves are assumed using
relativistic calculations. And not valid in any classical model. It must be noted here that
the only measurements made in this experiment are the offsets observed. No masses or
velocities are observed. Only inferred using assumptions.
Therefore the classical method of deriving v is the only correct method for directly
calculating v.
H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock 2", JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941).
Note that in the 1941 paper on the title page 369 is the quote..."the H2 particles give a shift of 0.11 A as against the previous maximum of .0.047A The papers do not actually supply v for the source but the online wiki page for Ives Stillwell gives 0.005c for the experiment.
The rest wavelength is 4861A=frequency of 6.1673 ^14 hz.
Using the following formula Classical theory predicts the following offset:
(c/{(1+v/c) x f}+ c/{(1-v/c) x f})/2.
1.005c X f =f1 (forward) =6.1981365 = 4836.808A
0.995c X f. =f2( rearward) = 6.1364635 = 4885.419A
Average is therefore 4861.11A
Offset predicted for classical is 0.11 A
As observed in the 1941 paper
The above formula also gives the correct velocity for the source. Contrary to that
assumed using the assumed mass of the H2 ions. Which themselves are assumed using
relativistic calculations. And not valid in any classical model. It must be noted here that
the only measurements made in this experiment are the offsets observed. No masses or
velocities are observed. Only inferred using assumptions.
Therefore the classical method of deriving v is the only correct method for directly
calculating v.
Monday, 19 December 2016
LIGO gravitational wave is a random coincidence only
If one studies the available data from LIGO it becomes obvious that the chances of random fluctuations detected simultaneously in both detectors is so great as to make it a certainty that the so called 3 gravitational waves are in fact 3 random chance coincidences from 100's of billions of potential detections in each detector.
The following is a quote from LIGO:
"LIGO uses an SNR threshold of 4. With peak finding, that typically reduces the data volume from 1/2 billion SNR (signal to noise ratio) samples per second of data to "just" 100 billion single-detector candidates for the O1 science run. Coincidence with a second instrument reduces that by about a factor of 100 to about 1 billion coincident candidates. About 99% of the 100 billion single-detector candidates fail coincidence."
Essentially LIGO detects 100 billion chirps in each detector. Each chirp a potential partner for a gravitational wave candidate. That is each of these 100 billion chirps in each detector has the requisite profile to match a so called black hole ring down profile. Software analysis of data then matches each candidate from each detector to another candidate chirp detected at the other detector within the same neccesary 10 microsecond time frame dictated by the presumed speed of gravity. (essentially ignoring any matches that are too far apart temporally to be consistent with a relativistic gravity speed. And ignoring any chirp that does match a relativistic BH merging profile but not the specific profile seen in the other detector) This reduces the 100 billion candidate detections in each detector to the three that closely match the profile of one detected in the other detector within the given time frame of 10 microseconds. This match is then assumed to be a gravitational wave.
In other words the gravitational wave is a random coincidence from billions of random fluctuations detected in each detector.
If one does a rough calculation thats at least a hundred candidate chirps detected in each detector every 10 ms. Over 3 months there are 750,000,000 seperate 10 ms batches in each detector. Each 10 ms batch contains 100 candidate chirps detections.
Not too hard then to only match those with very close profiles and end up
with just three *coincidental* chirps above 4 SNR in each detector.
Only one of the three so called gravitational waves detected had both detectors detecting a chirp each above a SNR of 13.
Any data for how many of these billions of chirps were above 13 SNR in each detector is not available and probably not even collated by LIGO. But it is within the order of possibilities that at least one coincident >13 SNR detection in both detectors could be possible within at least one 10ms window over three months.
To put this into context and based on probabilities, to get this one only needs 15,000 >13 SNR total detections in each detector over 3 months to give an average of 1 coincidence detection every three months. That's out of 100 billion >4 SNR detections in each detector over 3 months.
The only conclusion one can reach is that these are not gravitational waves being detected but rather, random coincidences in two detectors over the detection period. And for instance if the detection window were larger if gravity had a slower predicted speed, then more "gravitational waves "could be extracted from the same data.
Friday, 16 December 2016
The c+v hoax
Since SR was first conceived it has been assumed that classical theory cannot explain various phenomena like Sagnac, Ives Stilwell and the deSitter double star experiment. The claim being that light leaving a rotating or moving source travels at c+v in the inertial frame. That being the lab frame in Sagnac or the earth frame in de Sitter. This is an incorrect assumption made by supporters of relativity to rule out a classical model. Leaving SR as the only viable alternative. Analysis of this assumption shows it to be false.
Take the De Sitter example. ( De Sitter, Willem (1913), "On the constancy of the velocity of light", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, 395-396 ). In the currently available wiki page we have the quote: "According to simple emission theory, light thrown off by an object should move at a speed of c with respect to the emitting object". The authors of this page then proceed to contradict this statement by describing the exact opposite and say it travels at constant c+v in the inertial earth frame. This is a mathematical impossibility. If as relativists admit light must always travel at c in the source frame. It is impossible to have light travelling at a constant c+v speed in a inertial frame if one calculates using a Galilean transformation. To satisfy classicals constant c in a source frame it must be variable in the inertial frame. And in the accompanying java applet animation they actually show light leaving the source at *a variable speed* with respect to the source. In other words they have ignored the fact that they have just admitted classical theory only has light travelling at constant c relative to the source as it moves or rotates.
It is worth pointing out here that Classical theory of light does not have light at constant speed c in all frames. Only in the source frame. This is a fundamental aspect of Classical theory developed over many years prior to the inception of SR. Experiments such as MMX have only helped to confirm this property of light. The same mistake is made by relativists for the Sagnac theory in respect to Classical predictions. Here too the erroneous assumption is that light is c+v in the lab frame. Ignoring the fact that light should only be at constant speeds in the source frame. Regardless of the fact it rotates in the lab. If one looks at the Michelson Morley experiment from 1887 we observe light at constant speeds in all directions in the lab frame. Not in the inertial earth frame that the earth rotates in. This means that as the MMX rotates around the earths axis, light must be travelling at constant speeds in the rotating frame. Any Galilean translation to the inertial frame, as too with the rotating source in deSitter, will not give a constant speed in the inertial frame. Contrary to the claims of constant c+v in the inertial frame made by relativists. If one calculates speeds correctly for classical theory it becomes obvious that in fact light is variable in the inertial frame for Sagnac and deSitter among others and DOES not pile up on arriving at earth in deSitter. And CAN give a fringe shift in the rotating Sagnac source.
Examples of this are given as simulations in the video channel accompanying the blog channel "physics explained" for this article.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCcCBqQ2VHaWLL3Gzb8dIk-w
Further to this, some relativists claim that in fact light is variant in the MMX lab frame and that this therefore rules out the possibility that light is invariant and therefore constant only in the MMX lab frame. And by inference all other rotating source frames. Their argument is that although to date this claim they make hasn't actually been observed, the effect is there but too small to measure! This is basically suggesting that they believe that confirmed observation is overidden by unsubstantiated assumption. Not a very scientific approach on their part considering they usually insist verification by observation is of tantamount importance for any theoretical validity. As it turns out their assumptions about current experimental evidence not being sensitive enough to this 'imaginary' invariance appear to be false anyways. Because their assumptions are based on the assumptions made in 1887 that the aether winds effect on path difference was velocity of earth diluted by the refractive index of this in a theoretical aether
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
In other words the aether wind was less than v of earth through the aether because it's refractive index reduced its effect. Whereas to test whether light is at c in the inertial or source frame, one does not have m take into account the refractive index of any aether and rather, just perform a straight Galilean translation from one frame to the other without invoking a refractive index. The following experiments are usually proposed by relativists to falsely claim that light cannot be only at c relative to its source. Contrary to relativists claims, they ARE all consistent with the prediction by classical theory that light is observed to travels at c relative to its source.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
IVES STILLWELL:
As explained in separate posts on this blog site, the Ives Stillwell experiment IS consistent with classical, and in fact invalidates SR. Contrary to claims made by relativists. And is probably the best classical style experiment to show this. Essentially to get the correct observed fringe offset, one needs to correctly calculate c+v. As opposed to relying on the erroneous calculations and assumptions made by Ives Stillwell. Correct calculations are supplied elsewhere on this blog in the relevant Ives Stillwell posts. If the only way to get the observed offset is to calculate using c+v, then it is impossible to have light at c as SR neccesitates to produce the observed offset. The SR calculations must then have been falsified to achieve the same result as classical. Probably some sort of lorentzian transformation to falsify data is used as SR does with Fizeau.
ALVAGER:
This is possibly the most audacious falsification of experimental data ever attempted by relativists. Essentially their argument is that a theoretical particle, the neutral pion, is the moving source for the observed gamma rays observed to travel at c in the experiment. As it turns out, neutral pions are assumed only and cannot nor ever actually have been observed experimentally. Their presumed existence relies solely on the observations of yes, you guessed it, gammarays observed in colliders in this very experiment.
Essentially what IS observed in this experiment are only gammarays travelling at c emitted by the non moving beryllium target. Perfectly consistent with classical theory which predicts emr will always only be observed to travel at c relative to its source. Relativists, desperate to discredit the obvious consistency of the experimental results with classical physics have invented an imaginary unsubstantiated particle that is emitted at near c by the target and then supposedly emits the observed gamma radiation. It is also worth pointing out the existence of these and other imaginary particles are in fact part of the standard model. Which itself is a theoretical framework based on false assumptions made by quantum theory about wave particle duality. An assumption about emr that has no substantiation. The photon is never actually observed, but only inferred. Either by scintillation or by photodetectors. Processes which themselves are easily explainable by a wave only classical theory of light. Utilising resonance to describe wave only light being absorbed or quantised in discreet amounts by the atoms in the detectors. FILIPPAS AND FOX: ( Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source, T.A. Filipas and J.G. Fox, Phys.Rev. 135, B1071). In this experiment it's not clear how curves A and B are calculated in the paper. No supporting calculations or assumptions are made to explain how exactly they have derived "incorrect" curves to invalidate classical theory. But a fundamental problem here is the assumption of photon pairs. Classical theory does not incorporate the concept photons or photon pairs. Light is a wave. Like Alvager any predictions can be identified as false assumptions for any classical model.
BECKMANN MANDICS:
Here the problem is simple. Light as a wave is not known to gain or lose velocity from reflection. Hence classical wave theory would also predict c in the lab seeing as the source is not moving. (Even if we were to assume additive velocities for wave reflection... why would the non moving lloyds mirror not return the speed to c again. It doesn't move relative to the interferometer.)
BABCOCK BERGER AND KANTOR:
Here we have another false assumption. The source window rotates. This means the speed for classical is NOT c+v. But rather variable. Data on window speed and design are not supplied and thus Calculations for the windows rotation need to be made to confirm what the average v would be for classical. But the conclusion would have to be much less than the assumed v as the rotating window as a source varies between 0 and v relative to the forward motion of the beam. Note there is an "unexplainable" fringe shift observed anyways in the experiment. Consistent with a slower than assumed source speed. At the very least these experiments are not conclusive either way.
Take the De Sitter example. ( De Sitter, Willem (1913), "On the constancy of the velocity of light", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, 395-396 ). In the currently available wiki page we have the quote: "According to simple emission theory, light thrown off by an object should move at a speed of c with respect to the emitting object". The authors of this page then proceed to contradict this statement by describing the exact opposite and say it travels at constant c+v in the inertial earth frame. This is a mathematical impossibility. If as relativists admit light must always travel at c in the source frame. It is impossible to have light travelling at a constant c+v speed in a inertial frame if one calculates using a Galilean transformation. To satisfy classicals constant c in a source frame it must be variable in the inertial frame. And in the accompanying java applet animation they actually show light leaving the source at *a variable speed* with respect to the source. In other words they have ignored the fact that they have just admitted classical theory only has light travelling at constant c relative to the source as it moves or rotates.
It is worth pointing out here that Classical theory of light does not have light at constant speed c in all frames. Only in the source frame. This is a fundamental aspect of Classical theory developed over many years prior to the inception of SR. Experiments such as MMX have only helped to confirm this property of light. The same mistake is made by relativists for the Sagnac theory in respect to Classical predictions. Here too the erroneous assumption is that light is c+v in the lab frame. Ignoring the fact that light should only be at constant speeds in the source frame. Regardless of the fact it rotates in the lab. If one looks at the Michelson Morley experiment from 1887 we observe light at constant speeds in all directions in the lab frame. Not in the inertial earth frame that the earth rotates in. This means that as the MMX rotates around the earths axis, light must be travelling at constant speeds in the rotating frame. Any Galilean translation to the inertial frame, as too with the rotating source in deSitter, will not give a constant speed in the inertial frame. Contrary to the claims of constant c+v in the inertial frame made by relativists. If one calculates speeds correctly for classical theory it becomes obvious that in fact light is variable in the inertial frame for Sagnac and deSitter among others and DOES not pile up on arriving at earth in deSitter. And CAN give a fringe shift in the rotating Sagnac source.
Examples of this are given as simulations in the video channel accompanying the blog channel "physics explained" for this article.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCcCBqQ2VHaWLL3Gzb8dIk-w
Further to this, some relativists claim that in fact light is variant in the MMX lab frame and that this therefore rules out the possibility that light is invariant and therefore constant only in the MMX lab frame. And by inference all other rotating source frames. Their argument is that although to date this claim they make hasn't actually been observed, the effect is there but too small to measure! This is basically suggesting that they believe that confirmed observation is overidden by unsubstantiated assumption. Not a very scientific approach on their part considering they usually insist verification by observation is of tantamount importance for any theoretical validity. As it turns out their assumptions about current experimental evidence not being sensitive enough to this 'imaginary' invariance appear to be false anyways. Because their assumptions are based on the assumptions made in 1887 that the aether winds effect on path difference was velocity of earth diluted by the refractive index of this in a theoretical aether
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
In other words the aether wind was less than v of earth through the aether because it's refractive index reduced its effect. Whereas to test whether light is at c in the inertial or source frame, one does not have m take into account the refractive index of any aether and rather, just perform a straight Galilean translation from one frame to the other without invoking a refractive index. The following experiments are usually proposed by relativists to falsely claim that light cannot be only at c relative to its source. Contrary to relativists claims, they ARE all consistent with the prediction by classical theory that light is observed to travels at c relative to its source.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
IVES STILLWELL:
As explained in separate posts on this blog site, the Ives Stillwell experiment IS consistent with classical, and in fact invalidates SR. Contrary to claims made by relativists. And is probably the best classical style experiment to show this. Essentially to get the correct observed fringe offset, one needs to correctly calculate c+v. As opposed to relying on the erroneous calculations and assumptions made by Ives Stillwell. Correct calculations are supplied elsewhere on this blog in the relevant Ives Stillwell posts. If the only way to get the observed offset is to calculate using c+v, then it is impossible to have light at c as SR neccesitates to produce the observed offset. The SR calculations must then have been falsified to achieve the same result as classical. Probably some sort of lorentzian transformation to falsify data is used as SR does with Fizeau.
ALVAGER:
This is possibly the most audacious falsification of experimental data ever attempted by relativists. Essentially their argument is that a theoretical particle, the neutral pion, is the moving source for the observed gamma rays observed to travel at c in the experiment. As it turns out, neutral pions are assumed only and cannot nor ever actually have been observed experimentally. Their presumed existence relies solely on the observations of yes, you guessed it, gammarays observed in colliders in this very experiment.
Essentially what IS observed in this experiment are only gammarays travelling at c emitted by the non moving beryllium target. Perfectly consistent with classical theory which predicts emr will always only be observed to travel at c relative to its source. Relativists, desperate to discredit the obvious consistency of the experimental results with classical physics have invented an imaginary unsubstantiated particle that is emitted at near c by the target and then supposedly emits the observed gamma radiation. It is also worth pointing out the existence of these and other imaginary particles are in fact part of the standard model. Which itself is a theoretical framework based on false assumptions made by quantum theory about wave particle duality. An assumption about emr that has no substantiation. The photon is never actually observed, but only inferred. Either by scintillation or by photodetectors. Processes which themselves are easily explainable by a wave only classical theory of light. Utilising resonance to describe wave only light being absorbed or quantised in discreet amounts by the atoms in the detectors. FILIPPAS AND FOX: ( Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source, T.A. Filipas and J.G. Fox, Phys.Rev. 135, B1071). In this experiment it's not clear how curves A and B are calculated in the paper. No supporting calculations or assumptions are made to explain how exactly they have derived "incorrect" curves to invalidate classical theory. But a fundamental problem here is the assumption of photon pairs. Classical theory does not incorporate the concept photons or photon pairs. Light is a wave. Like Alvager any predictions can be identified as false assumptions for any classical model.
BECKMANN MANDICS:
Here the problem is simple. Light as a wave is not known to gain or lose velocity from reflection. Hence classical wave theory would also predict c in the lab seeing as the source is not moving. (Even if we were to assume additive velocities for wave reflection... why would the non moving lloyds mirror not return the speed to c again. It doesn't move relative to the interferometer.)
BABCOCK BERGER AND KANTOR:
Here we have another false assumption. The source window rotates. This means the speed for classical is NOT c+v. But rather variable. Data on window speed and design are not supplied and thus Calculations for the windows rotation need to be made to confirm what the average v would be for classical. But the conclusion would have to be much less than the assumed v as the rotating window as a source varies between 0 and v relative to the forward motion of the beam. Note there is an "unexplainable" fringe shift observed anyways in the experiment. Consistent with a slower than assumed source speed. At the very least these experiments are not conclusive either way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)