. .

Red-shift of fotons: . . Lossy Light propagation in Ether, after all? . . . (NFB, sci.math 11jun98)

Edwin Hubble did not favor the expanding universe hypothesis : Study by Paul LaViolette (1978)

- Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA)
. . A critical view on flawed assumptions in fundamental Physics (by professionals)

Society for Scientific Exploration . . . Stanford-Univ, USA, 1982.

" Commonsense-in-Science Manifesto"
=====================================

1. . . A wave phenomenon requires a medium,
So : . . . . a wave cannot propagate in vacuüm.

2 . . . . EM waves (light) propagate in space,
So . . Space is not vacuüm (say 'ether' medium).

3. . . Perpetuüm mobile (lossfree) processes do not exist,
So : . . . . . Wave propagation (light travel) is not lossless
And if linear loss : redshift proportional to distance travelled.

4. . . Speed of wave propagation depends on medium density,
And : . . . Density varies with Gravity field around heavy body. [!]
So : . . . Interstellar space is filled with inhomogeneous medium,
So . . . Lightspeed is not constant, and light bends around a star.
Ref:
- Redshift by Photon Decay

5. . . With matter (electron) as closed wave (closed photon) [*]:
It makes sense that rotating matter (Earth) drags ether along.
So: . . This adherence prevents ether-motion measured along Earth surface.
(Michelson_Morley's null-result is no surprise, but their
'conclusion' (no ether) _is_ surprising, based on insufficient
grounds: neglecting the alternative of ether-adherence to Earth)

6. [!] . . If ether density around heavy body decreases as 1/r
And : . . . Gravity is defined as its gradient
Then: . . . Gravity decreases as -1/(r^2) ---> Newton's gravity Law [!]

7. "The speed of light is independent of frequency within a factor of 6x10-21" (B.Schaefer)
. . This points to the existence of a medium that determines speed c, since photons
. . of widely different frequencies could in vacuüm travel at various speeds as
. . determined at their generation, and maintain those various speeds forever.
So: Einsteins axiom of constant speed c induces a medium for light propagation.

8. Lightspeed c is the natural wave propagation speed in the ether medium.
. . Nothing compels it to be the absolute maximum speed (as assumed by Einstein).
. . Similar to the speed of sound in air: a projectile with enough energy can break
. . though the sound barrier (e.g. a jet airplane). So an energetic neutrino can
. . break through the lightspeed barrier, maybe with a V-formed shockwave.
. . There is no connection with causality, time reversal, twin paradox, etc.


[*] Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? [*]
by Martin van der Mark, J.G. Williamson (.pdf - 1997)
'All is EM field' - including elementary 'particles'
(
donut structure of electron)

Quasars, Big-Bang & http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ by dr. Paul Marmet
From: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, V20, N6, pp958-964, 1992.

Thread : "The return of the Ether"

Quote: Originally posted by kaduseus
---> Do you actually need an aether model?

NB : Only if you think perpetuum mobile for foton/light propagation is
. . . impossible, thus : assuming they suffer 'diffusion' and/or 'dissipation'
. . . along their (infinitely) long intergalactic travel.
By Planck: energy = h.frequency (E = h. nu) this means :
. . . energy loss proportional to travelled distance =
. . . = frequency reduction per travelled distance =
. . . = redshift proportional to travelled distance
(vs. Hubble's redshift prop. to expansion speed, by Doppler effect -
as he initially hypothesized, but later he withdrew that assumption ! )
The Redshift is quantized : in jumps of 8 km/s.

NPA: Critique on modern physics.
"In the case of modern physics, the main bias seems to be one against logic, and
in favor of the irrational and the bizarre. The strange new ideas of relativity,
quantum physics, and big bang theory represent not only an attempt to defame Newtonian
physics, but even an attempt to deny the supremely important achievement of classical
Greek proto-scientific thought: affirming that we live in a rationally ordered world.
One dissident pointed out that Einsteinian relativity sacrifices 300 years of modern
physics in order to rescue Maxwell's equations; but it does far more than that: in a very
meaningful sense it attempts to undercut the primary foundations of all western scholarship,
both classical and modern. But the sources of the claims of irrationality and logic do not
lie in the real external world; they lie in the minds of the physicists. It is their own
mental preconceptions that are irrational, not the nature they purport to explain.
They confront the evidence and "find" what they expect to find, not realizing that other
conclusions might be drawn, by those who are convinced that the world is rational and that
the rules of logic must be followed when interpreting it."
--- As indicated in the introduction to this part of the website,
there is much more to follow. Watch for added material in the coming months.
--- John E. Chappell, Jr. (Director, Natural Philosophy Alliance), February 2000.

In a gravity field : Curving Space .versus. Modulating Ether density.

My motivation for dissipative ether

Without dissipation, a foton would not change its characteristics
along its very long ('infinite') travel, and Einstein's assumption
of "I do not need a medium" (ether) would indeed be the simplest
solution (Occam's razor). However, some 20 years after his
relativity theory, Hubble discovered the cosmic redshift of
star spectra - and Hubble himself, in a footnote of his 1931 paper,
already had doubts about the Doppler explanation: he just viewed
that as a hypothesis, since little was known about
intergalactic space. But by then Einsteins 'no-ether' assumption
was too strongly established, and the need for a dissipation-less
ether did not exist, with space as a 'vacuum'.

Only when dissipation (entropy increase) is taken as a fundamental
principle of nature, including foton travel, is there a need for
a propagation medium (ether). A decisive experiment would be to
measure both speed *and* distance of a star with known redshift.
I guess this would have to be a parallax measurement, of reasonably
far stars, which is probably still beyond present day possibilities,
since for good accuracy this would require an enormously long baseline,
something in the order of our planetary system...

Another argument for a medium for light propagation is in fact Einstein's
assumption of the constancy of lightspeed c. Fotons of different frequencies
have been shown to have the same propagation speed with accuracy 10^{-21}.
Why should this be if propagation occurs in a vacuüm: initial speeds at
generation could well be different, and remain so. But constancy of lightspeed
actually *follows* from light as wave-phenomenon propagating in a medium,
which determines the propagation speed independent of frequency (just as the
speed of sound in air or water depends not on frequency but on the properties
of the medium: air resp. water). So in fact Einstein's constant c assumption
implies the necessity of a medium (ether) to exist! However, density variations
of ether near a heavy body (like the Sun) can somewhat change the lightspeed,
causing the bending of light near a heavy body (Sun) due to refraction according
to the known Snellius'law, as was measured by Eddington during the Sun eclipse
of 1919 (and in fact explained as such by Eddington himself in his book, see next).

Hubble's own doubts about a Doppler-effect Redshift Hence: no expanding Universe.

In his book "Space, Time and Gravitation", Eddington wrote on page 109:

"Light moves more slowly in a material medium than in the vacuum,
the velocity being inversely proportional to the refractive index
of the medium. The phenomenon of refraction is in fact caused by a
slewing of the wave-front in passing into a region of smaller velocity.
We can thus imitate the gravitational effect on light precisely,
if we imagine the space round the sun filled with a refracting medium
which gives the appropriate velocity of light. To give the velocity
1 - 2m/r, the refractive index must be 1/(1 - 2m/r), approx: 1 + 2m/r.
Any problem on the paths of rays near the sun can now be solved by the
methods of geometric optics applied to the equivalent refracting medium."

For a suggestion of Maxwell's EM field equations with dissipation
(yielding redshift by foton decay) see Michael Lewis' work:
"Hubble Red Shift by Photon Decay: a sensible explanation",
temporarily at
http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop

Dear Barry,

I just saw your paper/discussion on Tifft's quantized Redshift (2002:
Universe Static Or Expanding).
Some history on Hubble's work: he himself was not in favour of a Doppler
interpretation, but he preferred (in view of the data) just a distance relation
(not involving velocity), but then - as he said - new physics would be required,
which he did not have (see my homepage entry:
[1] http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm ) He does mention lossy
photon propagation! At that time Einstein's "there is no ether medium"
assumption had taken root alrady some 15 years.

It seems natural, however, that a wave phenomenon (as light is agreed to be)
cannot exist without a medium that waves. And also a natural assumption is
that such medium is slightly dissipative. Hubble's redshift then simply is a
loss of energy per traveled distance (as Hubble himself writes, see refs in [1]).

Now about the quantization of this lossy process: would it not be natural to
see a photon losing one wavelength per given traveled distance? Similar to the
model of an electron as a closed path around an atom nucleus, a photon as a train
of waves of certain length in which less and less wave periods fit as it loses
energy (thus 'warming up' the surrounding ether medium in which it propagates
- explaining the ca. 3 K background temperature in space/ether). An ether
medium with varying density near heavy bodies (like the Sun) would also explain
light bending around a heavy body (as Eddington in 1919 explains by way of
similarity with any other medium with varying refraction index, see ref. also in [1]).

Just a thought.... Nico Benschop.

-------------------------------------------

> David Thomson (SSE Yahoo forum, 18sep2007):
> In order for objective reality to exist outside and independent
> of our perception there must be an absolute frame of reference.
> But if there is an absolute frame of reference,
> then Special Relativity (SR) theory must be wrong. [*]

NB: Re [*]: And indeed SR *is* wrong:
Einstein took as axioms that space is empty and that the speed
of light (and all other EM wave propagations) is constant c. Both
assumptions are false, due to the (some 15 years later) discovered
Hubble Redshift of star spectra, at the time (ca 1930) wrongly
interpreted as a Doppler effect (with the Big Bang hypothesis
following by time reversal;-) Hubble himself, in a footnote, admitted
that he would prefer a 'tired light' explanation, with redshift
proportional to distance, but that "new physics" would be required
to support this (i.e. an ether filling of space, hence a universal
frame). Clearly he did not want to stick his neck out against
the 'empty space' assumption of Einstein, which was mainstream by
then. Similarly Eddington, in a 1919 remark on light bending around
the Sun (thus in a gravity field), suggested that this could readily
be "simulated" by a non-homogeneous filling of space with some medium
('ether') that would have greater density near a heavy body, using
the known refraction law of Snellius. Both men saw the light, but
hesitated to go against the mainstream of the day. Sounds familiar?

Moreover, imagine the old Newton/Huygens controversy of light being
a particle vs. wave phenomenon. The (near-) constancy of light speed
strongly supports the wave interpretation, because why should light
particles all have the same speed in empty space? Why can't they be
given different initial impulses at generation, hence show different
speeds? On the other hand, a wave phenomenon does by its nature
propagate with a constant speed ONLY dependent on the medium it
propagates in (independent of wavelength cq color), but indeed
dependent on the medium density.
Consequently, it is most natural to assume a universal ether medium
(with density variations near heavy bodies) in which waves propagate
with near-constant speed (somewhat modulated by ether density
variation in gravity fields).

And re a universal frame: I agree with Bob this is not necessary for
objectivity, but by the above model we just can't escape it;-) -- NB

Redshift FAQ - Setterfield

Redshift by Wave dilation - Ingvar Astrand

Yahoo group WSM-7181
> JS: It is interesting to note that refractive theory of EM bending is
> essentially identical, in the sense of a retrofitting idea, to the
> proposal that the 2.7 deg K temp of the vacuum is the equilibrium
> temp of the Cosmos. If we forget Sorce, standard theory has no way
> to cool an infinite 3d universe which is assumed to be always the
> same; that is, has sources of heat almost uniformly distributed
> and for all time (the actual sources changing of course from time
> to time). As I earlier argued, but now more specifically, such a
> universe can never achieve thermal equilibrium *within the usual
> conceptual framework*.
> Hence, it seems impossible that any theorist using standard theory
> (as your link to whomever alleged) could provide a remotely
> plausible explanation for an *already achieved* thermal equilibrium.
>
> In sum, the 2.7 deg K CMBR cannot be explained in standard theory
> as an already equilibrium temperature and residue of red shifting,
> with or without a dissipative medium. -- JS

NB: Interesting point. Just for the sake of argument: I've seen the
density of galaxies in galactic space compared to one pea per (mile)^3
(at another scale, of course). So 'solid matter' is an extremely
rare stuff! Now imagine all of 3D space filled with ether-soup
as medium for wave propagation, EM fields, gravity and the lot.
Consider ether as substance with (ever so tiny) mass per cubic meter.

Could not this total ether-mass far outweigh the observed galaxies
in total weight? And in fact account for the missing *dark-matter*
(which amounts to some 90 % of the estimated total mass of the
universe, according to some astrophysics estimates). If so, what is
so strange about a dissipative ether volume of everage temperature
of 3K in equilibrium with the hot 'nuclear_burning' stars, which
qua total mass are small compared to the total ether mass...?!
A thermo-dynamic calculation might even work-out this equilibrium.

Ciao, Nico. - http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop


Plasma Cosmology - based on electric currents & magnetic fields in space (Alfvèn, Peratt)

- "The Iron Sun" Re: the Electric (Plasma) Universe.

The Electric Plasma Universe - by Mel Acheson (22jan02):
"Now the original question comes full circle. The problem is not that of supplying the energy to ionize neutral matter. The problem is that of dissipating the energy of already ionized matter. It's the act of neutralizing existing separations of charges that provides the prodigious energy driving and shaping the universe.
After seeing that the universe is already electrified, a calculation on the back of another envelope shows that gravity is too weak--by about 40 orders of magnitude! -- to account for the observed structure, movement, and dissipation of energy. It's the gravity universe that's impossible."

- B.G.Wallace: The speed of light is measured to be not constant. :
"The father of modern physics and astronomy, Galileo Galilei, was outspoken,
forceful, sometimes tactless, and he enjoyed debate. He made many powerful
enemies, and was eventually tried by the Inquisition and convicted of heresy.
In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the Earth went
around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence
that the speed of light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter
how fast they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905
Special Relativity Theory. The heresies change, but as you will find from
reading this book, human nature remains the same."

Quantum foam - R.T.Cahill, 2002
"... The new physics is applied, using a different type of analysis, to the
extensive data from dielectricmode interferometer observations by Miller (1933).
Here the speed of in-flow of the quantum foam towards the Sun is determined from
Miller’s data to be 47 ± 6km/s, compared to the theoretical value of 42km/s.
This observed in-flow is a signature of a quantum gravity effect in the new physics.

The Big Bang never happened - book by Eric Lerner. - ( his homepage )

The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 :
"The reported anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft of
-8.5X10^{-10} m/s^2 (i.e. towards the sun) can be explained by a gravitational
interaction on the S-band signals traveling between Pioneer 10 and the earth..(*)
The effect of this gravitational interaction is a frequency shift proportional
to the distance and the square root of the density of the medium in which it travels.(*)
If changes in this frequency are interpreted as a Doppler shift the result is
an apparent acceleration directed towards the sun. The gravitational interaction
is caused by the focusing of the signal photons in curved space where in this case the
curvature is related by the density of the interplanetary dust."
Re(*): 'Tired light' is more simple explanation,
using Planck's E = h.f --> Energy loss = frequency reduction.
See Hubbles redshift by Photon Decay (item #2)


Forgotten History (chapter 'Mathematical Magic')

WSM-6559
"BTW, it wasn not 'an aether' that the MM experiments attempted and
failed to detect. Rather it was the concept of a *solid* and isomorphic
ether. Had they been looking for the ether as postulated by Sorce Theory -
namely a fluid and wave-entrained aether ( http://www.anpheon.org ),
the slight fringe shifts detected would have been confirmatory rather than
null. And such a solid ether was assumed only because it was commonly
thought that transverse waves could not travel through a fluid. This
common notion was disproven recently in various experiments, however,
so the error of ether-history was revealed. It stands today uncorrected." ...
" The aether is as unambiguously demonstrated, imho, as many other
things in physics that we take for granted, such as an electron, and far more
so than a neutrino. It is simply called by the various names of 'quantum
vacuum', 'curved space', 'force fields' etc. All of these 'action-at-a-distance'
things and properties of 'space' require a medium through which to travel and in
which to exist. Einstein himself said as much. And there is no real understanding
of a wave without a medium through which it travels. This is why the concept of
the ether was so obvious before the MM
results failed to detect ether, and Einstein prematurely discarded it, only
later to re-invoke it. It was absolutely necessary to causally explain the
wave nature of light. A disturbance of empty space just does not cut it."
-- Joel Morrison.

History of the Redshift
- by B.Setterfield, D.Dzimano (dec.2003) : 'Quantized Redshift'.
. . ."In 1995, Malcolm Longair wrote: "Thus, redshift does not really
have anything to do with velocities at all in cosmology. The redshift is a . .
dimensionless number which tells us the relative distance between galaxies
when the light was emitted compared with that distance now. It is a great
pity that Hubble multiplied z by c. I hope we will eventually get rid of the c.”
Using quasars of high redshifts with z > 1 as examples, Misner, Thorne
and Wheeler use an argument similar to Schmidt12 to reject Doppler shifts on
different grounds. They state: “Nor are the quasar redshifts likely to be
Doppler; how could so massive an object be accelerated to v ~ 1 [the speed of
light] without complete disruption?” In thus rejecting the redshifts as Doppler
effects, they also point out the problem that exists with one alternative explanation,
namely gravitational redshifts. They state:
“Observed quasar redshifts of z ~ 1 to 3 cannot be gravitational in origin;
objects with gravitational redshifts larger than z ~ 0.5 are unstable against
collapse.” So in knocking out Doppler shifts and gravitation as the origin of
the observed redshifts they come to what they see as the only other solution,
namely a “cosmological redshift." . . .
..."The same 37.5 km/s quantization was plainly in evidence in this 1996
data set, and the referees accepted the paper. A Fourier analysis of all 399
data points showed a huge spike at 37.5 km/s with a significance of one in a
million. The measurement error was about 1/10th the size of the quantization." . . .
..."On the Doppler model, the galaxies are themselves moving away
through static space-time, but in such a way that their velocities vary in
fixed steps. This is unlikely. However, when it is considered that the
quantum jumps in redshift values have been observed to even go through
individual galaxies, it becomes apparent that the redshift can have little
to do with either space-time expansion or galactic velocities thru space." . . .
..."evidence mentioned at the Tucson conference on quantization in April
1996. Observations of the Virgo cluster have shown that in the innermost parts
of the cluster “deeper in the potential well, [galaxies] were moving fast enough
to wash out the periodicity.” Here periodicity is quantization by another name.
In other words, if galaxies have a significant velocity, it actually smears
out the quantization. As a consequence, these quantization results reveal
that redshifts are not basically due to galaxy motion at all, but must have
some other primary cause, with Doppler effects from motion being secondary." . . .
...(cosmological constant /\): Barrow and Magueijo pointed out in 2000 ""
If /\ > 0, then cosmology faces a very serious fine-tuning problem…
There is no theoretical motivation for a value of /\ of currently observable magnitude”.
Greene also noted that the cosmological constant
can be interpreted as a kind of overall energy stored in the vacuum of space,
and hence its value should be theoretically calculable and experimentally
measurable. But, to date, such calculations and measurements lead to a
colossal mismatch: Observations show that the cosmological constant is either
zero (as Einstein ultimately suggested) or quite small; calculations indicate
that quantum-mechanical fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space tend to
generate a nonzero cosmological constant whose value is some 120 orders of
magnitude larger than experiment allows!

This is still the situation, despite these recent developments. This approach
to the problem must therefore be questioned." . . .
..."But astronomers had hardly recovered from their surprise when a
further shock came in 2001. Adam Riess had just examined the most
distant Type Ia supernova yet discovered. It was at a
redshift of z = 1.7 and was not fainter, but brighter than expected.
This meant that it was closer to us than the redshift distance relationship
indicated. This result was confirmed on 10th October 2003 when Riess announced
that ten more distant supernovae were all brighter than expected. Since dust can
only make things dimmer, but never brighter, some other factor had to be the cause.
However, at about z = 1.5 the action of the cosmological constant became greater
than the pull of gravity, and the expansion of the universe started to accelerate
as a result of /\ which is often called dark energy.
But, as Science News (Vol. 164:15) points out, science is not sure of
the source of this energy. Furthermore, X-ray data from the European XMM satellite
leaves little room for dark energy according to Alain Blanchard in a
European Space Agency News Release 12 Dec. 2003, see paper . . .
..."These explanations assume one thing,
namely that the relationship between redshift and distance is essentially
given by the relativistic Doppler formula. But what the observations are actually
showing is that this formula is breaking down at large distances. In a word,
it means that this formula is not exact, but only an approximation to reality.
This in turn means that the redshift may not be due to cosmological expansion at all,
a point which is reinforced by the quantization of the redshift." . . .
..."The fact that the Doppler formula is only an approximation to reality
plus the fact that the redshift is quantized may mean that the universe is in
fact static, neither expanding nor contracting. Narliker
And Arp demonstrated in 1993 that a static, matter-filled universe was
stable against gravitational collapse without the action of a cosmological constant,
provided that mass increases with time." . . .
..."John Gribbin He suggested that the quantized redshift is
inherent to the atomic emitters of light within the galaxies themselves.
If this is the case, there would be no need to change the wavelength of the
light in transit as the wavelength would be fixed at the moment of emission.
This avoids a difficulty Hubble perceived in 1936, namely that
redshifts, by increasing wavelengths, must reduce the energy in the quanta.
Any plausible interpretation of redshifts must account for the loss of energy.

The conservation of energy of light photons (quanta) in transit has been a
problem for cosmologists ever since. In fact some openly claim that this is
one case where energy is not conserved. But any model that implicates the
atomic emitters themselves changes the problem and energy conservation in
transit is no longer an issue since the wavelengths themselves remain
constant in transit." . . .
... NB: Yet, by far the simplest solution of the Redshift problem is that
photons lose energy by diffusing a bit (proportional to travelled distance)
to the environment (viz. the ether medium for their propagation). So the environment
'warms up' a little, possibly to the known ca. 2.7 degrees Kelvin background noise-level.

WSM-2278
[Antony Kimber]: The part about Trimming, Cooking, Forging (last paragraph) is fun:
On the politics leading to Einstein's fame, Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states:

"In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription for all
able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34 and eligible for draft. But as a devout Quaker,
he was a conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected that he would
claim deferment from military service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in
England during the war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was,
in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts of Cambridge
of those days Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and others felt that Cambridge
University
would be disgraced by having one of its distinguished members a declared
conscientious objector. They therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington
deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in
the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army... In any event, at
Dyson's intervention as the Astronomer Royal, he had close connections with the Admiralty
Eddington was deferred with the express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919,
he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of
verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection of light...
The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: "The Glorious Dead,
Armistice Observance. All Trains in the Country to Stop," and "Revolution in Science.
Newtonian Ideas Overthrown."

"So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist
was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to
present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct, in order to
prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members
(Eddington) was close to being declared a "conscientious objector"!

On Eddington's eclipse 1919 It's All In The Believing - - by William R. Corliss (Nov-Dec 1999)
""British astronomer A. Eddington... 'believed' in Relativity and wished to make it more
acceptable. Eclipse photos showing the shifting of star images by the gravitational
influence of the eclipsed sun might do the job. On the day of the eclipse, Principe
was bedevilled by clouds, and only 2 photographic plates were deemed marginally acceptable.
At Sobral, 18 poor plates and 8 better plates were obtained. The problem was that the
18 poor plates yielded a deflection of starlight much smaller than predicted by Relativity,
while the 8 better plates produced a much higher value. By adding the 2 plates from Principe
to the mix, Eddington managed to come up with a number close to that required by the Theory
of Relativity. It was not the clear-cut victory for Einstein that the textbooks proclaim...
Eddington let ideology affect his conclusion. Even today, the results from the 1919 eclipse
are still proclaimed to be proof of Relativity.""

Dr. F.Schmeidler (Munich University Observatory) published a paper [49] titled :
The Einstein Shift: An Unsettled Problem. A plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922
eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large
a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919
and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift;
the results depended very strongly on the manner of reducing the measurements and the
effect of omitting individual stars."

Trouton_Noble_experiment (1903)

The Trouton Noble experiment was first performed in 1903 and attempted to
electromagnetically test the effect predicted to be caused by the absolute
motion of the Earth through the aether. In the experiment, a suspended parallel
plate capacitor is held by a fine torsion fiber and is charged. An electromagnetic
torque is measured due to magnetic forces since the capacitor is moving through
the aether. The experiment determines if the passage of the Earth through the aether
could be detected using electrical means. The 1903 experiment got a null result with
rather primitive equipment, and modern versions have generally had a positive result,
meaning that there is a motion relative to the aether.


There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival
the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This revolution is based on the
growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature.
It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter",
but rather, of matter in the plasma state. Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas
are much stronger than the gravitational force.
See : Swedish Nobel prize [Physics 1970] winner Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)


Nico B. :
Can the extremely sensitive
Mössbauer effect (1 : 10^15)
be used for measuring foton decay in a laboratory on Earth?
(rather then guessing Doppler to explain the cosmic redshift ;-)

Mike Lewis : The Mossbauer effect is being used in the Marsrovers.
There is an X-ray source, a radioactive element which is one of the elements in a
molecular crystal, and the crystal prevents the decaying atoms from recoiling, so
the X-ray emitted is very narrow bandwidth. The crystal is actually moved toward
and away from the specimen being examined, and so the X-rays scan over a little
band of frequencies, and the resulting backscatter is a function of frequency
depending on what the chemistry is. NASA has an explanation on one of their
web pages in the instrument technology section.
-- Like you say, it is very sensitive. It is so sensitive that it will detect
the change in frequency of X-rays radiation when they ascend or fall through
a distance of ten feet, just because of the effect of gravity on the electromagnetic
field radiation. Well, it could be possible, if a Mossbauer emitter were very far
from an equivalent receiving crystal, and it was made very certain that the emitter
and receiver were not moving in relation to each other, then the distance could cause
sufficient photon decay, to show up as the distance increased. Hm . . .
-- At first I thought it would require interstellar distances, but maybe it
could work on Earth, say, from one mountaintop to another as far away as
possible. The Earth-Moon distance changes a little, it would be better to
have absolutely no motion at all. Will have to consider whether 10^-15 is
small enough. On Earth, the distance could be varied from zero up to many
miles. The two devices have to be at the same altitude. Otherwise there is a
frequency shift from climbing or falling through the gravitational field. But
I think if the two mountain tops are at the same altitude then the fall and
climb over the Earth's curvature cancel each other out.
-- And who knows, maybe it will be found that photons decay enough to be
detected with a Mossbauer device in a few hundred meters or so, or even ten feet.

--- (On accurately measuring the Moon's distance to Earth):
[M.Lewis] "... There was as you mention a good corner reflector placed
on the moon and it works to determine the Moon's distance accurately.
For various reasons, the moon's distance changes a good deal. The distance can be
measured, as I recall: "to within a few centimeters".
Once I read that the moon's distance is changing steadily, so that in a
hundred thousand years it would be significantly different, but cannot
remember whether it is becoming closer or more distant."
[Nico.B] But measuring each month, and averaging, should give an accurate
value of the rate of change, wouldn't it?


Pertti Lounesto on odd-dimensional space physical properties . . . sci.math 8dec99

Caroline Thompson on expert critique of the status quo in physics . . . sci.math 17dec99

NB: Is lossless photon propagation the ONLY exception to Perpetuüm Mobile? . . . sci.math 12jan00

C.H.Thompson on lossy travel of objects thru 'vauüm' resp. space-with-ether . . . sci.math 24jan00

NB: transfer ether-friction into low frequency red 'heat': Cosmic background noise?


Hubble, hubble, 'big bang' in trouble ? . . by Carl Wieland (nov'96)
. . . (interesting, but skip the last few paragraphs on 'creationism' ;-(

Ilja-Schmelzer : General Lorentz Ether Theory. (WIAS Berlin)

"Alternative Physics On Line" . . Critical notes by prof. U.Bartocci (U-Perugia.it)

" The group of Prof. Logunov (former rector of Moscow State University,
now in Protvino) has invited me to give a lecture on the XXII international
workshop on high energy physics and field theory in Protvino, June 23-25 1999.
The lecture was very successful. It was published in the Conference proceedings:
I. Schmelzer : " General Ether Theory -
. . . a metric theory of gravity with condensed matter interpretation."
Proc. XXII international workshop on high energy physics and field theory
. . . Protvino, June 23-25, p.178-185 (1999)

In the "Colloquium Summarum" of this workshop (p.298),
Prof. V.A.Petrov (Vice-Chairman) describes my talk in the following words:
" An old and seemingly discredited notion of ether has found its new incarnation
in a metric theory of gravity by I. Schmelzer (WIAS Berlin), who managed to find
for his new ether a consistent and instructive interpretation in terms of condensed matter
physics. So now at least some of us will have no more allergy to this term ether."


[** Mon2fri wrote . . (5aug97). . on the Big Bang as theory vs hypothesis:
{........} When Hubble made his observation that there is a linear correspondence
between a star's distance from earth and its degree of red shift he gave
an immediate explanation (expanding Universe, and Big Bang).
At this point it should have been a hypothesis.
When did it become a theory ?
I personally think the big bang postulate is silly. I believe the red shift
is caused by a property of photons. Are there any respected authorities on
the matter who have offered an alternative explanation {........}
**]

NB: . . About that foton property idea, and " respected authorities"
(what would we do without them ?-): Could it have anything to do with foton 'dispersion'
while travelling billions of lightyears through not_quite_so_empty space? . .
Hence no lossless light propagation?

After all, Maxwell himself, while working on his EM-field theory (BTW: the concept of 'field'
was blasphemy for some time in the nineteenth century) did consider the old
question of ether, as universal medium for light propagation.

But how to 'measure' it?
No worries:
Michelson-Morley near the end last century did
precisely that, helped by the known Doppler effect -- they measured
the speed of light in two orthogonal directions, along the surface of the
Earth (naturally) -- and measured no difference, hence no Doppler effect
(within measurement accuracy). Conclusion: the Earth does not move in some
medium: -- exit 'Ether'.
All about the MM experiment

-- Enter Einstein : solves it all by relativity theory (RTh),
assuming lightspeed to be constant = c for any moving coordinate system.
All very logical conclusions.
Minor requirement: 'gravity' around heavy bodies (like stars) modulate
"space" sothat bending of light occurs. And: some mysterious
problem to unify gravity with RTh.
-- Enter Eddington (1919 sun-eclipse) who measures indeed the bending
of light passing the sun, with an amount compatible with Einstein's prediction.
-- Enter the Media : BIG news!! Einstein is established (there is no medium
- a strange view, propagated by the media, nota bene!-) , and
indeed his theory is tested consistent with observations remarkably well ever since, untill : . . .
-- Hubble (1931) measured redshift : must imply receding stars
(because fotons travel in pure vacuum, hence without dissipation).
PS: Hubble already in his 1931 paper had doubts about the Doppler-effect
'explanation' - since one had no clue about the intervening galactic space,
he considered 'Doppler' just a hypothesis (unfortunately: historically a huge
misser, perpetuated by lesser followers).

Does this mean his model
(and that of M/M and Hubble) is right? Yes of course it does. Just as Ptolemeus'
model of the 77 epicircles to predict planetary motion was right - since it
predicted those motions with remarkable accuracy! And: it was *so* complex in
computations (remember: no computers yet) that only a few specialists could
do those calculations (usually church_priests): big advantage.

Enter Copernicus :
Center the orbits in the Sun, and your computations require, for the same
accuracy, only 43 epi-circles! Bingo: yet he did NOT publish because he
predicted trouble (on his deathbed he saw after all the first printing,
pushed by a friend, so the Church "had het nakijken" = could'nt
punish him, unless posthumously).

Next Kepler : with
his two-foci "circles" (most rediculous;-) with the Sun in one of
the foci. (Q: what's in the other focus...?-) Together with Napier's
log-tables this all became peanuts now, except for Mercury : the God's
messenger who still moved too fast for that model, but Einstein "did him
in" all the same (well, nearly but almost...)

---------------------------: Punchline
:---------------------------

Why did M/M not measure vertically,
to unequivocally dismiss the possibility of ether dragging along
with the Earth's heavy mass (why not?), which would make a Doppler effect
unmeasurable in horizontal directions (along the Earth's surface, that is).
Even a claimed null-result (wrongly it turns out, re: Dayton Miller) would then
still prove nothing: a 'no-ether'conclusion is only justified if the
ether-drag model is disproven somehow.
Note: Michelson himself warned for the possibility of ether-drag by the Earth
to explain the null result! (similar to Eddington in 1919's Sun eclipse
measurements mentioned an increased ether density near the Sun to explain,
just as a model, light bending around the Sun - which btw he took as 'proving'
Einstein correct... just showing how a frame of mind determines the interpretation of measurements).

Well, at that time
(end nineteenth century) they did not have the technical ability to measure
otherwise than along the Earth's surface. At least, I assume they did
consider the advisability to measure vertically, accounting for possible
ether_density variations (decreasing with increasing distance from Earth).
Because *if* ether exists, it might be denser near a heavy body, and deflect
light passing by, to be computed simply by Snellius' defraction law.
Then, with Eddington's (and plenty of other) measurements one could
compute/estimate the ether_density modulation in a gravity field, and maybe
even conclude that foton propagation is not lossless after all:
redshift = energy loss (re: Planck's h.nu), proportinal
to the distance.

Sounds familiar? Moreover
: what about the "missing" (or black-) matter in the Universe,
which if I'm not mistaken adds up to some 90% of the Universe's estimated
total weight (with only 10% observable). That could then nicely be accounted
for by the ubiquitous ether - which should add up to some weight, should'nt
it? (- "Ether_soup" ;-)

But what the heck: why
speculate about a simpler model, if we have computers now to do our dirty
work for us. And the present model does work, does'nt it? So why
bother, don't upset the status quo. Had Maxwell lived a bit longer, to work
on his ether model, and had M/M also measured vertically (somehow, say
with reflections to the Moon, to test if it were not made of green cheese...)
then things might have been different of course, but who cares for "what-if"?


- "Hubble Red Shift by Photon Decay: a sensible explanation" - by Michael Lewis :

-- "The velocities and distances of stars of intermediate distance (say 100 to 1000 light years)
will eventually be measured with sufficient accuracy through the use of
parallax. It should be possible to find stars which are moving slowly toward
the Earth, the light from which would be expected to be shifted to the blue,
yet which is instead red shifted. Because of the direction of their motion,
this could not be explained by any kind of universal expansion at all, and
must arise from photon decay."


--- "Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?" ---
. . . by Galina Granek, Dpt. Philosophy, Haifa Univ, Israel (granek@mscc.huji.ac.il)

- Historical review - of Einsteins own (change of) opinion regarding ether.

After 1916, Einstein returned to a revised form of the ether concept as a result of the general
theory of relativity. In a letter to Lorentz dated 17 June 1916, Einstein
wrote (quoted in Miller, 1986, p. 55; see also Kostro, 1988, p. 238):
" I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether
hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory
would not violate the principle of relativity. [...]"

In 1920 at a lecture in Leiden (NL), Einstein explained why a revised notion of the ether was
required in physics. He repeated Poincaré’s claims of 1900, presented at the
Paris physics congress, and which were reproduced in Science and Hypothesis
(1902), according to which ether is required in order that movements do not
take place with respect to empty space (see my paper, "Poincaré’s ether
part B" for Poincaré’s reasoning; Einstein, 1920, p. 11):

[...] there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis.
To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.
The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.
For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system [...]


- Universal Kinetic Energy Field - by Dan K. McCoin
- UniKEF: Ether links


"What is a crackpot?" . . sci.math 18may2001
NB:
Kepler's ellipse, as generalization of Aristotle's "perfect" (God-like;-)
circular motion, both conic sections (ellipse, circle) - known from Greek
antiquity - simplifies Ptolemeus' multi epi-circle model so much, that
there is no doubt it is "Closer to the Truth" ... clearly with the
silent assumption that "the Truth" must be simple, although a
dual-focus ellipse is NOT simpler than a single-focus circle.
But in the more 'global' view of ALL planetary orbits the more
complex ellipse 'component' does simplify the whole.
So "Truth" is matter of local vs. global, hence of context ;-(

Including "dissipative effects" at inter-galactic distance travelling
photons (re: Redshift) the more global view might have to adjust to
a more complex "non-uniform medium" (ether-drag) model for light
propagation, to arrive at a simpler and more encompassing galactic-scale
model. It is - again - all a matter of context (with new orbiting
telescopes observing deep space), is'nt it?


Quoted from Richard Feynman : "The Character of Physical Law" (p26):
-- On similar ratios of diameters Universe/Proton
-- vs. attraction force of two electrons: Electrical/Gravitational :
-- . . . both ratios are in the order of 10^42 . . . . Coincidence ?
-- RF : the interesting proposal is made that this is no coincidence.
" But the Universe is expanding with time, meaning that the gravitational
" constant is changing with time. Although that is a possibility,
" there is no evidence to indicate that is a fact. There are several
" partial indications that the gravitational constant has not changed
" in that way. So this tremendous number (10^42) remains a mystery."
NB : Unless of course the Universe does NOT expand with time, but is stationary,
. . . with cosmological red-shift by foton decay (rather than by Doppler effect).


Casimir Effect Paradigm ... by Henry C. Warren Jr

" Einstein believed he had eliminated the need for an ether with Special Relativity,
but with General Relativity, he in effect substituted space itself for that ether.
In a 1920 lecture Einstein acknowledged the necessity of an ether, although he
insisted that the properties of the ether must not violate Special Relativity.

What GR did in effect was rename the ether and call it space; an unfortunate
choice of terminology as it makes intentional reference to truly empty space, difficult.
Most physicists seem unclear regarding this issue most of the time, sometimes
referring to space as if it were truly empty and at other times as if it were substantive.
This makes for sloppy thinking. Thus, I prefer using the expression fabric of
space without spelling out precisely the nature of that fabric. It may be that
the plank length is an indicator of the mesh of this fabric, but this may be an
artifact of the fact that we and our measuring devices are electromagnetic in nature.

" In my suggested paradigm I have reluctantly gone more or less with the flow
and speak of "space" and the fabric of or in space interchangeably. I sense
possible similarities between the strings of some modern theories and the
fluctuations of some Casimir type models and the aetherons of some ether
based theories. With that and Einstein's 1920 lecture in mind, I periodically
put ether in parenthesis after space, on the understanding that any theory
which rejects action at a distance and assigns physical properties to space
is an ether theory. Coming full circle, I reiterate that the precise nature of space
(ether) has yet to be comprehended, at least by me and I doubt anyone else."

List of articles on cosmic 'ether' (aether)


"Re: What is a Crackpot?"

 
From: Nico Benschop (nfbenschop@onsbrabantnet.nl)
Subj: Re: What is a Crackpot?
View: Complete Thread (211 articles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math (2001-may-09)
 
Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> 
> "Nico Benschop"  wrote in message
> news:3AF95AE7.5E7CB607@chello.nl...
> > Paul Lutus wrote:
> > >
> > > "Daryl McCullough"  wrote in message
> > > news:9d448h0snt@edrn.newsguy.com...
> > > > Paul says...
> > > >
> > > > >IMHO disdain for expertise is a positive trait.
> > > > [...]
> > > > You can only
> > > > make progress is only possible if you build on the knowledge
> > > > of your predecessors.
> > >
> > > As a matter of fact, this is false. The most important breakthroughs
> > > in science took place because prior theories were not revered, but
> > > falsified. Einstein didn't try to work within the aether theory of
> > > his day, he just threw it out and started over. His peers were not
> > > imaginative enough to take this step, they were too reverential
> > > -- to a fault -- toward the experts and idea of their day.
> > >    ^^^^^^^^^^           [...] -- Paul Lutus, www.arachnoid.com
> >
> > NB:    ... what if E was wrong after all (re: red-shift ?-)
> > Actually, iirc, he said (re: 'ether') that he did not _need_ it,
> >    so why introduce it at all?  True, if all _known_ effects can be
> > explained without it: who needs a medium to propagate light/gravity
> > in? Just let a gravity field modulate (empty;-) 'space' near a heavy
> > body, to bend the light. --
> >    -- http://piazza.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm  --NB
                                             ^^
   Thanks for correcting the URL of my Redshift/Ether page ;-)
 
> The correct reference is 1935ApJ....82..302H
> Sorry for the earlier mistake! --  Aladar Stolmar
>      http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
 
Very interesting, I'll check it out. Not that I'm a specialist:
my "lossy light propagation" remarks are just an intuitive objection
against the "no medium for propagation" (no ether) assumption,
that does not make sense. It appears I'm not the only one with some
reservations. Mind you, I do prefer a theory to be not more complex
than necessary, but counter-intuitive is something else.
 
If Einstein's Relativity Theory would be equivalent to the ether-density
modulation 'ether-drag' model (with Snellius' refraction law explaining
the starlight bending around the Sun - the 1919 eclipse;-) I would prefer
the intuitively simple ether-model!   But the redshift effect could
definitely make make the difference in favour of the (lossy) ether-model,
including the background 'radiation' (or: energy level at 3 degrees Kelvin)
- which could just be the general 'light-noise' energy of all the light
propagating in the Universe, warming up the medium a bit, could'nt it?
 
The assumption that a photon can travel billions of years thru
(not quite so empty) space _without_ any loss of energy (by Planck's
e = h.nu: reduction of frequency = stretching of wavelength = redshift)
is somehow equivalent to assuming a "perpetuum mobile" - which most
scientists (and I agree) scoff at.  So _why_ should photon propagation
be any different? We just don't know enough about interstellar space,
and its propagation properties for EM fields, to reliably make such
sweeping assumptions, like:
    lossless light propagation --> Doppler --> expanding Universe.
 
Einsteins relativity model fits very well at the atomic level,
but that does NOT take into account possible dissipative effects at
inter-galactic distances. That terrain is speculative, to say the least,
as the rather surprising Hubble-telescope observations of deep space
have shown: the same mix of old & new galaxy structures there as
everywhere -- not at all the "only young" structures suggested by
the extending Universe (Doppler) model.
 
PS: I do respect Einstein's work, which is a remarkable theory.
    But new insights & measurements, at inter stellar space level,
    may require an overhaul (re: dissipative propagtion effects):
    Back to the drawing board...
 
---- One is Always Halfway Anyway --- AHA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1.1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : Your faithful crackpot NB;-)
    Peano <---------.---------> Cantor
      2-adics          reals on [0,1)


  
 

 

History of Einstein's Relativity- vs. Lorentz' Aether- Theory


 

- "The Einstein Hoax" - by H.E.Retic (1997)

 


zyx.org/BIGBANG - A balanced critique on 'religious zeal' in present-day science
. . . . . . history revisited: the new 'inquisition' (intolerance / mental inertia / power-play / ...)

Re: What is a Crackpot? - On dissident / alternative 'common sense' model of the Cosmos.

- prof. U.Bartocci (U-Perugia.it)

"Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the ether and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory [...] Nothing is more powerful in producing the illusion that one understands something that one does not, than constant repetition of the words used to express it, and the lesser minds deceived themselves by supposing that terms like 'dilation of time' had a self-evident meaning, and regarded with contempt those stupid enough to imagine that they required explanation. Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present day, even if he has not had personal experience of the devolopment, can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the theory and contempt for its critics." (Herbert Dingle)


Fun and Games

a) Mad Professor Zweistein has managed to build a car that has an unlimited to speed and incredible breaks that allow it to stop instantly. He only has one problem, the car is seven metres long and his garage can only accomodate a six metre car. How fast does Professor Zweistein need to drive the car so that it will fit into the garage and when does he need to apply the breaks?

b) During his attempt to get his car into the garage, Professor Zweistein is caught by a red light camera for driving through an intersection while the light was red. In court Zweistein defended himself by saying that at the speed he was travelling the red light from the traffic light actually looked green (due to the doppler effect). Being a physics buff himself, the judge decided to take Professor Zweistein at his word. If the standard rate is $1 per km above the speed limit of 60 km/h, how much was the speeding fine issued by the judge to Professor Zweistein?


How far is a Star, Really? We really don't know, untill Parallax tells us.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift . . by Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988

Abstract : It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects, in which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift in a given object, is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift.
A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the “redshift controversy”. It is shown in the present work that it is possible to calculate a very slight inelastic scattering phenomenon compatible with observed redshifts using electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics and without the need on introducing ad hoc physical hypotheses.
A careful study of the mechanism for the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gaseous atoms and molecules shows that an electron is always momentarily accelerated as a consequence of the momentum transfer imparted by a photon. Such an acceleration of an electric charge produces bremsstrahlung.
It is shown in the present work that this phenomenon has a very large cross section, in the forward direction and that the energy lost by bremsstrahlung causes a slight redshift. It is also demonstrated that the relative energy loss of the electromagnetic wave for blackbody radiation, such as for many celestial objects, follows the same "D nu/nu =constant" law as if it were a Doppler law.
This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift except when resonant states are present in the scattering gas. It is also shown that the energy lost should be detectable mostly as low frequency radio waves. The proposed mechanism leads to results, which are consistent with many redshifts reported in astrophysical data.


American Physics Society Conf.
. . Wednesday morning, /03/22/10 — Session M32. DCMP: General Physics (11:00, 213A, MCC)
APS March Meeting 2000, March 20-24, Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis MN, USA.

12:24 M32.008 Pressler’s Static Universe , DAVID E. PRESSLER, Primary Nuclear Research
— I will present and explain Presslers Law: Red shift of emission line spectra from extragalactic cluster nebula is directly proportional to the radial distance to that emitting object; the red shifting is caused by the phenomenon of a gravitational field, the magnitude of which value is equal to the force per unit mass contained in the total volume of a sphere with that radius, and is directed toward said emission source. In short, a radiating body twice as far away will have twice the red shift. Indeed, this simple model involves only Newtons laws of gravity concerning mass and distance. I will elucidate what the universe is made of, its composition-the enigma of the hidden cosmic dark matter or missing mass, its age, the evolution and cause of large-scale structure, its mass density, and its size will be addressed.
This new theoretical model is supported by and is consistent with recent observational data collected from the Hubble Space Telescope and it offers a simple and elegant explanation of the wash of the remarkably uniform cosmic background microwave radiation. The surge of expansion, the universal repulsive force, and Lambda will be considered. Gravitational distortion of space bends incident light therefore, very remote objects appear smaller. In addition, I will consider the aspects and the ramifications of this new theory. A consistent picture of the nature of the universe is offered (cosmology is solved;-)


Possible Cause of Red-shift? . . . String Theory Discussion Forum
Posted by Copernicus on May 13, 2003 at 15:29:54: Possible Cause of Red-shift?

[quote]: . . "Thus the observable region at present is a sphere, centered on the observer, with a radius of about five hundred million light years. Throughout this sphere about a hundred million nebulae are scattered, each a stellar system comparable to our own system of the Milky Way. The study of this observable region as a sample of the Universe has led to the recognition of two large-scale features. The first feature is homogeneity. … the observable region appears to be very much the same, in all directions and at all distances. The second characteristic is the fact that the light-waves from distant nebulae seem to grow longer in proportion to the distance they have traveled.” … “it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination.” [5]

Hubble lectured in 1947: "The photons emitted by a nebula lose energy on their journey to the observer by some unknown effect, which is linear with distance and which leads to a decrease in frequency without appreciable transverse deflection and, in particular, without any decrease in rate of arrival at the observer” [1]
The provided evidence by the Pioneer 10 Doppler data proves that this effect is not linear, but exponential. Hubble and Tolman remarked that "if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles" [1] - and there are some quite 'new physical principles' resulting in that the Hubble discovered red-shift distance relation could be seen as a new fundamental property of matter: there is a half-life of photons. [end quote].

. . . Is there room for some "quite new physical principles"
(i.e. light travelling through denser gravity implies a half-life of photons) worthy of consideration here?
Please see additional references and links at bottom of Stolmar's paper linked below.
Also see
"Two Photon Decay"
And :
Red shift by Photon Decay . . by Michael Lewis.
(on Maxwell's EM-field theory with dissipation: photon half-life = (1/hc^2) = approx.
6.5 10^9 years).


"Red Shift and Distances" Mike and Sue Lawrence.

Chapter 10 : === Tired Light ===

o . . Singlets are affected by viscosity proportional to speed
o . . Photons are red-shifted in proportion to distance travelled < ==
o . . Singlets may have a bubble structure

Since straight line motion requires energy, and the reverse direction
requires reverse sign energy, the symmetric expansion of the universe
away from any central point has a zero total energy requirement -
regardless of the sign of the total mass. The same will be true of
symmetric contraction. If it is space-time that is expanding, with mass
embedded within it, there will be an energy need unless the total mass
of the universe is zero - which it probably is. However, the red shift
that is observed in all light from distant sources could be due to three
mechanisms.
== The first is gravitational red-shift, where the photon rings are emitted
in a distorted shape because of the gravitational field, and gradually
become more symmetric as they move away from gravity field sources.
== The second is Doppler red-shifting due to relative motion, which is
presently held to account for most of the observed red-shift.
== The third is frictional red-shifting, or tired light. Here the component
six singlets of all rings undergo energy loss as they travel through space.
A non-photon ring system will see a velocity reduction which will be
measurable as a time delay between the arrival of the non-photons and
simultaneously emitted photons. A good source of such events are supernovae,
especially those at greater distances. A photon, in contrast, will keep up
velocity at the expense of rate of rotation. In this way the ring size will
increase, and the wavelength lengthen. The effect will be proportional to the
distance travelled by the singlets individually. The singlets take a spiral path,
rather like the seam on a toilet roll, which can be unrolled into a triangle
in which one side will be the distance travelled, for example during one orbit
of the ring, and the other will be the circumference of the ring.


"Dayton Miller and the Ether-Drift" : Critical historical remarks (Re: Collective memory loss;-)

Re: Do you actually need an ether model? - Only if you don't allow perpetuum-mobile(lossless foton travel)


prof. Allen Rothwarf (1935 - 1998) incl.: "An Aether model of the Universe".


Jean-Pierre Vigier and the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics . . (book review) :
"... The probabilistic approach to Quantum Mechanics (QM) was strongly opposed
by Einstein, Planck, and Schrödinger, but it was de Broglie and later Bohm and Vigier
who played the main role in developing an alternative. Chebotarev writes:

- The central idea of the Stochastic Interpretation of QM consists in treating
- a microscopic object exhibiting a dual wave-particle nature as composed of a
- particle in the proper sense of the word (a small space region with a high concentration
- of energy), and of an associated wave that guides the particle's motion.
- Both the particle and the wave are considered to be real, physically observable,
- and objectively existing entities. (pg 2)

Particles are pictured as oscillators (or solitons) beating in phase with their surrounding pilot waves, which in turn result from the superposition of superluminal phase waves carried by a subquantal etheric medium subject to constant stochastic fluctuations. The force, or quantum potential, determining particle motions therefore carries information from the entire environment, accounting for the 'wholeness' of quantum phenomena."

Vigier writes: . . . "In my opinion the most important development to be expected in the near future concerning the foundations of quantum physics is a revival, in modern covariant form, of the ether concept of the founding fathers of the theory of light . . . [I]t now appears that the vacuum is a real physical medium which presents some surprising properties". (p 272)

In several places he refers to the 'negative result' of the Michelson- Morley ether-drift experiment of 1887 (pp. 63, 192). However, contrary to what numerous textbooks and popular science books claim, this famous experiment did not give a null result.

Vigier (1997a) himself acknowledges this in an article not included in the book, or even mentioned in the bibliography. In it he states: "the observed effect was not zero in Michelson's famous experiment, as later confirmed by a (presently almost forgotten) set of very detailed and very careful experiments by Morley and Miller [Miller, 1933]." . . He presents a brief overview of the 'long set of remarkable experiments' conducted from 1881 to 1926, which 'are now completely ignored in the physics community'. These experiments detected a small but consistent and systematic ether drift of about 9 km/s.
See :
[ref]


Dissidents in trouble by : Vesa Santavuori (freenet.hut.fi)

During the last twenty years or so the Big Bang model has developed into a mainstream religion, and it seems to be a capital scientific sin even to try to criticise it or related beliefs. Some dissident astronomers have been punished because of their thoughts.

A well known example is American astronomer Halton Arp, who aired the idea that the extreme redshift values measured in quasars were not always due to cosmological distances. Arp lost his rights to use the Palomar telescope, the dissidents say. Arp works now in Germany at Max Planck-institute, which shows that he didn't lose his reputation as a scientist, though. The dissidents are referring here only to the Palomar-incident. - See Scientific American, Feb. 1992, p96.
------------

The Finnish astronomer Toivo Jaakkola measured extreme redshift values inside galaxies and postulated that the redshift phenomena has more to do with gravity than the expansion of the Universe. He wrote that many cosmological observations and arguments suggest a coupling of the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, which points to a steady state cosmological model, to a non-expanding universe in equilibrium. - See APEIRON, Winter-Spring 1991, p76-90.

Jaakkola run into difficulties in Finland already in 1980's and was told to change his working ideas, said Jaakkola himself before his death in 1995. But he kept his line and claimed in public that the prevailing, unnecessarily narrow way to apply the theory of relativity and to explain the measured redshift values may have led the astronomy astray for a whole century worldwide.
-------------

Redshift - what does it tell?

In Finland Jaakkola's ideas have been radicalised by a gravity based theory which goes directly against today's mainstream astronomical thinking. The man behind the idea is a locally very well known amateur astronomer, Leo Sulamaa, 82. (See his original proposal in numbers here: kaapeli.fi/~sulamaa )

Mr. Sulamaa says that the redshift measured in a distant galaxy's light may be a phenomena which is caused by the acceleration of light photons by gravity -- so that the arriving photons are moving faster than with the so called constant speed of light.


- Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect - by John Kierein:
" [...] The red shift controversy has been raging ever since Hubble's and Humason's
original papers (Hubble & Humason 1931, Humason 1931) carried the footnote:
. . . "It is not at all certain that the large red shifts in the spectra are
to be interpreted as a Doppler effect, but for convenience they are expressed
in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities." . . . Hubble felt that
the data was in better agreement with light having a loss of energy to the
intervening medium proportional to the distance it travels through space
by what he called "a new principle of nature" (Hubble 1937). This was because
if it were Doppler the light should appear to be less bright than if it were a loss
of energy, and such a brightness correction did not fit the direct proportionality
to distance data." . . .

NB conjecture: It could well be that, if Hubbles red-shift observations historically would have come before Einstein, the latter might have concluded he did need 'ether' as a medium to carry lightwaves - in order to explain the red-shift as an energy-loss effect proportional to distance (not to velocity - as Doppler effect), e.g. by a 'damping factor' in the Maxwell equations. see M.Lewis : "Redshift by Photon Decay"
However, his opinion was that he 'did not need ether' (before 1920 the red-shift was not known) - so why introduce it? ... Applying Occam's Razor: use the simplest model that explains all observed effects. And ever after 1931, as Kierein mentions, the discussion has been to re-install ether - possibly as dissipative medium as suggested by Hubble himself (op.cit.), but by then Einsteins theory explained enough dissipationless (relativistic) effects, especially in nuclear physics, to be established firmly. . . .


Was There a Big Bang? - I Honestly Don't Know. - (2002, 3rd ed.) by Richard Carrier

- Quote - : " Cosmology is unique in science in that it is
. . . . . . . . . a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts."
-- Halton Arp [ in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View" - Nature, 30aug90, p812 ]

----------- The Evidence and its Weaknesses : -----------

(1) . . Expansion does not entail that it all began with a singularity

(2) . . The microwave background radiation has too many other explanations

(3) . . The proportion of light elements to heavy is far too muddled to stand as a proof

(4) . . Observations of differences in aggregate cosmic phenomena over time are inconclusive

(5) . . The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not entail a Big Bang

(6) A flat universe is entailed by almost every other possible theory

--------- The Big Bang in Trouble: Evidence Against ---------

(1) -- How can there be galaxies that are older than time?

(2) -- Where is all the mass?

(3) -- Where did all the superscale structure come from?

--------- What the Hell Am I Saying? ---------

Dare I say that I do not believe in the Big Bang? Shame on me, I guess. For whenever I claim that there might not have been a Big Bang, that the evidence for it in fact is rather poor, I am mobbed with invective by physicists everywhere. I am treated with inappropriate condescension, and often belittled, eventually being told point blank that I am totally incapable of appreciating the evidence due to my lack of education.
These cosmologists tell me I should simply accept the word of an authority -- them, of course, not any other authorities. Why them and not physicists who raise doubts? Because they are the majority. I was never told that scientific truth was by vote, yet here it is. Of course, I am also told there is so much evidence that the Big Bang cannot be denied, but when I ask for that evidence I am given no more than a handful of things that do not entail the conclusions claimed for them, and even at best only very weakly imply them.
What is an ordinary person to do? Devote their life to physics? - Or express an honest doubt and be respected for it? The first is unreasonable for most people, the latter is denied everyone by the present atmosphere.


- Edward (Ned) Wright (UCLA): Measuring the Cosmological Red Shift


History of Michelson-Morley experiments

Dayton Miller and the Ether-Drift, Miscellaneous Information

This page will present a variety of information about Dayton Miller, and his use of light-beam interferometry in the early part of the 1900s to measure an Earth-entrained ether-drift. First is an abstract of the article "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look", by James DeMeo, Ph.D., reviewing Miller's evidence and a claimed rebuttal of Miller by one of his critics. Following then are various items, quotations and internet web links related to Miller's work, or on the larger question of ether. Finally are several abstracts of papers presented by Dr. DeMeo to various scientific conferences on the ether question, or on the issue of energy in space.

"Ether" or "Aether"? The term for the cosmological medium, used by those scientists of the 1800s and early 1900s most engaged with the question, was "ether" with an "e". Sometime in the 1950s, the spelling was changed by ether-critics to "aether" with an "a". This was done in part to remove confusion with the chemical fluid ether as used for anesthesia, but mostly the replacement appears to have been undertaken to relegate the ether of space into ancient history, as an unproven speculation similar to Aristotlian elements of "fire, air, water and earth". I have used the "Aether" spelling in the past myself, but now believe this form carries with it an assumed disproof, that the cosmological medium or energy in space does not exist. Since I fully accept the work of Dayton Miller as a proof of the existence of the ether, my personal decision is to stop using the "aether" spelling. Consquently, until some better evidence or argument is put forth, I use the term used by Crookes, Lodge, Faraday, Michelson, Morley, Miller, Tesla, Reich and even by Einstein, spelled with an "e": ether.

Other Works by Dayton Miller (Not listed on the previous page):
1939: Dayton Miller: Sparks, Lightning, Cosmic Rays:
"An Anecdotal History of Electricity", Macmillan, NY 1939.

1932: Dayton Miller: Laboratory Physics:
"A Student's Manual", Ginn & Company, Boston, 1932.

Other Works by R.S. Shankland: (Not listed on the previous page):
1936: R.S. Shankland: "An Apparent Failure of the Photon Theory of Scattering",
Physical Review, Vol.49, Jan 1936, p.8-13.

This paper is of interest, as it yielded negative evidence on the double-slit photon-scattering experiment (with citations to other experimental replication failures), one of the cornerstone experiments of modern physics. Shankland at this time appeared to be working in agreement with Miller -- one Case Western professor characterized this early bucking of mainstream ideas as follows: "Shankland's career got off to a bad start, but he later redeemed himself". The "redemption" was, of course, Shankland's leading a team of professors to undertake a biased and inaccurate post-mortem on the ether-drift experiments of his mentor, Dayton Miller. After doing the post-mortem, Shankland was granted a series of exclusive interviews with Albert Einstein, and published them in mainstream publications (his first, as far as I can tell), in the manner of having received a professional reward for his efforts. Shankland later became a mid-level bureaucrat within the Atomic Energy Commission, working to facilitate civilian nuclear power plants.


- Int'l Conf. "Galileo Back in Italy - II Bologna, May 1999

 
Subject:  Re: Your inquiry.
   Date:  Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:08:11 +0100
   From:  haspdn@globalnet.co.uk ( HAROLD ASPDEN )
     To:  "umberto bartocci"  at U-Perugia
 
Dear Professor Bartocci,
 
   When I first read your message inviting comment as to the validity
of SRT I decided not to comment.   However, I later have had occasion
to send an E-Mail comment to David Bergman who also received your message,
but on the subject of inertia, rather than SRT. I think it is appropriate
to send you a copy of a follow-up message that I have just sent him,
as I make reference to your communication.
 
The message reads:
   Thank you for your prompt response to my comments on inertia.
I will respond more fully when I have had time to digest the reference
you gave to the CSS Web Site. I did not join in the exchanges on the
SRT issue raised by Umberto Bartocci but I do offer the following
comments and will send a copy of this message to him.
 
Einstein introduced his theory of relativity back in 1905 by a paper
on Electrodynamics and one on Inertia.  The latter was entitled:
    " Does the Inertia of a Body depend upon its Energy Content? "
The popular opinion of the scientific community is that proof
of the relationship E = M c^2  is proof of Einstein's theory.
  I have never accepted that, because the relationship is derivable
  from classical 19th century theory. One obtained E = (3/4) M c^2
  by following J.J.Thomson's teachings on the subject as applied to an
electron, but he assumed that the charge was all confined to a spherical
surface, as if the charge form were a conductive sphere in the laboratory.
One can easily show that, if the charge is distributed inside that sphere
so as to set upa constant electrostatic pressure within that sphere, then
that 3/4 factor becomes unity and the normal E = M c^2  formula results.
 
So, the issue of whether SRT is valid or not depends upon other evidence
and, to my mind, the notion that it explains the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment is not such evidence.  The physics community
today is getting all excited about Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC), the
perfect quantum fluid which, by experiments on the Quantized Hall Effect,
gives us a wonderful way of measuring the fine-structure constant.
 
--> The theory I developed for that constant some 40 and more years ago
-->     is an aether model closely resembling that quantum fluid.
 
The theory gave the fine-structure constant to part per million accuracy
and that theoretical finding, confirmed by computer analysis by the
National Measurement Laboratory in Australia, was reported by that
laboratory in 1972 in Physics Letters.
--> So the aether is a perfect quantum fluid. <--
 
In the 19th century it was thought the aether exhibited the properties of
a solid and of a fluid, a confusing proposition, so Einstein abolished the
need for the aether when he first appeared on the scene back in 1905.
   He can be excused for not appreciating at the time that the properties
of the fluid crystal if attributed as a perfect quantum fluid form in the
aether could explain that Michelson-Morley finding.
   Not surprisingly we have since seen the computer industry build on the
use of fluid crystal technology and we are seeing fundamental metrology
concerning h, c and e using the version of that adaptable and structured
charge system in low temperature semiconductor technology based on the
Bose-Einstein condensate.
[. . .]

On the "History of Aether and Electricity" (abstracts from E.T.Whittaker's book)


Foto Catalog - of Hubble-telescope (Hubble-Site NASA)

Hubble Deep Space foto - Young AND old galaxies --> No Big-Bang !!


- Big Bang quotes.

- George Beck's "Frontier" page (links)

The Symmetric Theory - An alternative to Big-Bang cosmology
* Galactic Red-Shift Surveys
* Galactic Velocity Surveys
* Very Large Scale Distribution of Galaxies
* The Hubble Deep Field (Orbiting 'Hubble' telescope)
: Text
* The Paradox: Grown-up Galaxies in an Infant Universe
: Images


Jim Fischer (UK) : Red_shift/Big_Bang questions


Beautiful Galaxy pictures


 
-------------- Re: "Speed of light"  (sci.math 12aug99) --------------
 
silk vain ( @wxs.nl ) wrote:
> 
> can anyone tell me how the speed of light was measured?
 
NB: Point a well focussed narrow lightbeam (laser) on a distant
fast rotating mirror (vertical axis, for horizontal reflection),
and measure the displacement upon reflection to a place near the
lightsource. That should give you enough info to calculate c
in a medium moving along with the Earth (if that's where you
measure;-)
 
Such was done by Michelson-Morley  end last century, in two
orthogonal horizontal directions, to see if there was a difference
(Doppler effect): testing if the Earth moves in some 'ether' medium
(propagating Maxwell's EM waves).--  They measured no difference.
 
Of course, this does NOT allow to conclude there is no ether (the usual
accepted conclusion, and consequently Hubble's Red-Shift of starlight
interpreted as "Expanding Universe"). Because "No-Doppler" may also
follow from ether adhering to, and thus moving with, a heavy body. [*]
 
Compare this with: measuring the speed of sound in a moving train.
Then from "no-doppler" IN the train conclude there is no medium for
sound to travel in -- and some Zweistein building a 'sound' theory
on that... however: requiring some strange assumption, like bending
'vacuum' to model a dense-air layer causing sound defraction...;-)
 
[*]: The next question then is: assuming the redshift of starlight
spectra is not a doppler-shift (hence not due to stars moving away),
how can it arise otherwise?  We know that any _linear_ deformation
due to light transmission through some medium preserves frequencies
(linear = 'superposition' holds: the response to a sum of sources
or inputs is the sum of the responses). So that cannot be the cause,
assuming interstellar space to be a linear medium. ... Furthermore:
 
Maxwell's EM-theory of electromagnetic fields (=light propagation)
is a linear theory, and it would require adaptation to non-linear
effects!   This makes the assumption of a non-linear interstellar
medium  highly unpopular, to change the only EM-theory we have.
And: not enough is known (besides the redshift itself) to model &
measure such non-linearity...
 
So for the time being we're stuck with the redshift as Doppler effect.
That is: Hubble's expanding Universe, based on the Doppler null-result
near Earth (Michelson-Morley), hence the no-ether assumption (Einstein),
and the only EM-theory we have being linear (Maxwell).
 
... Fellow at night, feverously looking under a lantern for a
... lost jewel, asked by a passer-by *why* he looks only there,
... answers:  "But here is the light" ;-(
--
Ciao, Nico Benschop
                  -- AHA: One is Always Halfway Anyway --
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1.1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Re: Speed of light . . . sci.math (12aug99)

 
Subject:  Re: "The Einstein Hoax" (on lossy light propagation)
   Date:  Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:53:58 +0100
   From:  Nico Benschop 
    Org:  AmSpade Research
     To: "c.h.thompson" 
 
c.h.thompson wrote:
> 
> Nico Benschop  wrote
> > > > > But please tell me, *what* is so outrageous & rubbish about my
> > > > > critique on lossless light propagation, and the alternative I
> > > > > suggest: lossy light propagation (dissipative like just about
> > > > > every natural process --
> 
> CHT:
> > > Anyway, I don't see how we can possibly have enough evidence about what
> > > happens in outer space to be able to rule out some energy loss there.
> [snip]
> > > See, for example, my essay on Lorentz and the aether in
> > > , and my ideas on the red shift...
> 
> > I looked at the refs you give,
> > and especially the Paul Marmet site I find interesting.
> 
> I have to confess that I haven't yet read his paper on the red shift,
> but his heart is in the right place.
> 
> > So there *are* question marks all over (re Redshift), ignored by journals
> > that do not want to 'rock the boat'. Can you blame them? After all, one
> > cannot be careful enough about one's reputation...
> 
> How right you are!  But how on earth is physics to progress if the
> establishment ignores doubts, and banishes - to obscure "dissident" journals -
> all sorts of positive ideas on alternatives?  If this were medicine, those
> who object to the current dogma would surely have some say?   A committee
> would be set up to look into the matter.  Because it is only physics, and
> only concerns dim distant regions of no importance to the human race, most
> people think it is of no consequence what the official line is.
> 
> But this official line is being taught in universities!  I think it is
> immoral.  I think that being forced to answer exam questions on something
> that is pure hypothesis as if it were established fact is mind-numbing.
> 
> And one sees the consequence of this all around us.  We are human, and
> as such we get all defensive once we have invested a lot of time and
> (to someone like myself) traumatic effort in learning something we don't
> understand.  "But it must be right!  It's been confirmed all over the place!
> We've been taught it, it's in all the text books ...."   You might think
> that once one has achieved the status of journal referee, one could rise
> above this, but I don't see much evidence.  Referees can't easily go out on
> a limb and damage the careers of an established set of experts.  They can,
> however, prevent potential rivals from ever getting in the gravy boat.
> 
> > Let me repeat the reference to that most interesting paper:
> > (on the electron being a "closed photon")
> >     J.Williamson, M. van der Mark:
> >    "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?"
> > in: Annales de Fondation L.de Broglie, V22, N2 (1997) p133-160.
--- On this homepage as :  electron.pdf (270k) 
> 
> Must look this up.  But I have my doubts about all electron models.
> Could it be the case that when the electron is free it is a pure wave,
> and when it is bound it really ought to be treated as just part of an
> atom or molecule?
> 
> > And my own experience with "His Master's Voice" (of established p-adic
> > number theory, ignoring the possibility of breaking the Hensel lift,
> > e.g. for the cubic roots of 1 mod p^k, prime p=1 mod 6, any k>0):
> >     http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/nr-th.htm
> 
> Sorry, number theory is not my line, but I'll take your word for it
> about the reception you have received.
> 
> Meantime, can I interest you in my main preoccupation for the past
> few years?  The quality of the "evidence" for quantum entanglement.
> I've just yesterday put a new paper in the quant-ph archive
>       http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9912082.
> After my experiences with the last one I don't know if it's worth
> the effort to submit it to Phys Rev A, but I suppose I shall,
> when the creases have been ironed out.
> 
> I've just had a quick look at your thoughts in
> http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm !
> 
> I like it!  I think you might be interested in my stuff on entanglement,
> as it also concerns the "photon"  - a quite unjustified invention of our
> imaginations!
> 
> Caroline -- c.h.thompson@newscientist.net
>             http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
 
Hi Caroline,
 
Thanks for your response. It's always nice to know one is not alone... in
one's fight for common sense, against the general inertia of scientists;-)
 
However, I *am* repeatedly amazed that apparently some very strange
and illogical 'conclusion' (following some ill-conceived / incomplete
experiment) is accepted by so many -- blocking any healthy development,
and going into an abstract direction that beats the wildest imagination.
 
Like the M/M 'Redshift = Doppler' conclusion of "no_ether" --> Hubble's
consequent "expanding Universe" and with time_reversal: the "Big-Bang".
And this all "scientically & mathematically" fitted together by some super
acrobat (which Einstein really was;-) All of this clearly by lack of better!
 
In number theory the same happened, last century / begin this century:
"Hensel's lift" (with residues mod p^k of infinite precision k --> inf)
and the theory of p-adic numbers (Hensel - German). This was one way
around a problem related to the 'unprovable' Fermat inequality: the sum
of any two p-th powers (p>2) is not a p-th power: x^p + y^p =/= z^p in
positive integers < p^k for any finite k. So Hensel went to the abstract
extreme of allowing k to become infinite !
 
Similar to Einstein, Hensel had a stroke of genius, and made a
closed theory of that: the p-adics (mod p^k for asymptote k-->inf).
It definitely blocked any exploration into a straight proof of Fermat's
problem (which really is at the core of arithmetic & computer hardware
structure!)...
 
The inertia *there* is enormous: no direct FLT proof is possible
(by way of residues) they insist. True, but they forget that there are
*also* carries in integer arithmetic, and that residues [mod p^k: the
least significant k digits, in a base p (prime >2) notation] are only
1/p -th part of the problem. Given equivalence for residues mod p^k :
 
the FLT inequality for p-th powers of k-digit numbers 0 < x,y,z < p^k
is caused by the (p-1)k carries, in p-th powers n^p < p^{kp}.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See the direct FLT proof (nov.2005) at:
  http://pc2.iam.fmph.uniba.sk/amuc/_vol-74/_no_2/_benschop/benschop.pdf
 
Anyway, in your field - as in number theory (which btw is NOT my field:
I'm an EE in digital cct automation research / industry: digital VLSI)
I just noticed the goldmine those mathematicians sit on, unawares;-)
 
I'll check some of your pages, but "entanglement" is a concept unknown
to me (except for some memories of flying kites, when I was small, and
the thin rope of my kite would get entangled in a tree, or with ropes of
other kites...)
 
Maybe, some day, all this mess with too abstract theories (No_ether,
Redshift/BigBang, Hensel_lift/Fermat, Electron/Foton, particle/wave,
Cantor/Boole set-theory) can be "cleaned-up" and made into common sense,
generatable from the finite, and fitting with our million-years-old
intuitions on space/time, parallel/sequential logic, arithmetic/function
compostion, &c.

"Re: The Einstein hoax (on lossy light propagation)" (news:sci.math - 16dec99)

Quoted from "The Einstein hoax" :

S.3 -- Two years later, in 1905, an obscure patent clerk possessing a Ph.D. in physics,
apparently sensing an opportunity represented by the then apparent inability
of the Aether Relativity Theory to explain electromagnetic phenomena, published
the Special Theory of Relativity. In deriving this theory he applied mathematical
techniques to Poincare's Principle of Relativity. Upon examination, Special
Relativity is found to be identical to the Aether Relativity with the
conceptual restraint imposed by a preferred velocity reference frame (Aether)
removed. Since under both theories an observer could not measure his velocity
with respect to that preferred reference frame, by techniques known at the
time, the academic community asserted that the 'Aether' concept was meaningless.


They then took the
unscientific step of demanding that the Aether concept was not to be used as
a basis for further work in the physical sciences, even though its usage
could produce no adverse effect.
-- To his credit, Dr. Einstein warned that it had not been proven that Aether
didn't exist, but only that it wasn't needed in physical theories. --
It should be noted that Special Relativity ... did not resolve the alleged
electromagnetic limitations of the Aether Relativity Theory, but it
arbitrarily defined them as non-existent!


 
Subject:   Re: Neutrinos and Einstein-Polodosky-Rosen effect
   Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:15:28 GMT
   From:   Nico Benschop 
Newsgroups:  sci.physics, sci.math
--
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <8893nj$7ql$1@news.fsu.edu>,
> jac@dirac.csit.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> > In article <885rdm$elg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > n_f_benschop@my-deja.com writes:
> >}
> >} And how predictive is Newton's model in the case of Mercury's
> >} orbit, or about anything beyond our Solar system, for that
> >} matter (redshift &c)?
> >
> > James Carr:
> > Very good, actually.  So good that the defect was identified. That,
> > in fact, is _the_ difference between Newton and Ptolemy.  Ptolemy
> > would just add another correction term, not identify a flaw in the
> > overall model being used.
> >
> Excellent point.  Perhaps the most important point. -- Mati Meron
 
NB: Indeed, the convincing power of a simple model is precisely its
    "all-or-nothing" character, with very few parameters for fitting
    purposes. If it cannot be made to fit precisely (Mercury orbit
precession, light bending around Sun, redshift), something essential
beyond parameter fitting is missing (maybe something non-linear beyond
Maxwell, or something dissipative in transmission: lossy light
propagation?)
 
Small excercise in history, in retrospect, (re planetary motion):
 
1. If it's not linear (straight line) try a circle: Echn-aton (Sun)
 
2. If one circle does'nt work, try many circles: Ptolemy, Fourier(;-)
 
3. Simplify by shifting coordinates: Copernicus (77 --> 43 circles)
 
4. If too many circles bother you,
     generalize 'circle' to 'quadratic' (conic cut):  Kepler ellipse.
 
5. From global locus description (Kepler),
   goto local dynamic generation (diff.eqn): Newton, again quadratic,
   assuming some global 'field'.
 
6. If still something does'nt quite fit (Mercury, redshift):
       could it be cubic?
 
   Re: AMM/jan2000 paper by Groetsch on 'air-resisted' bullet (foton;-)
   trajectory between two parabola's P0 and P1. The simplest mix of
   two such parabolas is a linear weighted sum f(x) = xP1 + (1-x)P0,
   yielding a cubic 'asymmetry' in such dissipative trajectory...
 
7. Or if polynomial does not work, could it be exponential?  With
   a dissipative 'reductive' factor (1-e) per time-increment in some
   amplitude f(t), with e<<1. -- Re: 'damping' and entropy increase.  Just curious;-)
-- Nico Benschop. "One is Always Halfway Anyway" (1=AHA)
-- http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/search.htm
===================================================================== Subject: Re:

Why physics is the best!! Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:26:05 GMT
From: Nico Benschop >

Organization:  Research
  Newsgroups:  sci.physics
--
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> 
> C. Cagle  wrote in message
> news:38AC2FA8.86560F7F@telestream.com...
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > ... Physics is elegant.
> >
> > Wrong. True physics is useful. Pathological physicists or pseudo-
> > physicists are not. It takes the world a while but eventually
> > pathological science (much of modern physics) gets exposed.
> > $50 billion over 49 years to feed two armies or two generations of
> > welfare queens in white coats eventually gets people's attention.
> >
> > Physics which is bullshit is not elegant. Most of what you
> > think you know for sure seems elegant because you've linked
> > it to mathematics which is generally beautiful.
> > However, the math isn't the physics.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Well said, Charles!
> For me, physics is the best precisely because it has gone so wrong!
> Time and time again maths has been mistaken for physics, wasting
> vast amounts of time and mental energy, as well as money.
> 
> The world needs real physics, solidly tied to observation, now more
> than ever before.  We need to understand the nature of matter and
> energy, so as to keep up the supply of energy that the human race
> has come to rely on, without at the same time ruining our habitat.
> 
> I seem to have found my own role in the scheme of things:
> I happened to discover that the group of experiments that quantum
> theorists have been accepting as showing quantum entanglement can
> be explained by quite ordinary physics. See my web site:
>  http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
> The "nonlocal" effects that quantum theory implies are not needed.
> If these experiments can be so badly misinterpreted,
> what others may be suspect? ...[*]
 
[*]: Well, recently the repaired Hubble telescope (they gave him an
extra pair of glasses to see better - in focus;-)  was directed to
have a look in 'deep space' (some dark patch). And what did he see:
the usual mix of old & new galaxies! Totally in contradiction with
the expected 'only newly born' structures, just after the 'Big Bang'.
 
(BTW: one interviewed scientist maintained that _now_ the age-problem,
   - how old is the Universe? - was 'solved': about 12 billion years;-)
Rather than drawing the honest conclusion: our redshift- and Big Bang-
model is wrong, so let's go back to the drawing board...).
 
So, is the Universe (translated: one-way;-) stationary after all?
And is the redshift interpreted as dopplershift a mistake after all?
Meaning: could it be energy-loss in some not-so-empty interstellar space
(and certainly not 'vacuum' space with linear transmission properties).
 
Next: just this week a paper by some Rome lab (conf. on Dark Matter, in
Cal.USA) on dark-matter being possibly heavy particles (60 x proton wgt)
that very weakly interact with normal matter. Space filled for some 80%
with that stuff does not quite allow a linear model of 'empty' space,
does it? ... So how about some non-linear effect causing redshift ?!
 
-Ciao, Nico Benschop.   http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm
> 
> It seems to me that a very important factor in this charade has been
> the attempt to live with theories that merely predict and don't promote
> understanding of the "true mechanism".  There is much work to be done
> finding better theories, returning to the "realist" outlook that was
> prevalent before Einstein and Bohr.   If you are told this is
>       old-fashioned and doomed to failure, do not believe it!
> 
> All the best, Caroline. -- c.h.thompson@newscientist.net
> 

Halton Arp: "Seeing Red" . . . Book review (dec-1998): Redshift is not a Doppler effect
. . . . (large variation of redshifts measured from stars in the same galaxy...)

. . . "Redshift = Compton effect (not Doppler )" J.Kierein

 
         "Why the Big Bang is Wrong"  by  John Kierein
 
The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological
red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect.
See:  "The Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe" by Grote Reber, and
"Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect" by John Kierein.
 
Reber showed that the Compton effect was the cause of the red shift
in order to explain the observations of bright very long wavelength
extragalactic radio waves.  Kierein used the Compton effect
explanation to explain quasars and the red shift on the sun.
 
Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if
they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a
'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material.
This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as
the light travels through it and loses energy to these electrons by
the Compton effect.  If quasars are nearby, they may even exhibit
proper motion in the sky as the Earth travels around the sun.
Such a proper motion has been seen.  See Quasar Absolute Proper
Motion for a table that includes such proper motion observations.
 


  
 
. . . "Another Possible Cause of Red-shift" (Aladar Stolmar): 
 
Edwin Hubble in an effort to identify the cause(of the redshift) warned
astronomers [1] that: "the possibility that the red-shift may be due to some
other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage
of light from nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected".
[1] "Two methods of investigating the nature of nebular red-shift",
. . . Edwin Hubble and Richard C.Tolman (Bibcode: 1936 ApJ....84..517H)
 
Another view :
 "Errors in Tired Light Cosmology." Edward L. Wright (UCLA, USA)


  
 
Subject:  Re: why do you like math?
   Date:  Mon, 10 Sep 2001
   From:  Nico Benschop
  Org'n:  Amspade Research ( Digital )
Newsgrp:  sci.math
 
Neo 1061 wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2001  - Nico Benschop
>  sat on a tribble, which squeaked:
 
What is a 'tribble', and if it squeakes, what does that mean..?
 
> >[*]:  Who does'nt hate the increase of Entropy ?
> > (there is no lossless process in Nature, except light-propagation;-)
> >                       http://piazza.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm
> 
> Here's something interesting. I came up with what seems to be a proof
> that if the universe is deterministic and its evolution computable,
> then entropy is constant.
 
'Proof' is based on transitive closure, hence your result is
 self- fulfilling (resulting from axioms & method):
[..old stuff, fairly irrelevant, based on a non-realistic model..;-]
[ Entropy (chaos) increases generally: my foot.
[ So what are YOU doing here?-) Certainly a local aberration...]
[ Structure increases globally, seems to be more realistic, but HOW? ]
> 
[ The more interesting stuff comes next, allowing the thought of
[ the future to have influence on the present: "anti-causal"...:-]
[ This very old Greek(?) idea does have value. Essential question:
[ _Where_ do your idea's come from ? -- especially the creative ones.]
[  BTW: what the hell are you doing in sci.math, with this open mind
[ attitude?  You'll be dismissed as a crank in no time: Good for you! ]
> 
> Of course our everyday observation is increasing entropy.
> This is unlikely to be a curious local phenomenon,
> so the universe's forward evolution is probably not computable.
 
Probably? Certainly!
  How about computing you and me, starting with a hot gas cloud...
 
Creative structure building is as natural a process as gravity, I bet.
At the Univ. Twente (NL) some people developed an anti-entopy model,
based on non-elastic (lossy) collisions between particles:
     Just by shaking (not stirring;-) a mass of bicycle bullets
(fiets kogeltjes) that are initially equally distributed over bins,
a final state arises with all kogeltjes in just ONE bin ! Funny :
 
 The Maxwell demon DOES exist, and its name is (creative) FRICTION...
Ref: ================================================================
arxiv.org/PS_cache/nlin(mar2001)
       Ko van der Weele et al.: "Hysteretic clustering in granular gas"
   Dpt. Applied Physics and J.M. Burgers Centre for Fluid Dynamics -
   Univ. Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
                 ("The Maxwell-demon experiment")
 
> That is intriguing because it
> allows things in the universe to do what Turing machines cannot, and
> many annoying limitations (halting problem, Godel incompleteness)
> are perhaps escapable as a result. (Godel incompleteness applies
> to deductive reasoning, noted for its being mechanizable, and thus
> relates in some deep way to computability.)
 
At a philosophical & common-sense level, Godel's result came surpisingly
late, just saying that every theory (as transitive closure of a finite
set of axioms, using logic/causality as generating principle) has its
context. Viz: TRUTH is relative to your assumptions (axioms), and math
in particular does not yield anything really NEW beyond their transitive
closure.
 
> If it is, then it's probably gotta be infinite, and the second
> law doesn't matter. The universe has infinitely far to fall before
> heat death. Otherwise, it isn't deterministic. Free will *drool*.
> If it's nondeterministic it might fail to be stochastically
> modelable. So much for the second law then, since it is a
> probabilistic statement with such a hidden assumption.
 
        Vive les hidden assumptions!
Example: the ONLY perpetuum mobile in Nature is light-propagation
(that is: lossless); equivalent to another hidden assumption: interstellar
space is PURE VACUUM, not depriving fotons travelling for billions of
lightyears of ANY energy at all... hence 'follows' the Doppler expansion
to explain the Redshift, and by time reversal: the Big Bang
             (=Christian biblical model: Begin --> End;-)
 
Notice this Magic (& unreal) LOSSLESS axiom, counter even to any
SCIENTIFIC attitude, closing your eyes to what you don't like,
so it does not exist. Each Natural process DOES lose eventually its
inital purpose/impetus: I bet the lifetime of an electron,  proton,
foton is finite: death by friction. But:
they again arise, come to life, by a process with enough chaos that
exceeds a certain TRHESHOLD : non-linear creative process, like the
lossy collisons between bicyle 'fiets kogeltjes' (ball-baring balls?-)
 
Good old Fred Hoyle will have a longer life than expected, once the
creative anti-entopy process of structure building frictive
collisions is better understood.
   How about the Cosmic Background Noise:
the light traveling everywhere through the Universe, warming (to 3 degr
Kelvin;-) the ether-'soup' it ploughs through, and creating plenty of
new electrons (= closed foton, with double-twisted donut structure *)
to replace those that died of old age.
(*):    J.Williamson, M. van der Mark:
       "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?"
    in: Annales de Fondation L.de Broglie, V22, N2 (1997) p133-160.
 
> The universe could also be acausal. (It probably is, in fact.)
> There goes the second law again -- an acausal but
> self-consistent universe can be forced by boundary conditions to
> contain surprising events (highly improbable seeming a priori, but
> caused by a future cause) -- read Robert Forward's Timemaster if you
> don't believe me. (Sorry, no evil Amazon URLs, but your local library
> is likely to have it -- mine does.) Otherwise, entropy is constant,
> and no futile heat death. (That doesn't matter much if there's a big
> crunch of course. And this finite deterministic computable universe
> will just mechanically enter a loop and start repeating configurations.
> Maybe heat death is better than that species of Hell.
> But I don't believe it for a second -- consciousness looks
> suspiciously non-computable thus far, and causality is suspect.)
 
Right on!    http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/math-use.htm
   (on the self-fulfilling view of how efficient a causal
    and predictable & mathematical model is)
 
[Now comes the interesting part;-]
> 
> OK, anyone wondering why I consider causality suspect? Firstly, it's
> up there with gravitation and such in the list of laws of nature, but
> the justifications for it tend to be philosophical. Also, it's widely
> disbelieved, unlike, say, gravitation. Most mythologies and belief
> systems in the world have a healthy dose of the teleological.
> Teleology is shunned by scientists because it's a problem for being
> able to make repeatable experiments and the like, of course. As a
> result, causality seems to be justified mainly because it's tidy.
> It's also clearly approximately true: the events of our everyday
> lives are generally patterned into cause followed by effect.
> It lets us make useful predictions. Yet physics at its most
> fundamental consists mainly of time-symmetric processes. The one
> process that isn't time-symmetric is the mysterious collapse of
> the quantum wavefunction, and that seems to occur without a
> preceding cause.
 
Or any lossy process: entropy / chaos increasing: the arrow of time...
So if you don't like that (loss) then ignore it, hence the still
extremely popular group theory (=invertable processes: conservation
of rank, vs. rank-decreasing algebra in general: semigroups --
 http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0103112
 
> Particles decay spontaneously,
 
... and I bet: even electrons & protons have a finite lifetime.
 
> and the Big Bang has no preceding cause because there was no
> "preceding" at all! If one accepts that some events lack a cause,
> causality is called into question. If one demands that every
> event has a cause, at least one (the Big Bang) must have its cause
> lie in its own future and the illusion of causality is shattered.
> Why then do our everyday lives suggest causality? Some causal
> patterns exist -- past causes and future consequences. These are
> those observations. Those consequences that preceded their cause
> are dismissed as "spontaneous" and modeled as environmental noise.
> Unfortunately, modeling them as noise doesn't explain them away
> and perhaps is a crutch that holds progress back.
 
" Real is: what you have to deal with,
  what won't go away just because it does'nt fit your prejudices".
(in: Sources of the Self, by Charles Taylor, McGill-U, 1989, pg. 59)
 http://piazza.iae.nl/users/benschop/simple.htm
 
On the fundamental principle of Threshold:
"Everything is so clear & logical" (after Analog-->Digital conversion;-)
The logic of the courtroom: answer with yes or no, please (and forget
about the environmental conditions: 'Law' as a 1-bit  A/D coverter)
 
> Any "noise" should have a hidden variable explanation. The
> uncertainties in the weather forecast are because of the butterfly
> effect acting on the smaller uncertainties in our observations.
 
But notice in all those satellite pictures: the recurring 'galactic'
spiral structures (around a depression, in NL always coming via UK;-(
Could an electron be a spiralling ether-whirl? (*)
 
> The positions and momenta and other info on tons of atoms and
> molecules are the hidden variables behind the weather forecast
> noise. But what of the quantum noise? Spontaneous decays,
> Heisenberg uncertainty and its consequences? This was shown
> early on to be fundamental, not a failure of resolving power of
> instrumentation. Now we know that none of quantum fuzziness can
> be explained by hidden variables, even fundamentally unmeasurable
> ones, because of the Bell's Inequality results. (Not causally).
> Causality is assumed in the argument against hidden variables.
> Maybe the fuzziness can be explained in terms of a future state
> that is unknown, and a feedback loop in time, though. Consider:
>    In an EPR experiment, measuring a particle spin collapses the
> wavefunction nonlocally. In some sense, it fixes that spin through
> history, as well as that of the other entangled particle. It's like
> something reached back and "filled in the blanks" to make the book
> of the universe a self-consistent story, starting with the particles'
> entanglement and ending with the measurements made on them. Sure,
> EPR phenomena seem unusable to macroscopically violate causality,
> but then again, isn't that just semantic quibbling? It sure seems
> to have been violated microscopically, whether it has been
> macroscopically or not!      -- Neo 1061
 
Keep speculating, something may blossom out of it, after all.
     It's not the answers that count, but the questions...
Answers condense into Form, Questions explore beyond (present) form.
 
-- NB --  http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop
 


  
 
 "When branes collide"  . . Science News Online (22sep2001)
 
A parallel universe moving along a hidden dimension smacked into ours.
The collision heated our universe, creating a sea of quarks, electrons,
protons, photons, and other subatomic particles. It also imparted
microscopic  ripples, like ocean waves crashing on a shore.
These ripples generated tiny fluctuations in temperature and density,
the seeds  from which all cosmic architecture—from stars to gargantuan
clusters of galaxies  to galactic super clusters—ultimately arose.
This model for the evolution of the cosmos, first presented at a cosmology
meeting at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore last April,
has been widely discussed and debated ever since. Although the hypothesis
sounds like science  fiction, some scientists say it's the first serious
challenge to the reigning  model of the birth of the universe.
"After many years in which we had a single model — [the Big Bang combined
with inflation] — for the universe's beginning, we now have an alternative,"
comments theorist Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute,
one of the organizers of the April-2001 meeting on this topic.

 

"The reason that this is important is that in spite of its attractive

features, inflation theory has not been tested observationally in any

detail," he notes. Livio adds that the new model "provides us with a

potential true test that can distinguish between it and inflation."

--- "I don't think it's by any means yet a real rival to inflation,

but I think it is a model well worth pursuing," says Alan H. Guth

of MIT, one of the developers of the inflation model.



  
 
(c) Nico Benschop (nfbenschop@onsbrabantnet.nl) -- jun'98 --
 
%%

Free counter and web stats