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
1.0625
8
70%
0.7
1.7
0.5882353
1co
0.3
0.1764706
Co
1.05882353
9
80%
0.8
1.8
0.5555556
1co
0.2
0.1111111
Co
1.05555556
10
90%
0.9
1.9
0.5263158
1co
0.1
0.0526316
Co
1.05263158
11
100%
1
2
0.5
1co
0
0
Co
Column C expresses the velocity of gravitational flow that would occur for an object dropped to that point from infinity as a decimal of the speed of light Co in deep space absent a (or at the minimal possible ) gravitational field.
Column D assumes that light is dragged by the falling spatial medium (substratum, quantum foam, or ether) to create an external velocity of falling light that is the sum of Co and the gravitational velocity. This would be the measured velocity if that velocity was not caused by and associated with a concomitant thinning of the spatial medium. The quantities (co+vg) are divided by co only to permit entries as simple digits and decimals. The subheading vf = є reflects the fact that the column is being asked to do double duty to save space. The rationale will become clear later.
Column E calculates the inverse impact of the impeding of the flow of light by the thinning of the spatial medium. Column E should probably have been listed twice with the first time labeled as u, the propagability of the medium, and the second Vp, the internal velocity of light through the medium. Since the numbers were the same only one column was used to save space.
Column G reflects the fact that the measured velocity of falling light remains constant when both the increased gravitational velocity flow of the medium and the decreased ability of propagation through the medium are considered.
Column F is the dramatic column in many respects. Note that its data is offset from and lies between the other rows. If one divides the value for any point of Column D into the value below it one will get the same number as if one divides the corresponding values in column E in reverse order. The same holds true for any range of values for any corresponding two points. For example, in Column D dividing point 7 into point 11 i.e. 2/1.6 = 1.25. Likewise in column E dividing point 11 into point 7 i.e. 0.625/0.5 also = 1.25.
Mathematically this result is obtained as follows. The fraction
describes the operations in column D, while
describes those in Column E. So, the second entity becomes the same as the first after division.
The numerator and denominator in the second fraction are reflective of the values Vp in the table. Thus values Vp1 and Vp2 of column E are comparable to Einstein’s C1 and C2 in fig D.
Furthermore, in “The Principle of Relativity”(14), Einstein showed that Vg/C0 = φ/C02. Thus, C0 + Vg = C0(1 + Vg/C0) = C0(1 + φ/C02) which is the same as Eq.1, after the proper re-labeling has occurred to conform to this model's usage.
Thus, the data in Table A and the formulas derived from it are entirely consistent with Einstein’s math and the concept that the deflection of light by a gravitational field is due to two process, (1) the Newtonian behavior which one would expect by treating light as a particle; and (2) the diffraction of light caused by the variation in the density of the spatial medium (substratum, quantum soup, quantum foam, ether, etc).
Several consequences and predictions suggested by Table A and associated math
1. Table A leads to some interesting conclusions and predictions regarding measured values of light velocities in a gravitational field and the possible existence of black holes.
The measured velocity of falling light at any given point in a gravitational field is.
That is Co, after multiplying by Co to convert from a decimal to a whole number value.
But the measured velocity of rising light becomes
after conversion.
Thus the table provides a mechanism for a black hole, so it is consistent with modern theory in that respect.
2. Another consequence is that the velocity of light may be slightly incorrectly calculated as all the measurements of the velocity of light of which the author is aware involve an over and back process using mirrors or reflection off a foreign body. Thus the measurement is performed in a gravitational field or where light is entering and exiting one or more gravitational fields - at least three in radar sounding experiments.
Let D stands for the distance from the surface of a gravitational body to a mirror located distally in a gravitational field on a satellite of insignificant mass.
Let Tc be the total time for light with a measured constant speed c, to make the round trip from the surface of the earth to the satellite and back, then Tc = 2D/c.
But if Tv is the total time for light in this model to traverse the same total round trip, the total time is calculated as follows.
Eq. 6
But Vg is the integral of the acceleration g, so letting rs be the distance from the center of the earth to the satellite and re the radius of the earth:
.
Substituting this value into Vg in Eq 6 gives: Eq. 7
.
Since the gravitational field of the earth and the other bodies in the solar system are very weak, this potential miscalculation may be insignificant over short distances. This may especially be true for experiments operating over small horizontal distances on the surface of the earth. Also, in an experiment involving two weak overlapping gravitational fields the offsetting fields probably make this error insignificant. Indeed, it may be extremely difficult to identify the error without specifically looking for it, which may be why it has not been noticed before. Thus the table and the math associated with it predict that – at least in weak gravitational fields – the measured velocity of light will be constant or very nearly so. It will certainly be constant for any given radial distance in a gravitational field. But in the vicinity of a black hole differences in the measurements of the velocity of falling and rising light would be noticeable. The constancy of measurement discussed here is not that to which special relativity applies. That is addressed in the next two sections.
The velocity and gravitational redshifts
Experiment has demonstrated that a faster moving atom will radiate with longer wavelengths than a slower moving one. Based on accelerator experiments modern quantum mechanics assume that photons are absorbed and emitted from the electron or whatever particle is under consideration. So on one level it makes sense to treat the situation directly. It takes time for a particle to emit a photon. A photon being emitted into a stationary background medium, be it Einstein space, the vacuum, or the spatial medium of this theory, from a moving particle will be stretched more than a photon emitted from a stationary electron. It follows that greater velocity will cause more the stretching, resulting in greater redshift, than would slower velocity. Likewise a faster stream of flowing space passing a stationary particle will result in a greater redshift than will a slower stream. So in this model the velocity redshift and the gravitational redshift are different sides of the same coin.
The velocity redshift and the Bohr radius
Even though photons are emitted from electrons, Bohr was able to tie the frequency of emitted photons in a stationary atom to electron shell radii. Electrons in moving atoms still must orbit the nucleus, so here we considering the impact of velocity upon the wavelengths of a moving atom in terms of the Bohr radius(16,17)
, which will be used as a proxy for the behavior of all atoms. The reason is that we are not concerned here with electron jumps between energy levels, but the effect of velocity on all of the quantum orbits.
One finds that the complete story cannot be told if everything but mass is treated as constant. Wavelength is associated in a positive sense with the Bohr radius, with an increased Bohr radius producing an increased wavelength, while a decreased Bohr radius is associated with a shorter wavelength(11). Thus, if the mass of the electron in the denominator of the above formula is treated as the only non-constant and increases with velocity, as special relativity asserts, the result is a decreased wavelength in contradiction with experiment.
There are two reasons for this discrepancy. First, the mass in the Bohr radius calculations originated from consideration of the inertial mass of the electron(16,17). Since all bodies fall at the same rate when dropped from the same position in a gravitational field, the effect in the increased inertial mass of the electron is canceled by its increased gravitational mass. Second, because gravitational forces are so many orders of magnitude smaller then electric forces, gravitational forces were ignored in the calculation of the Bohr radius. It is not appropriate to consider them now, without factoring them into the original calculations. The only thing to do is to treat mass as a constant here.
A likely candidate for contributing to the correct effect would appear to be the adjustable parameter the permittivity of the vacuum є(26), which fortuitously is located in the numerator. Thus, its increase would be associated with an increased Bohr radius.
To those who would object to having a constant like permittivity change, the author notes that the “foot has already be stuck in the door” at least twice
The first foot through the door is that permittivity has been shown to be dependent on spacetime geometry(18), which happily is consistent with this model’s assertion that the velocity of light varies with the state of expansion of the universe.
The second foot through the door is the fact that the value of the fine structure constant has been shown to be dependent on the energy of the probe that senses the charge. The value is 1/128(35) in high energy experiments as apposed to the conventional 1/137. The fine structure constant is so called because it is a composition of other constants. So, it is obvious that one or more constants change. This issue will be examined more thoroughly shortly.
At any rate, the change in the effective permittivity on the Bohr radius may be reflective of an effective weakening of the propagation of forces related to timeliness factors discussed below.
Permittivity has been shown to be dependent on spacetime geometry(18), which as noted above, supports this model’s assertion that the velocity of light varies with the state of expansion of the universe.
Permittivity Є has also been shown to be related to the energy and the Friedmann radius in the following manner
.
The permittivity є is a form of resistance. Insight can be gained by considering the analogous situation in electricity where the current I = E/R. The same relationship exists between columns E and D in table A. The propagability of light in column E is the result of dividing column D into unity (or C0). Thus column D can be thought of in part as a measure of external response to the condensation process and in part as a measure of the internal resistance to photon propagation. Thus, column D is a measure of the permittivity of free space, expressed here in terms of the same velocity relationship Einstein used, namely, 1 + v/c. Thus, the formula for the Bohr radius is modified to
, which shall be justified further below.
The frequency of light emitted by the hydrogen atom in quantum transition between n1 and n2 is
This can also be written:
, where f is the orbital frequency of the electron. But we are not concerned here with the dynamics of orbital energy jumps; but what the impact of velocity is on the emitted frequency after these dynamics have been taken into account for any given orbital jump. Thus the quantities in which n is involved should be treated as constant and the above formula should be written ve=πfk. So the emitted frequency is directly proportional to the orbital frequency which in turn is directly proportional to orbital velocity vo.
Timeliness
But how does increased velocity bring about this same relationship? One way to understand this phenomenon is to do a thought experiment similar to those Einstein did.
It is apparent that the change in frequency can be explained in terms of timeliness and relative motions. Increased forward velocity of an atom affects the relative orbital velocity of an electron around the nucleus, since the nucleus has only to increase its forward velocity while the electron "maintains" an orbit in addition to increasing its forward velocity. Consider a fictional hydrogen atom traveling at the speed of light. It is obvious that since matter cannot exceed the speed of light, the electron could not orbit any longer. The best it could do would be to travel a parallel path with the proton. Odds are that it would have headed off into the sunset long before reaching the speed of light. In short as the velocity of the atom is increased, some of the orbital velocity of the electron is converted to forward velocity and the relative time for orbiting the nucleus is decreased.
Another way of viewing the same phenomenon is to think of the orbital velocity remaining constant while the forward velocity increases. If the values in column D are used as representative forward velocities, then the values in column E become representative of the relative orbital velocities.
This model posits that the velocity redshift and the gravitational redshift are tied to the same dynamics, namely the relative flow between atoms and the spatial medium, by whatever name it is called. In the case of the gravitational redshift and a stationary atom, the flow is that of the gravitational field. It seems reasonable that the parameters є and a should be reflective of this dynamic. This relationship also applies to rotational processes in the nucleus.
Further support for the relationships derived above comes from an analysis of the Plank constant which can be written
. The directly inverse relationship between permittivity and orbital velocity vo is that of this model.
Once it is recognized that gravitational and electromagnetic forces operate at the speed of light, then the issue of the timeliness(24) and the delay of communication of and responses to forces with increasing velocity becomes important. One thing that occurs is a weakening of the gravitational field which is accounted for by the increase in the Bohr radius. The inability of adjustment's to a particle's behavior to occur in a timely manner as its velocity approaches that of light is the cause of much non-intuitive phenomena, including the slowing of the aging process and of atomic clocks with increased velocity.
The Fine Structure Constant
The formula for the constant is:
Current conventional wisdom holds it is the charge that varies in high energy experiments as the result of the energetic electron being able to shed hangers on virtual particles that mask its true charge. Whether this is the case or not, it helps with renormalization. It also seems likely that changes in the value of the fine structure constant in high energy experiments and that, if any, due to cosmic expansion result from different causes. Regardless, it is still a second foot through the door of variably measured constants.
It is interesting that permittivity is found in the denominator of the formula. Thus, an increase in permittivity due to cosmic expansion would result in a decrease in the fine structure constant which in turn would lengthen emission wavelengths.
But the speed of light c and Plank’s constant h are also found in the denominator, as potential third and forth feet through the door. This model posits that the internal speed of light through the spatial medium varies with the density of the spatial medium, so although the units of measurement are significantly different, the affects of changes in permittivity and the speed of light tend to offset each other in the fine structure formula.
There is no compelling reason from the Plank formula referenced above to conclude that h is influenced by permittivity as the orbital velocity is present in just the right place to offset changes in permittivity. However there is also no compelling reason, except convenience, why any of the so called constants should not vary as space expands. That h should not vary as space expands seems a stretch. The author suspects that the third and forth feet are also stuck in the door.
What makes all of this relevant is that cosmological tests of the fine structure constant are being made to determine if constants, including the speed of light, have varied with the expansion of the universe. The fine structure constant may well be the poorest entity to measure such changes as any change in one component would likely be masked by cumulative changes in the others resulting in little or no overall net change. Obviously high energy experiments are a different matter, as may be the case for cosmic measurements if they could reach back close to the big bang.
Time and rod lengths
One can analyze the above in other ways, including analysis of energy and mass considerations, but timeliness of expression of forces that propagate with finite velocity is insightful. Both gravitational and velocity dependent redshifts are posited to be a direct result of this timeliness factor. Timeliness causing the slowing of clocks and lengthening of rods (contrary to conventional wisdom) is posited to be the basis for the constant speed of light which special relativity requires, as the next section clarifies mathematically.
In a moving frame clocks run slow. Let To equal the number of ticks given by a standard clock i.e. a master clock that does not change under any circumstances. Let Tm equal the number of ticks in a moving clock. Let Lo equal the length of a standard rod that does not change under any circumstances and Lm equal the length of a moving rod.
Let Einstein's relationship referenced above be
The Lorentz Fitzgerald formula is not used as the underlying fundamentals depend upon the relative orbital time of an electron, not the relative travel time of photons oriented perpendicular to each other. Einstein had already derived his own version of the Lorentz Fitzgerald formula, when he derived the above relationship. Moreover, the use of a Doppler shift to measure the gravitational redshift by Pound and Rebka(19) in their famous gravitational redshift experiment supports Einstein’s rationale. The use of the Einstein relationship fortunately permits the use of values similar to those in Table A.
Let Tm = To/Q. Then Tm has fewer ticks and the associated clock runs slower per special relativity than To. One way to keep c constant is to let L = Lo/Q, where L is shorter than Lo, then c = L/Tm equals a constant ratio.
Supposing that Lo = 100 units, To = 10 ticks, and c = 10 units. These numbers are contrived and chosen purely for reasons of simple math. Let’s say that Tm slows to 9.0909..ticks and L shortens to 90.909.., then as Einstein requires 90.909../9.0909.. = 10.
This is the case when the observer in the moving frame is looking at the standard rod in the stationary frame, which the moving observer thinks is shorter because the use of a constant speed of light in special relativity forces this conclusion. The L in the previous two paragraphs is Lo the standard rod of the rest frame. Although the rod has not changed in fact, the observer in the moving frame measures Lo as shorter.
But this cannot be the case when the observer looks at a rod in his or her own frame as unacceptable results occur. If no change in L occurs and Tm slows to 9.0909...ticks. Now c = 100/9.0909... = 11 units, an unsatisfactory result in both special relativity and this theory.
But this model and redshift theory suggest Lm = LoQ that is Lm becomes longer in the moving frame. If no change in length had occurred a moving clock would click only Tm times during the measurement of Lo. But it will click TmQ times or To times during the measurement of the longer Lm and the velocity of light remains constant.
To illustrate let Lm= 110 units and Tm slow to 9.0909...ticks. Now it will take 9.0909...ticks to cover the first 100 units of Lm. To cover the whole distance the total number of ticks Tt will be 9.090909..x/(110/100) or 10 ticks, so c remains constant in the observer’s own frame as special relativity requires, because although the rod has lengthened so has the ruler and the measurer thinks that he or she is measuring 100 units.
For the total measured number of ticks Tt the following relationship holds:
Therefore,
Thus,
which is what special relativity and this model require within the moving frame. It is hard to see how Einstein, given his velocity redshift, can do other than have rods in the accelerated frame lengthen.
Michelson –Morley and special relativity
The contraction as proposed by Lorentz to explain the unexpected null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, suggested that the arm of the experimental apparatus aimed in the direction of motion shortened.
A widespread misconception holds that the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment eliminated the existence of any ether and served as the basis for a constant speed of light. This could not be further from the truth! A vertically entrained ether theory is fully consistent with the null results as Michelson and Lorentz of the Lorentz-FitzGerald formula firmly believed.
Given: 1. That gravitational fields are entrained, as demonstrated by Einstein’s own rubber sheet demonstration i.e. roll the bowling ball and the depression rolls with it; 2. That light obeys gravity as both Newton and Einstein posited and experiment confirms; and 3. That the experiment occurred entirely on the surface of the earth over a small physical distance in which the variation in the gravitational field was small; a null or more accurately a slight result as found in the experiment is not surprising. The later sections Spatial Fabric sinks and Relative Motion and Inertial Mass further amplify why a null result would be expected.
In this instance, the Lorentz-FitzGerald Formula captures an experimental artifact between what was expected and what occurred due to the entrainment of the gravitational field and the fact that light obeys gravity.
In a heated defense of the1933 Dayton Miller experiments James DeMeo(24) asserts that in combination the small Michelson-Morley drift and the greater drift of the Dayton Miller experiments, which was performed at a higher altitude, support an entrained ether theory.
At any rate, once it is realized that the Michelson-Morley experiment did not speak to the issue of the stationary ether or the constant speed of light, it also becomes apparent that it did not speak to the issue of rod lengths.
Gravity and Inertia
It is an empirical fact that gravitational fields are entrained, being the creations of the generating masses and traveling with them. This can be easily demonstrated by use of Einstein’s so called rubber sheet analogy, which is a defective analogy for explaining that gravity is the result of warped space as it uses circular logic. That is, it uses gravity to explain gravity. It is in fact a demonstration of gravity in action. Thus it can be used to demonstrate that the gravitational field is tethered to the gravitational mass. As one moves the bowling ball across the sheet the “gravitational well” moves with the ball. This model posits that the entrainment is vertical, but not rotational, which is consistent with the results of the Michelson - Gale experiment and the behavior of the Foucault pendulum.
Einstein referred to gravity as an apparent or fictional force, much as coriolis and centrifugal forces are apparent forces being but expressions of inertia. But gravitational action has two components, an active component and a passive one.
If true forces are defined as being active and apparent or fictional forces as passive, then the first component, in which space is "curved" in GR or absorbed in this paradigm, is a true force.
The second, in which mass follows the path of least resistance in GR or drifts with the flow in this paradigm, can be considered an apparent or fictional force.
Spatial Fabric Sinks and Relative Motion
As massive (gravitational) bodies act as spatial fabric sinks, absorbing or condensing the spatial medium omni-directionally, the radial (i.e. vertical) dynamics of the flow of the spatial medium into a massive body forms a gravitational field which as a first approximation obeys the Inverse Square law. The absorption process entrains the streaming spatial medium for a distance that is dependent upon the strength of absorption, with the entrainment being tightest near the body and weakest further from it. That is, the field tends to be anchored, tethered or frozen to the gravitational body and travels with it. This is the simple result of Cause and Effect and the fact that the field is a creation of the gravitational body. Thus, the gravitational body (mass or sink) and its associated field form a unit which operates as a system.The system tends to passively drift or flow with the "background spatial fabric" (spatial fabric not associated with the system’s own gravitational field) because its interactions with the background spatial medium are equal in all directions and it has no reason to behave otherwise. If neither it nor the background is accelerating the system experiences no relative motion with regard to that stream. Thus a gravitational body - with zero forward momentum of its own and absent the application of forces other than gravity -which experiences the gravitational field of a stationary mass will passively travel with the inflowing spatial stream associated with the gravitational sink of the stationary body.
But, because of the Inverse Square Law, a gravitational stream accelerates and relative motion occurs between a local passive body (one located in the field of a more massive "stationary" body) and that background stream as a result. How other forces operate is not well understood, but other forces also cause accelerations and any acceleration causes a relative motion between the affected mass and the background spatial fabric.
However, these local passive masses possess their own gravitational fields and omni-directional inflow patterns. The result is that the relative motion is not or is only minimally detectable in the immediate vicinity of the local passive mass. This is because the relative motion of the system is mediated by its gravitational field which has a gradient that obeys the Inverse Square Law. While the gravitational field can be regarded as reaching to infinity, a zone or margin is reached where the impact is negligible that serves as a functional outer limit. For example, in Einstein’s rubber sheet demonstration a distance is reached where the rubber sheet looks level. Near a mass the gravitational field is strong and under the tight control of the sink and equal inflow of the fabric of space prevails. Toward the outer limits the field is so weak that no meaningful relative motion occurs between the system and the background, so resistance to uniform flow by the background medium is nil. All the adjustment for relative motion occurs transitionally between the functional outer limits of the field and the immediate vicinity of the mass. One way to understand this behavior is to consider the behavior of the vortexes which flow from the wings of a jet aircraft. A small plane landing too close behind a jet can get in serious trouble. A plane a little further back is not bothered by the vortex. When one looks up at a jet flying overhead, one does not feel the vortex.
Inertial Mass
Although at a far distance the motion of the system has little or no impact on the surrounding spatial fabric, as the system is approached the surrounding spatial medium increasingly gets caught up in the dynamics of the system, at first resisting then going with the flow. The process is modulated by spatial momentum attempting to maintain constant flow into the massive body from all directions. Inertial mass can be thought of in part as a measure of the impact of a gravitational body and its associated field on the larger surrounding background spatial fabric. That is, it is a measure of the sink's strength and the need for the background spatial fabric to adjust to the system, even though the gradient associated with the system allows the impact on distant background to be nil and the uniform motion of a non-accelerating body to occur without resistance. To put things succinctly, the background spatial fabric not only has to adjust to the movement of a material body, but to its gravitational field as well.The last statement is consistent with Chris Llewellyn Smith's(20) observation regarding the Higgs field in a July 2000 Scientific American article, "The stronger a particle interacts with the field the more massive it is." His series of graphics and associated text resemble this paradigm's mechanism for inertia and mass described below.
A short but relevant detour is in order here Standing out like a sore thumb is the fact that the field quanta of the weak force, the W+, W- and Z0 bosons have mass - some 100 proton masses - while those of the electromagnetic and strong forces have none. Enter the Higgs field to the rescue. It is postulated to permeate all of space, as does this models spatial medium, and carry weak isospin charge to which the W+, W- and Z0 bosons interact in a way that gives them effective or apparent mass. Indeed it is theorized that the masses of all particles may have this phantom like quality, being only effective or apparent in nature(34).
That weak force bosons have mass explains the so called weakness of weak force. From the de Broglie equation:
where
particles with great mass have very short wavelengths. Thus theorists surmise that the weak force is not weak at all, but that the short wavelengths of these bosons limiting their spheres of influence to very short distances.
It may be that the assertion that the Higgs field(32) is a form of an aether that is responsible for inertia, but does not affect light needs to be rethought, given that inertial and gravitational mass are equal and that light obeys gravity. The proposition may be based on two concerns: (1) That the experiments failed to measure the effect on light of the drift of the earth through the aether; and (2) that photons supposedly do not have mass. Reasoning has already been presented which reveals that the Michelson-Morley experiments were inherently incapable of making such a measurement, so the first concern has been covered. Regarding photons supposedly not having mass, theorists now posit that the photon is a composite entity, composed, mathematically at least, of some 77% of the B0 quanta and some 23% of the W0 quanta while the Z0 boson has the inverse proportions. This reasoning explains the effective mass that is observed for photons in nature and from it one might expect that the Higgs field would influence photons.
At any rate, whether or not the search for the Higgs bosons which is now underway is successful or not, it would appear that this model speaks to the issue in a meaningful manner. But there is an additional dynamic associated with the operation of inertia.
Experimental demonstrations
Three sets of experimental demonstrations that the author uses in lectures illustrate some of the foregoing dynamics and set the stage for concepts to follow.
The first involves the old carpenter’s trick for driving the head of a loose hammer or hatchet head tightly onto the handle. Contrary to intuition the most efficient way to do this is not to hold the apparatus upright and pound on the hammer head, but to turn the whole apparatus upside down. Then, while holding onto the handle with one hand, hit the protruding end of it handle briskly with another hammer. The handle is driven firmly into the head before the head can move.
The second involves hanging two weights in identical fashion from threads and then tying threads of the same strength to the bottom of the two weights. Then one of the bottom threads is pulled quickly, making sure it lacks tension before the jerk. Invariably, the jerked thread breaks below the weight. Then the remaining bottom thread is gradually pulled downward. Invariably, the thread above this weight breaks. In the case of the jerk the weight resists the accelerating movement, so the full brunt of the pull is felt by the bottom thread, while in the case of the gradual pull the weight has begun to respond to the pull and is slowly moving so that now the top thread is feeling both the applied pull and the additional pull of the moving weight.
The third experiment involves doing a form of Einstein’s so called rubber sheet analogy; while making clear that it is a demonstration of gravity in action. Embroidery hoops, across which elastic material has been stretched, are used. If a light marble is used that barely dents the material and the hoop is moved to the right, the marble rolls off the hoop to the left. That is the hoop moves out from under the marble. This is consistent with the foregoing experiment. But a heavy enough weight will form a deep impression i.e. forming a “gravitational well”. Now as the hoop is moved slowly to the right so does the ball and so does the “gravitational well”. Now if the hoop is moved rapidly to the right from a standstill, creating acceleration, the gradient of the material behind the ball steepens relative to that in front. If instead of moving the hoop the ball is rolled from a standstill, the depression moves with the ball (entrainment), but now the steepest material gradient is in front of the ball. Using two light marbles, while holding the hoop still, makes it obvious that there is an effective limit for the impact of the marbles upon the surface of the material, as both marbles remain motionless if spaced far enough apart.
All three of these experimental demonstrations suggest that inertia involves a time delay and an active resistance to acceleration. Now, after some clarification of terms, the dynamics of inertia can be more fully understood.
Acceleration and Inertia
Just as gravity has two components, in the Entrained Spatial Medium Gravitational Sink Model, so does inertia in its broadest definition.The passive component is described by a component of Newton's first law of motion: "An entity will continue at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line, unless a force acts upon it." Cause and Effect require that all entities behave thus. This component has nothing to do with mass, per se, and applies to light and the fabric of space as well as to massive bodies.
The active or resistive component is that which is associated with the concept of mass, momentum, and the vector component of inertia called centrifugal force. Newton’s Second and Third Law’s are reflective of this active component of inertia.
Newton's Third Law, which can be called the Action-Reaction principle, is tied to the concept of the Conservation of Momentum. This model posits that the fabric or medium of space has momentum which obeys the Action-Reaction principle. As noted in the previous section the background spatial fabric has to adjust to the whole system composed of the mass and its field.
When most people refer to inertia, they are usually referencing Newton's Second law, mathematically expressed as F = ma, that is the resistance of inertial bodies to being accelerated. This is the element for which gravitational and inertial masses are said to be equal by general relativity. In this model the acceleration associated with a gravitational field results from the condensation causing a thinning of density near the sink upon which First and Third laws operate to create an inward flow.
The key to understanding this active or resistive component of inertia is to realize that it is due to a displacement between a gravitational body (mass or sink) and its own gravitational field causing it to experience a portion of its own field. The displacement occurs because of Newton's First Law, and the finite speeds and time delays associated with the transmission of and reactions to forces as explained below.
Inertia and Acceleration
During stationary or uniform motion the mass remains in the center of its own gravitational field. Cause and Effect dictate that this be so, as the field is the sink's creation. Thus, mass does not experience its own field during uniform motion.But when a gravitational body (mass or sink) is accelerated there is a time lag(26) between when it and its associated field adjust to the new situation, because the field is still at the location of its emission or traveling in some direction at a constant velocity. The result is that the mass will traverse and experience a part of its own gravitational field, which will attempt to restore the mass to its central place in the system.
This insight is owed to Petr Beckmann's book "Einstein Plus Two(10) in which he describes a similar process associated with electromagnetic inertia. He notes that the field about a stationary charge or a charge in uniform motion is frozen to it and such a charge does not feel its own field, whereas an accelerated charge catches up to or crosses and feels its own field. Beckmann uses this dynamic in his analysis of the orbital mechanics of charged particles and Quantum Mechanics.
Figure G
Because it is not well understood how forces other than gravity operate, the process will be examined from two perspectives with the same result.
Case1. If it is assumed that the accelerating force can operate upon the body without disturbing the field, the body will accelerate forward and drag the field along. But the field, having its own momentum, will take some small amount of time to respond. The result is the mass now overtakes a portion of its own field and experiences the back flowing stream more than the forwardly directed stream. The net internal force by the field is counter to the forward acceleration of the mass. This scenario may be applicable to charged particles. This case is the same as seen in the embroidery hoop demonstration when the ball was pushed rapidly so it accelerated and had to overcome a steeper gradient in front of it.
Case2. This is the more likely scenario for acceleration due to gravity. The force operates via the fabric of space, accelerating a stream containing the gravitational body and its field (or a portion thereof). In this case, the field starts to pass the body and the forwardly directed stream is felt more than the backward one. But a time delay occurs before the gravitational body can respond. This delay process represents the inertial resistive force. Case 2 is the same as in the rapidly moving embroidery hoop demonstration where the steeper gradient formed behind the ball and pushed the ball forward.
The important point is that the same result occurs in both cases. This is analogous to thinking in terms of positive current flow in a wire or hole flow in a transistor instead of negative electron flow.
Nature provides other examples or analogies of the foregoing processes. Any time there is relative motion between a body and a medium, the steepened gradient is reflected in the form of a pressure wave forming in one direction with a thinning or stretching of the medium in the other. For example, if one places a beach ball in a pond and pushes it forward a bow wave forms in front of the ball. This would be analogous to Case 1.
If one were to hold the beach ball still in a flowing stream a "stern" wave would form on the upstream side with a comparable depletion of stream flow on the downstream side. Let the ball loose and after a short time delay it will flow with the stream. This scenario is analogous to Case 2. The bow wave phenomenon is just an indicator that the beach ball is experiencing delayed action during relative stream flow.
Inertial mass increase with velocity, Lorentz-FitzGerald, and gravitational charge
Relative motion of a gravitational body-field system through the background is easily accommodated at slow velocities because of the negligible impact of the field on the background and vice versa at the margins of the system. As velocities approach the speed of light the ability of the system to modulate between the gravitational body and the background and the ability of the background to accommodate such motion declines because the necessary communication of forces cannot exceed the speed of light. At high velocities a particle or body simply travels further during the time adjustment to its motion is attempted. Thus the gradient in the embroidery hoop demonstration steepens, or a pressure wave builds in the stream examples. These are reflective of powerful relative motion, resulting in resistive behavior consistent with ideas attributed to the postulated Higgs field.
It may be that increasing velocity somehow increases a mass's ability to absorb the fabric of space. This could occur through processes similar to the case 1 and 2 scenarios writ large. That is, the process of accelerating a mass increases its interaction with the surrounding special fabric causing an increase in the absorption or condensation process.
The author does not pretend to know how the condensation process occurs. As one possible analogy, suppose that some type of lock and key process is involved as might be the case with aetherons or the vibrating strings or gravitons of some string theories. As an analogy, suppose the fabric of space consisted of little balls with randomly oriented patches of Velcro on their surfaces. During most collisions they would not stick together, but in a small proportion they would link up. The same might be the case for vibrating strings. It could be that the strings change shape as they vibrate and that during most collisions the shapes do not form a lock and key type paring. But once in awhile the vibration patterns permit a linking. The Bose-Einstein condensate(28) is suggestive of such a process. Massive bodies could be just concentrated spatial fabric with the ability to link to other spatial fabric. This would be consistent with GR theory that the spatial fabric exercises gravity.
Beckmann(10) argues differently. His premise is that gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent only at rest and that gravitational charge like electric charge is constant and that it is only the inertial reaction that changes with increased velocity. Processes associated with the concept of renormalization and high momentum particle accelerator experiments do allow for the measurement of electron charge to vary(34), but even Feynmann called renormalization a “dippy” process so the author would be interested in any experiment that measures whether a mass accelerated to higher velocity also increases its gravitational charge. If gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent at all velocities this should occur.
The closest analogy of warped space that can provide a mechanism that increases gravitational charge involves a process similar to that called squat. Squat is a velocity dependent phenomena that causes moving ships to sit lower in shallow water.
[INTRODUCTION] | [THE MODEL] | [DISCUSSION] | [SPECULATION] | [TOP OF PAGE]
This model was motivated by the fact that general relativity, while attributing gravity to the curvature of spacetime, did not state how masses curved space. In the words of Tom Van Flandern(26) general relativity merely changes the question from “Why do objects attract each other?” to “why do masses curve spacetime?”
This model is compatible with the concept of a big bang, which is implied by the Hubble redshift; but is not dependent upon it. The same relationship holds for the concept of inflation and the variable speed of light proposed in this model, which is said elsewhere(25) to make inflation unnecessary.
There are several insights and consequences suggested by this model.
1. A consequence of this theory is that as the universe varied in spatial density through time, the speed of light also varied. Light is posited to have been much faster shortly after the Big Bang and to have decreased with expansion. That the permittivity of the vacuum є0 is believed to be dependent on spacetime geometry is consistent with this model’s assertion that the velocity of light varies with the state of expansion of the universe.(18)(26) Indeed, recent tests and analysis suggest that the speed of light may have slowed over time.(33)
2. The flatness problem i.e. the issue of whether or not the universe is open or closed, which is really a rate of expansion problem and not a shape of the universe problem, is said to be resolved by a variable speed of light(25).
3. The horizon problem clearly is solved by the variable speed of light as proposed in this model as communication in any early big bang universe would have occurred at a near infinite speed.
4. Experimental evidence indicates that the universe is presently flat(23). It may be that the universe at one time had a curved geometry and was flattened by inflation. But a variable speed of light provides a possible mechanism for the universe having always been flat.
5. Since all velocities and physical processes are referenced to Co in this model and to c in both special and general relativity, an ultimate reference frame, which has varied over time, is implied. That ultimate reference frame is the universe, itself, possibly with the cosmic background radiation standing in as proxy for that reference frame. Local variations in density would occur depending on the distribution of gravitational entities and other factors and all entities would respond to local conditions, but on the grand scale the universe and the background reference it provides can be considered homogenous.
6. Changes in clock rates and rod lengths are real. A distinction is made between measurements such as clock rates and the flow of time per se, which is referenced to the history of the universe as a whole. If people at different locations in the universe measure different times for the age of the universe, that is a measurement problem and does not impact the history of the universe anymore than an unlucky person suffering a premature aging disease affects the lifespan of the earth.
7. The depletion of the spatial fabric between gravitational bodies should interact with the Casimir effect.
8. The ramifications of the preceding paragraphs for the calculations of the size and age of the universe could be profound.
9. This model posits that where gravitational fields overlap the depletion of the spatial fabric will be the result of the combined effects of both fields at all locations in where they overlap. Thus, at the nodes where two massive bodies offset each other there will be no gravitational flow, but the combined depletion of the spatial fabric will result in the velocity of light and propagation of forces through such a node being appropriately retarded.
A PROPOSED TEST OF THE THEORY
Observation 9 above is testable, but a more direct test is possible, namely whether or not the speed of light varies with position in a gravitational field. The Viking Lander on Mars was used for a test that came close, measuring the Shapiro time delay with results that were accurate within with an accuracy of 0.1 percent. But the Viking experiment, though made perpendicular to the radii of the gravitational field of the sun, did not distinguish between Einstein’s early thinking that the speed of light varied with position in a gravitational field and his later thinking that frames located in different positions in a gravitational field would measure identical speeds of light.
To nail this down it is important to conduct an experiment in which the relationship between the speed of light and position is direct and neither is inferred from other experiments or theory. Identical measurements made on the surface on the earth and then in orbit would provide an unambiguous test.
Methods seem to be available now to measure the speed of light in space using apparatus that can fit inside a spaceship. This theory predicts that if an apparatus capable of measuring the speed of light is used within a spaceship on the surface of the earth and then the same spaceship and apparatus are used in space – always oriented tangent to the surface of the earth or a circular orbit about the earth (thus always normal to the radius of the earth’s gravitational field) - the speed of light will be faster in space than at the earth’s surface.
This theory predicts:
1. The velocity of the spaceship will cause an on board clock to slow.
2. Decreased gravity on the spaceship will cause on board a clock to speed up.
A sub theory presented in this paper separately suggests that:
3. Rod lengths will lengthen due to increased velocity in orbit.
4. The decreased gravity will cause rod lengths to shorten.
Thus the proposed test has a double purpose testing the main theory and the sub theory at the same time. Depending on the design of the experiment there may or may not be a net impact on measurements of the speed of light due to the interplay of these factors. Should the test result be the reverse of predictions and the speed of light measured as slower in space than on earth, then attention should be given to the interplay between these factors.
Of course, any deviation from a circular orbit and the strength of the gravitational field due to geography will have to be factored out as will other considerations such as the differences in cabin pressure, temperature, etc.
Since GR assumes that relativistic effects are such that a constant speed of light is maintained, any difference in the measured speed of light is unexpected. Thus any difference would support Einstein’s early thinking and this model’s proposition that the speed of light varies with position in a gravitational field.
Skinning the cat
At the time Newton wrote to Oldenburg and Boyle, he had realized that gravity must bend light, but unfortunately it did not occur to him that the thinning of the ether would result in the creation of density gradients in the ether. Einstein was apparently unaware of Newton’s letters or he may have pursued a different path to obtain general relativity. It is clear, given his statements regarding gravity varying with position in a gravitational field and that the bending of light was half Newtonian and half due to curvature, that his mindset would have been receptive to such thinking. His belief that special relativity required the equatorial circumference of a spinning sphere to change while leaving the radius alone was a contributing factor to the direction he finally chose. The author believes that Einstein failed to distinguish between what happens to material matter and what happens to “space”.
It has already been shown that a model based on a flowing medium produces the Schwarzschild solution and fulfills the same experimental tests as general relativity does. This is a two edged sword, because it reveals that if this model is accurate, a mathematical model based on geodesics, parallel transport, affine connections, and Christoffel symbols would produce the same results.
But because one can treat gravitational forces mathematically in terms of curved surfaces, it does not mean that in reality one is confined to curved surfaces. Comments associated with Figure A reference a curved string which results from differential flow. More importantly, the flow is a result of a density gradient, which is what really comprises Einstein’s curved space (or spacetime after the concept of timeliness is factored in).
Apparently Steven Weinberg had the same doubts. In his book Gravity and Cosmology he states(21):
".....At one time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the geometric interpretation of the theory of gravity has dwindled to a mere analogy, which lingers in our language like 'metric', 'affine connection' and 'curvature', but is not otherwise very useful....."
Lee Smolin(27) has made a similar observation. “…The metaphor in which space and time together have a geometry, called the spacetime geometry, is not actually very helpful in understanding the physical meaning of general relativity. That metaphor is based on a mathematical coincidence that is helpful only to those who know enough mathematics to make use of it.
Kip Thorne(22) in his book Black Holes & Time Warps devotes a number of pages in chapter 11 to the concept that if clocks and rulers are “rubbery”, that is they really do slow and change lengths as proposed in this model, then flat space “appears curved” and the same experimental results are predicted. That the universe presently appears to be flat(23) is a point in favor of the proposed model.
The Future
The reason that the energy remaining in the vacuum at 0oC is not detectable is that the fabric or medium of space is non electromagnetic in nature. Also, the fabric may be more complicated than conventional wisdom holds as evidenced: by the handed rules of electromagnetism, which suggests that nature has a personality at the most fundamental level; the apparent dualism of the photon and other particles; and the necessity for string theorists to resort to a number of extra dimensions in their attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. Thus it is recommended that string theorists set aside their search for extra dimensions and instead explore the idea that the needed extra parameters are due to the complexity of the structure of space itself or of media therein.
It may be that what Einstein and modern physicists call space is not a single entity. The basic building blocks of matter could consist of a variety of entities: “point particles”; fractals with structure; strings of various shapes; or the loops of quantum loop theory. It may be that there is a background fabric which may be a continuum, a granular fabric, a weave, cellular in nature, or a combination of thereof, with different particles interacting differentially with different types of spatial fabric or medium. For this reason something like quantum loop theory or string theory, without the extra dimensions; but with varied shapes and vibrations, may contribute to the ultimate solution. Quantum loop theory may be one up on the other modern theories in this respect. But the combination of spatial flow and density gradients of the spatial medium and the varied speed of light associated with the density gradients both spatially and temporally and the interplay between gravity and the Casimir effect should also contribute to the ultimate solution.
The author would like to reiterate here his preference for the terminology “medium in or of space” when referencing spatial flow in this model, because he is uncertain whether it is the stuff of space itself which is flowing and varying in density or “gravitons” or something else to which we are electromagnetically blind.
Further, the dictum of special relativity that forces cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, leads to the conclusion that as the speed of light is approached electrons peel off, nuclei fall apart, and material matter disintegrates into photons, which is consistent with both Einstein's belief that particles such as electrons are held together by gravity and his equivalence of energy and mass. This is contrary to what conventional wisdom understands SR predicts. It is consistent with a velocity redshift
The document has presented five separate concepts: (1) A proposed model of gravity that blends Newton’s inflowing ether which thins as its velocity increases with Einstein’s early ideas about the speed of light varying with position in a gravitational field and the bending of light is half due to Newtonian processes and half due to curvature; (2) A model of inertia which can readily be incorporated into both Newtonian gravity and general relativity even if (1) fails, namely that inertia is the result of an accelerated entity experiencing a portion of its own field; (3) The assertion that because light obeys gravity the Michelson-Morley experiment was inherently incapable or only minimally of measuring the drift of the earth through an ether; (4) A proposition that the gravitational redshift is a special case of the velocity redshift; and (5) The proposition that rod lengths lengthen with high velocity and in gravitational fields. As noted earlier, each independently stands or falls on its own merit and the failure of any of these does not necessarily invalidate any other.
The experiment proposed above is justified if for no other reason then as a test of whether Einstein’s early thinking or his later thinking is correct. That ought to be enough, given the search for ways to unify GR with QM and the impacts upon the flatness and horizon problems should his early thinking turn out to be correct.
Further tentative speculations can be read by selecting Further SPECULATION .
Please Contact me with any information or feedback. Your opinions and ideas are encouraged, along with mathematical interpretation and expression.E-Mail hcwarren@olypen.com
Regular Mail : 928 Benjamin St. Port Angeles, Washington
Tel. : (360) 457-7610BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Address by Albert Einstein, May 5 1920 at the University of Leyden entitled Ether and the Theory of Relativity.
(2) A. Einstein, December 1916 Relativity, Translated by Robert W. Lawson, Published by Prometheus Books 1995.
(3) Robert L. Kirkwood, December 1953 Physical review, Vol. 92 no. No. 6: The Physical Basis of Gravitation
(4) Robert L. Kirkwood, August 1954 Physical review, Vol. 95 No. 4: Gravitational Field Equations
(5) Herbert E. Ives, May 1939 Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 29 No. 5: Behavior of an Interferometer in a Gravitational Field
(6) Herbert E. Ives, April 1948 Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 38 No. 4: Behavior of an Interferometer in a Gravitational Field II. Application to Planetary Orbit
(7) Tom Martin, On the Motion of free Material Test Particles in Arbitrary Spatial Flows http://xxx.lanl.gov./ftp/gr_qc/papers/9807/9807006.pdf
(8) Tom Martin, Testing the Boundary Conditions of General Relativity Near The Earth-Sun Saddle Point http://xxx.lanl.gov./ftp/gr_qc/papers/9806/9807033.pdf
(9) J. Foster & J. D. Nightingale, 1994 A short Course in General Relativity sec. 3.7
(10) Petr Beckmann, 1987 Einstein Plus Two Secs. 2.7, 3.1 & 3.2
(11) Paul Marmet, http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/
(12) Jim Ogle, August 2000, E mail.
(13) I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt, Double day Anchor Books.
(14) A. Einstein, 1911, On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light Published In the Principles of Relativity 1952 by Dover
(15)J Soldner, 1801, On the Deviation of a Light Ray from its Motion Along a Straight Line Through the Attraction of a Celestial Body Which it Passes Close By S.L. Jaki, Foundations of Physics (1978) 927
(16)F. J. Blatt, 1983 Principles of Physics
(17) H.E. White, 1962 Modern College Physics
(18) William. Q. Sumner, 1994 The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 429, No 2, Part 1 On the Variation of Vacuum Permittivity in Friedman Universes
(19) Clifford M. Will, 1986 Was Einstein Right Basic Books, inc.
(20) C. L. Smith, July 2000, Scientific American: The Large Hadron Collider, etc.
(21) Steven Weinberg, 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley & Sons, Chap. 7, Sec. 9
(22) Kip S. Thorne, 1994, Black Holes & Time Warps, Chap. 11 W.W. Norton & Co.
(23) Wayne Hu & Martin White, Feb 2004. Scientific American: The Cosmic Symphony
(24) James DeMeo, http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
(25) Joao Magueijo, 2003, Faster Than the Speed of Light, Perseus Publishing
(26) Tom Van Flandern, 1993, Dark Matter, Missing planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books
(27) Lee Smolin, 2001, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Basic Books.
(28) W. Wayt Gibbs, Sep 2004, Scientific American: Atomic Spin-offs for the 21st century.
(29) Robert Kunzig, Sep 2004 Discover: Testing the Limits of Einstein’s Theories.
(30) George Musser, Sep 2004: Scientific American: Was Einstein Right?
(31) The Seattle Times January 2, 2005 A3
(32) Brian Green, 2004, The Fabric of the Cosmos, Alfred A. Knopf
(33) A series of papers posted on the web. http://ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
(34) Bruce A. Schumm, 2004, Deep Down Things, The John Hopkins University Press.
(35) Particle Physics Booklet, extracted from the Review of Particle Physics S. Eidelman et Al, Physical Letters B592, 1 (2004)
(36) Tim Folger, Febraury 2007, Discover: The Big Bang Machine.
(37) Theodore A. Jacobson and Renaud Parenti, December 2005 Scientific American: Black Holes.
(38) Phil Schewe, James Riodon and Ben Stein, Physics news Update Number 599#1, July 24 2002.
[INTRODUCTION] | [THE MODEL] | [DISCUSSION] | [SPECULATION] | [TOP OF PAGE]
This page was designed by JF
Designs Co.
http://www.olypen.com/jfdesign/
Last Updated 11/15/96