THE
ENTRAINED SPATIAL MEDIUM GRAVITATIONAL SINK MODEL:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Einstein and "space" |
|
|
No one knows what space is, but general relativity warps it and has it steer mass and light. Big Bang Theory expands it. Raisin Bread Cosmology has it carry matter and energy along for the ride. The Dynamic Vacuum perturbs it. Some theorists loop it. Some, including this model, assume that matter and the propagation of light cannot exist outside it. All the foregoing, the concept of a Higgs field, and the existence of phenomena such as the Casimir effect and permittivity and permeability of the vacuum suggest that space - or the fabric thereof - is substantive. Further, Bell's Theorem and Alain Aspect's experiments, the Dynamic Vacuum, and the apparent insufficient presence of enough matter to account for galaxies not flying apart, suggest that there exists an underlying spatial reality to which we may be largely "electromagnetically" blind and where processes may exceed the speed of light under certain circumstances, such as in the vicinity of black holes. The ether is considered passé today because of the Michelson- Morley experiment, but it will be shown from several perspectives in the sections Michelson-Morley and Special Relativity; Gravity and Inertia; Spatial Fabric Sinks and Relative Motion; and Inertial Mass that because light obeys gravity and the experiment occurred deep in an entrained gravitational field, it was an invalid test of drift through an ether and of rod lengths. Einstein believed he had eliminated the need for ether with special relativity, but with general relativity he in effect substituted a “space with properties” for that ether. In a 1920 lecture(1), after his theory of general relativity was fully developed, Einstein acknowledged the necessity for ether. In his book, Relativity(2), also written after his theory was fully developed, he likewise asserted the need for a medium in which light could propagate. What general relativity did in effect was to rename ether and call it space. This model preferentially uses expressions such as fabric of space or medium in space, without spelling out precisely the nature of that fabric or medium. Robert Kirkwood(3,4) showed some fifty years ago that a flowing ether model yielded the Schwarzschild line element in Einstein's theory. Herbert Ives(5,6) had done the same thing several years earlier. More recently, Tom Martin(7,8) of the Gravity Research Institute, Boulder, Colorado has done so for a model based upon spatial flow of a physical substrate. It is generally accepted that any theory which produces the Schwarzschild line element will produce the same results as general relativity(9) for the key tests of said theory, including: Perihelion advance; Time delay in radar soundings; Geodesic effect; The gravitational redshift; and Bending of light. So this model and any other model that is based on the inflow of a spatial medium or fabric, quantum foam or soup, substrate or ether, by whatever other name one chooses to use, can meet all the same experimental tests that led to the acceptance of general relativity (GR). In addition to the foregoing and contrary to conventional wisdom, seventeen years before GR was developed, Paul Gerber calculated the correct advancement of the perihelion of Mercury(10). Paul Marmet’s(11) web site contains several other correct calculations. In addition Newtonian physics correctly predicts a gravitational redshift. So all the renowned predictions have been duplicated using classical physics, except the double bending of light and this model accomplishes that.
|
|
|
Streaming matter and absorption It is hard not to be struck by diagrams of matter streaming toward neutron stars, "black holes" and the apparent "great attractor" and not to see a similarity between this streaming and continental drift. If the universe was generated by the expansion of all of observable "space" and energy from a big bang, with "space" carrying matter along for the ride as proposed in raisin bread cosmology, then the process ought to be reversible. Thus, any possible big crunch, any formation of black holes, and ordinary gravity cause the universe or portions of it to vary in density and volume, but does not change the overall matter/energy content of the universe. The sponge analogy In this discussion the largest mass in a system being examined, such as a sun, is treated as stationary and the surrounding masses, such as planets and specs of dust, are referred to as passive masses, though they may be moving. The terms body, mass, and sink may be used interchangeably with the understanding that masses are gravitational bodies that act as spatial sinks or sources of condensation in this model. To visualize this gravitational sink process, imagine a powerful spherical sponge with an enormous ability to absorb water placed in a swimming pool. The sponge acts as a sink causing the surrounding water to flow toward the sponge. If a string were stretched out in a straight line it would soon become curved. (providing half the curvature predicted by GR). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The unidirectional (monopole) nature of gravity in this model is due to the absorption or condensation process causing the fabric of space to flow only towards gravitational bodies and not away from them. If Gravitational processes are seen as the converse of Big Bang processes, then perhaps in combination nature reveals a dipole character. As the surrounding fabric of space streams toward the massive body, it carries all surrounding masses and energy inward as in Raisin Bread Cosmology (Two dimensional examples would be continental drift and a conveyer belt). Thus, in this model gravitational bodies are regarded as "spatial" sinks It becomes obvious why gravity cannot be distinguished from acceleration in this model. Gravity in this model is due to the acceleration of the fabric of space. The truth is no form of acceleration can be distinguished from any other in Einstein’s thought experiment.It also reveals why no force is felt by a body in free fall: there is no relative motion between a free falling body and its surrounding background spatial fabric. The pattern of inflowing spatial fabric associated with a mass comprises its gravitational field. Force field geometry causes the velocity of the spatial medium to increase as a mass is approached. Thus, the Inverse Square Law applies as a first approximation and the strength of the field at any point. But a mass passing by, in addition to being carried along by the in-flowing stream, also acts like a sponge and absorbs the fabric of space, helping close the gap between the two masses as they both "reel in the rope of space in a tug of war," (or alternatively, responds to the lack of density between them) which accounts for the attraction between two masses being proportional to the product of the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure
B: Mass soaks up the fabric of space in all directions.
A "tug of war" is felt at Xs
But mass gobbles the fabric of space in all directions and the swallowing on the side away from the passive mass offsets the dynamics of that towards the stationary mass. The effect of this action is to allow the inertial mass to passively drift along with in-streaming conveyer belt of spatial fabric. Thus, the mass of the passive body can be disregarded when calculating its falling rate, which is why all bodies do fall at the same rate when "dropped" from the same point in a gravitational field. A cannon ball tugs harder on the earth than a feather does, but it also tugs harder on the rest of the universe than does a feather so in both cases the opposing effects cancel.
It was noted in the introduction that the math associated with this model produces the Schwarzschild solution. Thus most of the predictions of general relativity are also predicted by this theory, including time delay in Radar soundings, the deflection of light by a gravitational field, the gravitational redshift, the geodesic effect, and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.
The Deflection of light
General relativity predicts that the deflection of light by a gravitational field is 4GM/R0c2. Einstein stated in his book Relativity(2): "It may be added that according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification ("curvature") of space caused by the sun."
He also observed in the same book: "A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." (Italics added.) Einstein goes on to note that the constant velocity of light is restricted to special relativity i.e. absent a gravitational field.
Both of the above statements by Einstein were made after the completion of his theory.
Jim Ogle(12), in August, 2000, pointed out to the author that Newton had posited a model with ideas similar to those proposed in this model. Newton(13) proposed in a 1675 letter to Oldenburg, the Secretary of the Royal Society, and later to Robert Boyle, that gravity was the result of a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow. He also asserted that such a process was consistent with all his other work and Kepler's Laws of Motion. More recently Tom Van Flandern(26) has proposed that a varied speed of light can be associated with a density gradient.
The result is that light bends in a gravitational field twice as much as conventional wisdom holds would be done by Newtonian gravity.
An analysis of the deflection of light in view of Newton's and Einstein's thinking provides an opportunity to gain insight into the internal dynamics of gravitation.
Because the gravitational sink operates by causing a condensation or absorption of the surrounding spatial fabric or medium, two things happen.
First, a "density" gradient is established with the lowest pressure/density near the center of the system and the highest distally.
Second, in response to the density gradient, the medium streams towards the source of low pressure (water streams toward the sponge) with the highest velocities occurring near the sponge and the lowest velocities distally.
Since both processes are generated by the same sink, they are inversely related to each other with the highest velocities associated with the lowest "densities".
Figure C : Sink is red.
Lighter colors represent lower density.
Arrows represent flow.It may seem counter intuitive that the highest velocities occur where the pressure/density is lowest, but this is what happens in all of nature's sinks, such as cyclones or whirlpools. Note the cause and effect relationships. The sink causes the density gradient which in turn causes the increased flow of the spatial medium.
Light can be treated as having both particle and wavelike properties. Normally using either one or the other of these properties in calculations gives the right answer to most physics problems, because most processes tap into only one or the other of these properties. But the situation is different when considering the behavior of light in a gravitational field.
Then if one assumes that the photon travels as a wave and that the position of the wave in the inflowing spatial medium can be treated as a massless particle or planet, then both properties of photons contribute to the solution.
It may be that the apparent particle aspect of photons is an artifact of the way atoms absorb and emit quanta of energy and that the photon shares traits of the phonon, the sound particle, though the analogy may break down if pushed too far.
Richard Feynman argued in his book, QED, that photomultiplier experiments demonstrated that photons are particles. Then their emission from “spherical” atoms with magnetic moments and subsequent behavior can be statistically described relevant to the surface area of the atom with results that mimic wave behavior and he shows how refraction results. The diffraction patterns of electrons in slit experiments also show that particles can behave in a manner that can be interpreted as wavelike, mimicking Huygen’s principle behavior.
Further, a propagating photon particle would be expected to respond to variations in spatial medium density, curving in a manner that produces results which fit the analysis provided by Einstein below. This would be in addition to the “continental drift” effect of the inflowing spatial medium which comprises the gravitational field. Thus, treating both the particle and wavelike aspects of photons mathematically is justified with half of the bending of light by gravity attributed to each, even if photons are particles.
No detectable dispersion of light occurs in a vacuum or outer space and none occurs in the spatial medium. That is because the medium is not composed of atoms, so the behavior of light in the spatial medium does not correspond to the behavior of light in air. In air and material media atoms interact with light absorbing and re-emitting light differentially and scattering and dispersion occur.
Since in this spatial sink model the spatial medium is viewed as necessary for the propagation of light, the internal velocity of light through the spatial medium will be faster where the density of that medium is greatest and slower in less dense medium. The transmission of sound in a material medium provides an analogy for this aspect of the transmission of light i.e. sounds propagated faster in denser mediums. Thus, differential velocities associated with the differential densities can cause the bending of light without dispersion.
No matter how viewed the apparent fact that photons fail to lose energy as they travel great distances through the spatial medium is the result of the fact that in the Spatial Sink Model the spatial medium is: (1) necessary in order for photons to propagate; (2) non atomic and non electromagnetic in nature; and (3) is perfectly or nearly perfectly elastic. This is consistent with photon’s response to the curvature of space in GR, which is said to curve the path of photons while not diminishing the energy of same. If the apparent retardation of the velocity of the Pioneer probes by John Anderson holds(31) it could be reflective of some slight lack of elasticity on the part of the spatial medium applicable to both this model and GR.
The first half: The bending of light due to refraction.
In 1911 Einstein(14) calculated the refraction of light in a gravitational field due to the effect of the differential velocities on the wave front of light and obtained the value 2GM/R0c2 for the angle of deflection. It does not matter that Einstein later adopted a constant velocity for light in a gravitational field out of frustration rather than conviction and for reasons not accepted here. The math is still good and describes this model’s refraction component accurately. These calculations are repeated below.
Einstein asserted that the velocity of a light varied with position in a gravitational field according to the formula:
Eq. 1:
Fig. D
Then analyzing the propagation of light as a wave front transiting across a gravitational field (i.e. up in the above diagram) in which the velocity of light was less for the portion of the wave that was deeper in the field (to the right) than the portion transiting distally, he calculated:
Here ń is not the refractive index, but the radial direction, r, toward the increasing gravitational field.
He then calculated the deflection per unit of path as:
Or per the first formula above:
He notes that the difference between all the “c’s”, regardless of subscript or absence thereof , is very small so he cancels as he sees fit. He gets for the deflection:
, which is the same as: Eq 2
, after letting n’ = r
After an analysis of the following triangle Eq. 3 is derived.
The above triangle is rotated from its presentation in Einstein’s text for better comparison later. Also Einstein used “k” for the gravitational constant instead of the “g” used above. The above equation is commonly written as a double integral using dr, dθ, which is what will be done later in this document when comparing results.
Thus this first of the expected 2GM/R0c2 values is due to refraction associated with differential velocities of light caused by the gravitational field.
The second half: The bending of light due to its particle like aspect.
These calculations can be done using a lengthier process based on the analysis of a conic section yielding the same answer as above, as was first done by Soldner in 1801(15), but a simpler method is applied here based on the shortcut used by Einstein above. Both procedures yield hyperbolas.
Imagine a triangle with the top a vector describing a straight path from left to right across a gravitational field. Let S=ct. At right angles pointing down is a shorter vector describing the distance a particle would fall during the time light would travel the distance S. Label this vector ½ gt2. As Einstein did, let S = the unit distance, thus t=1/c. Complete the triangle letting the angle to the left be ψ .
Fig F
Then
And
.
Thus for small angles
which is the same as Eq 2.
Integrating the incremental deflection ψ to gives the total deflection α.
Eq. 4
Eq. 4 is simply another form of Eq. 3 and thus gives the same answer as that derived for the wave like aspect of the photon. This is the second of the expected 2GM/R0c2 values. Combining these two calculations gives:
Eq. 5
Velocity relationships and other properties of the spatial medium
The following Table A is designed to reveal properties of a theory in which:
a. A mass acts as a sink for a spatial medium;
b. A thinning of the spatial medium surrounding the sink results;
c. An inflow of the spatial medium toward the sink is produced;
d. The inflow drags light toward the sink increasing the “external” velocity of inflowing light by the velocity of spatial inflow;
e. The thinning inhibits the “internal” propagation of light through the spatial medium by an amount which is the inverse of the “external” velocity.
Further the table and related calculations will be used to tie the data in the table to Eq. 1.
Note that the reference speed of light is unity and that for ease of analysis velocities for falling bodies were chosen as 10% increments of the speed of light. Thus each of the velocities are decimal fractions of the speed of light, though to save space only columns G and I have Co written after them. Of course in our solar system no body comes close to generating even the lowest velocity used in the table.
The table looks at 11 points in space from deep space with zero gravity to the surface of a hypothetical black hole.
Initially the reader is asked to focus on the impacts of gravity on falling light, i.e. columns A through E
Table A: Incremental behavior of light in gravitational fields.
FALLING LIGHT RISING LIGHT
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Pt.
Vg
Vg/Co
Vf =є
Vp
Incremental
Cf
Vr
Cr
% of co
(Co+vg)/co
1 / Vf
ratios:
Vp x Vf
(C0-vg)/co
Vp x Vr
1
0%
0
1
1
D dn. or E up
1co
1
1
1.1
2
10%
0.1
1.1
0.9090909
1co
0.9
0.8181818
Co
1.09090909
3
20%
0.2
1.2
0.8333333
1co
0.8
0.6666667
Co
1.08333333
4
30%
0.3
1.3
0.7692308
1co
0.7
0.5384615
Co
1.07692308
5
40%
0.4
1.4
0.7142857
1co
0.6
0.4285714
Co
1.07142857
6
50%
0.5
1.5
0.6666667
1co
0.5
0.3333333
Co
1.06666667
7
60%
0.6
1.6
0.625
1co
0.4
0.25
Co
