[David]

The speed of light (I call it the speed of photons because light does not move), is accurate due to lunar laser ranging that has been performed over a forty year period.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4959131/

We can also see the speed of light in certain constants, such as the gravitational constant, and Planck’s constant.

Using Planck’s constant, and knowing to a high degree of accuracy the mass of the electron and the Compton wavelength, the speed of photons is equal to:

c=h/(m.e*lambda_C)

For quantum physics purposes, I prefer a system of units where the unit of mass is the mass of the electron, the unit of length is the Compton wavelength, and a unit of frequency replaces the unit of time. The unit of frequency would be c/lambda_C.

Also, instead of using the elementary charge for the unit of charge, I prefer to use a unit of magnetic charge for the unit of charge. The magnetic charge for the electron is equal to the angular momentum of the electron times the conductance of free space. The relationship of elementary charge to magnetic charge is:

e^2 = 8pi alpha e.emax^2

where

e.emax^2 = h * Cd

Cd is the conductance of space and h is Planck’s constant. Alpha is the fine structure constant of the electron.

By expressing all charge as charge squared the units work much better for physics calculations.

[Jerry]

Hi David.

Would you say you accept the existence of photons, and also light, except that light doesn’t travel? I’ve most often heard that light consists of photons. It sort of sounds as though you’re speaking of two separate phenomena, with photons that travel at c, while the light stays “stationary”.

Of the alternate units you mentioned that you prefer could seem reliable. How, or to what level, does the currently established metric units fail or fall short of the most effective way to reach accurate findings?

What, though, is your view of why the accepted value of the meter was “fixed” to correspond with the velocity of light, without a “rounded-off” designation? Why 299,792,458 meters per second, instead of 300,000,000 meters per second?

I’ve read of what seems credible sources online, that it is unknown if electrons have a size. If the electron’s mass is detected, why doesn’t that suggest that electrons also have a size, however possibly miniscule? Just a thought.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Jerry.

[David]

Hi Jerry. Thank you for the opportunity to share my personal views.

I accept the mainstream established concept of photon production, which states that an electron jumps its orbital and transfers angular momentum to the surrounding space. This sounds very plausible to me.

I see photons are to light as water molecules are to a river. Water molecules are finite particles which flow; a river is the state of flowing water molecules. If we look at a map of a river, the river is almost always in the same location even though the water molecules are constantly flowing.

Similarly, photons are always being emitted and received. Light, however, tends to remain constant. For example, the Sun is always “lit” even though the photons have continued to leave the Sun for billions of years.

To me, light is the condition of photons moving through space; light is not the thing that moves through space.

As for the unit systems, the current metrics fail due to a flaw in the understanding of the charge dimension. In the cgs system of units, the charge dimensions are inherently distributed (charge squared). When charge was added as its own dimension by the French during the development of the MKS system, charge was given only a single dimension. This was a significant oversight.

Although it may have worked giving charge just a single dimension if all units were treated equally, five units in the cgs units remained in their distributed charge notation, while all the other units were converted to single charge notation. The five units that remain expressed in distributed charge notation are conductance, inductance, capacitance, permeability, and permittivity.

This creates problems, such as in the impedance equation. In the impedance equation, the resistance of the wire is notated in single dimension charge, whereas the reactance is calculated from distributed charge units (capacitance and inductance) and should be expressed as magnetic flux, rather than resistance. In the impedance equation, the magnetic flux is added to the resistance, which is not mathematically allowed.

As a “fix” to this problem, the imaginary number was introduced. The imaginary number allows for a distributed quantity to be expressed as a single dimension quantity. The imaginary number in the impedance equation is the proof that the charge dimensions are flawed in the MKS and SI systems of units.

With regard to the definition of the meter, the rounded off bit of the speed of light is due to Einstein’s second postulate; that the speed of photons is the same in all reference frames. If the speed of photons were the same in all reference frames, then the speed of light could not be absolute in the local space of the photon. Different observers going different velocities are forced to imagine that a given photon passing through a given local space can have varying metrics to its velocity.

Although the speed of photons remains the same, the length and time metrics can (and must) stretch and shrink relative to each other in order to maintain the constant speed of c. So if you accept the speed of c is absolute in all reference frames, you cannot then also have the length and time metrics also being absolute in all reference frames, and so the length and time metrics have to be approximated. To give a precise length metric in Relativistic physics is meaningless as long as the second postulate remains inviolate.

My view on the electron size is that the electron mass is absolute. The surface area of the electron is also absolute. The frequency, electrostatic charge, and the magnetic charge are also absolute for the electron. The electron is a true quantum particle.

The key here is that it is the surface area of the electron that is absolute, and not the radii of the electron. The electron is known to have two radii; the Classical radius and the Bohr radius. When you apply these radii as the minor and major radius of a toroid, you get the Compton wavelength squared as seen on this page:

https://sota.aetherwizard.com/angular-momentum#ElectronRadii

In actual electron mechanics, the radii are the relaxed state of the electron radii, but the radii can change when force is applied. Think of squishing a water balloon. As long as the volume of the water balloon remains fixed, you can change the length dimensions of the overall shape.

As I mentioned previously, the Compton wavelength appears in the physical constants as the quantum length of the physical Universe.

[Jerry]

Hi David.

If light (or photons) is caused by electrons that jump their orbitals, it would seem that electrons would continually and steadily have to maintain their jump of orbitals, since light often flows so smoothly. I’ve heard from a variety of sources that electrons that “orbit” is inaccurate or outdated. I personally don’t have a strong opinion of this though. However, I definitely have doubts with Quantum Mechanics, such as how particles have been said to “jump in and out of existence”, or “appear in two places at the same time”.

With the comparison of photons and light to water molecules and a river. The river itself consists of water molecules. So why couldn’t light consist of photons? I guess I’m sort of playing “devils advocate” though, since I actually question the validity of the concept of photons.

I actually have quite a few alternate views that might sound outlandish to some. I have questions as to if and how the velocity of light is constant. I’ve often thought that light doesn’t travel, that it is possibly instantaneous. or that we see the light that travels towards us. Also, I (almost) don’t believe quantum entanglement, or that observation collapses the wave function. I could present these ideas (plus more) maybe for another thread sometime.

Thanks for your response. 🙂

[David]

Hi Jerry, “With the comparison of photons and light to water molecules and a river. The river itself consists of water molecules. So why couldn’t light consist of photons?”

It is my view that light is exactly that, a river of photons; except that the river flows simultaneously through the same space from multiple sources.

“If light (or photons) is caused by electrons that jump their orbitals, it would seem that electrons would continually and steadily have to maintain their jump of orbitals…”

Yes, exactly. We should understand this to be true simply because of the validity of spectroscopy. With spectroscopy we can identify a substance by its light emission lines. This could only be true if the substance was continually producing a stream of true quantum photons at regular (and unique) intervals.

I enjoy listening to other people’s ideas. Even if in the end I do not agree that the idea actually describes physics, I am often impressed with some of the creative insights that people develop.

“I have questions as to if and how the velocity of light is constant.”

After considering these questions, I had come to the conclusion that yes, the velocity of photons (not light) is constant. In the pursuit of my understanding of time and the present moment, I actually found strong evidence for the mechanics of why this is true. Space itself appears to be vibrating between forward time and backward time, which creates the present moment. Half spin subatomic particles see only the forward direction of time, which gives physical matter the appearance of advancing in the forward direction of time within the present moment. The speed of photons is the advancement of angular momentum from one quantum unit of space to the next quantum unit of space in the forward time direction, and at the quantum frequency. That is my view.

“I’ve often thought that light doesn’t travel, that it is possibly instantaneous. or that we see the light that travels towards us.”

I agree that light does not travel. Light is the condition of photons traveling through space. I have spent hours just staring across a brightly lit room and contemplating the nature of the light I see. The most striking observation I have made is that we cannot see light. Our brain interprets electrical signals in our eyes, which have varying energy intensities as light fills valence positions in the eyes’ atoms, and the resulting charge accumulation is carried off as current flows through our neurons.

This is why my house is heated with lights and computer monitors, rather than a gas furnace or electrical heater. Not only do I reap the benefits of the waste heat from various appliances, but my house is filled with light, which invigorates the flora and fauna that dwells within my home. I have many different types of light bulbs to get a wide range of frequencies.

Please do share your ideas and bring them to my attention. I don’t always see a new post when it is created in this forum.

[John-Erik]

Light speed is constant, but in relation to what? Something must define that constant and something must be called ether. Therefore, the same ether must also be defining the reference for speed. Light is a behavior of the ether. So, we must use the wave model for light and our problem is that we do not understand the wave model and therefore we use something better understood – namely particles. This is the wave-paticle confusion.

Another confusion is space-ether confusion. Space is the container of the ether.

The wave model demands 2 models for light propagation. The real motion of light is a vector sum (beam), but the important concept is instead the apparent motion (ray) that we can observe based on phase, since phase detection (and generation) means that ether wind inside the wave fronts becomes irrelevant. Therefore, in most cases we must use the wave vector plus only the component in ether wind falling in light’s direction.

We find that phase-based systems (telescopes, collimators and interferometers) we have made a fatal mistake by thinking that we can use the vector sum (or beam) instead wave front orientation (or ray). So, we can see, by using telescopes on light, the light appears to follow a straight line (ray) although ether wind may change. If we instead use focused light and detect max intensity (beam) we see that light’s direction depends on ether wind.

[David]

Hi John, “Light speed is constant, but in relation to what? Something must define that constant and something must be called ether. Therefore, the same ether must also be defining the reference for speed.”

Yes, I fully agree.

“Light is a behavior of the ether. So, we must use the wave model for light and our problem is that we do not understand the wave model and therefore we use something better understood – namely particles. This is the wave-paticle confusion.”

Please explain to me why waves and particles are the only two choices we have for understanding Aether and light? Is it possible that the confusion is caused by limiting our understanding to just these two choices?

“Another confusion is space-ether confusion. Space is the container of the ether.”

It sounds like you have a theory that separates space from Aether. Could you explain it? Or are you making a postulate that space is the container of Aether?

[John-Erik]

A devastating mistake was made in 1882 by using beam instead of ray in MMX. This created the illusion of wave front tilting in the reference arm and therefore a ‘half’ effect. The result was the absurd Lorentz transform instead of logical Galilean transform. So, light does not take a longer way due to transverse effect. The result of this error was individual aging.

Sometimes stellar aberration has also been explained by wave front tilting due to ether wind. The correct interpretation is observer’s motion – not ether motion. Copernicus said that we must regard our position in relation to the Sun when we make astronomical observations. In the same way we must regard our velocity in relation to light velocity, since light is a moving phenomenon.

So, we have much to learn regarding the wave model – and the transition from Newton’s particles to Maxwell’s waves is not finished yet.

[John-Erik]

What I said about stellar aberration cannot be applied to gravity, since gravity is not moving. Gravity is a stationary condition defined by a relation between particles moving in all directions with speed c.

Hallo David.

I have no more alternativs for light than wave and particle. If you have a third option please tell me.

Space can be empty, but the ether must have physical properties to explain gravity and light transmisson.

[John-Erik]

David

The aberration in very long base interferometry (VLBI) means that pulsar signals arrives at telescopes in opposite sides of our planet with a time difference of 4.2 microsec. The aberrations disappears when calculations are moved to the frame of our sun. The explanation to this phenomenon is not the change of position, but instead due to the change of speed. So, this is a Sagnac effect and we find that:

1. Stellar aberration
2. Sagnac in 1913
3. Sagnac in VLBI

All these 3 phenomena have detected 30 km/sec in Earth motion as a first order Sagnac effect where MMX failed by detecting second order effect. The explanation is that anti-parallel forces between atoms provide a compensation for anti-parallel forces in light in MMX.

David

What do you think about:

1. Ray and beam
2. Useless MMX
3. Importance of Sagnac

Focus on important things.

Regards

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thank you for your previous posts here.

If gravity isn’t moving, is it the purpose of the aether to “propagate” it? Such as how the slightest disturbance shakes a whole spider’s web? However, how is it possibly known that gravity is “stationary”? Does all gravity (possibly within a particle form) “line up” perhaps within somewhat of a “3-D juxtaposition” that covers all other areas of space? Is the aether a medium through which gravity (or light) is propagated?

[Jerry]

As for possible alternatives for light than waves and particles, what of the differences of these two effects? For instance, what of how “particles” of light (or photons) don’t have a positive, negative, or any other type of “charge”? Of course, they aren’t exactly the same phenomena. Why call them “particles”? There was the experiment that showed electrons or “sparks” jump out of a certain type of metal plate if light were shown onto it. However, this doesn’t seem to provide any evidence that light is actually a particle, simply because it affects other (maybe actual) particles that way.

It is my viewpoint that light, within its possibly “duality”, if we were to take both the wave and particle ideas into account, why assume both, or even just one of them is correct? What if light is instead in a different cosmic territory than particles and waves? of a completely separate phenomena? Perhaps these effects of light were too quickly labeled, instead of allowing the time to find a more accurate truth?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

I’ve also asked a similar question constantly for many years, in forums, writings, and conversations, that “if a given object travels at any velocity, what is that relative to?” I feel this question (and yours) is <font face=”inherit”>highly relevant and should receive much more attention and emphasis. This seemingly simple question seems sufficient to invalidate the whole Special theory, with the exception of the first postulate, which Einstein borrowed from Galileo, yet didn’t seem to give him credit. My personal view is that the first postulate is possibly the only truth of Special Relativity. The first and second postulates were inherently </font>incompatible, so Einstein wanted to find a way to unify them.

I have trouble accepting the ether theory. If the ether is the ultimate “stationary” reference frame, does that mean when you drive a car at 55 miles per hour, that you either add, subtract, or somehow else to account for the additional mph of the car? Of course, given that the earth spins and revolves around the sun, and the sun through the galaxy, and the galaxy through the “whatever all else”, could this scenario possibly accurately find how fast the earth (or the interferometer) travels through the “stationary” ether? Those seem quite daunting variables.

Also, if space is the <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>container of ether, does it also “outlast” or extend further from the ether? Or does it expand at only a limited amount, with the space-time? How far could it possibly go?

Anyway, just a few thoughts. 🙂

[Jerry]

I wanted to say quickly, that I agree with what David said earlier, that “I enjoy listening to other people’s ideas. Even if in the end I do not agree that the idea actually describes physics, I am often impressed with some of the creative insights that people develop.” Just wanted to share that thought!

[John-Erik]

David

You assumed the ether as a reference frame. The ether must be the reference, but this ether must not be a frame. This is the wrong conclusion by everyone. The ether can have a state of motion changing from point to point. A field. If ether particles are absorbed (to a small extent) in matter not so many particles are leaving a gravitating body, as are approaching so we get an ether wind in negative radial direction. This ether wind is the cause of gravity. Gravity is the small number of ether particles not compensated by a flow in opposite direction.

Tell me what you think about the following:

1. Ray or beam
2. Tilting in reference arm in MMX and in stellar aberration.
3. Compensation in the measurement arm in MMX.
4. Sagnac effect in pulsar signals.

Those are important questions. A) Radial ether wind can explain red shift without BIG BANG. B) Pioneer anomaly as an illusion, since 2-way light speed becomes increasing with range from Sun.<div>

With best regards from __________ John-Erik

</div>

[John-Erik]

David

You can find more details here:

Science Journals (gsjournal.net)

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8874

John-Erik

[David]

I have just read your paper. We agree that there is a misunderstanding about the nature of light, however, I explain this misunderstanding in this way:

Electrons in atoms jump their orbitals to produce true quantum photons. All quantum photons are identical and are quantified as:

phtn = h * c

where h is Planck’s constant and represents the angular momentum of an electron. The Aether then carries this ripple of angular momentum, and it is Aether that imparts the speed c.

Atoms do not fire off single photons and imbue the photons with inherent frequency. The frequency component of light is caused when each atomic isotope produces photons in succession at unique frequencies according to the type of isotope. The unique atomic frequencies are the basis of the science of spectroscopy. So light is actually the production of photons at frequencies:

ligt = phtn * freq

Light is not moving; the photons are moving. Light is the condition of space being filled up with a steady stream of photons, all of which are moving at the speed of c, and which some photons are produced at different rates than other photons based on the isotopes involved.

The true photons spread out according to the Compton function such that the amount of angular momentum from any given photon is spread out over a great space, and only a tiny amount of that angular momentum reaches a valence position in another atom. The amount of angular momentum that arrives at another atom is proportional to the distance between the emitter and receiver, which is the basis for the inverse square law of irradiance.

Receiver atoms must fill an empty valence position with a specific quantity of energy equal to the mass of the electron times the speed of light squared. We can call this quantum of energy “enrg” and quantify the light it receives as:

enrg = m.e * c^2

enrg = ligt / c

which is the same thing as:

enrg = angm * freq

where angm is the portion of angular momentum arriving at the valence position from any original photon, and freq is the frequency at which those original photons were produced.

In mainstream physics, there is a mythology of a photon being equal to Planck’s constant times inherent frequency:

E=hf

Photons are not emitted as energy packets; photons are received as a collection of angular momentum to fill a valence position. The observation of filled valence positions has led to the incorrect concept that a photon must have also been emitted as an energy packet, which it was not.

So when physicists are talking about light, they really have no clue what they are talking about since they have quantified light incorrectly. Light does not move; light is the condition of photons moving and spreading out. Light is just space (Aether) filled with photons.

Aether can move! Aether flows and swirls as a fluid. The movement of space contributes to our perception of photon behavior. The physical reality of space must be recognized to properly understand the physics of light.

[David]

Hi John-Erik, No, the Aether is not a reference frame. The Aether is a sea of quantum rotating magnetic fields; thus the Aether is a medium. A reference frame is a perception as seen from an individual point of view within an array of many points of views.

Yes, we agree the Aether is fluid (as a field) and capable of having states of motion which change from point to point.

I quantify subatomic particles (electrons, protons, etc) as quantum Aether units with absorbed strings of mass (the string of mass is dark matter). A subatomic particle therefore is equal in structure to the quantum structure of space, except that it contains that string of mass. By containing the string of mass, I show how the string of mass develops magnetic charge due to its behavior within the quantum Aether unit. I show how the Aether electrostatic dipole contributes a particular electrostatic charge to the subatomic particle. I show how the Aether is the source of gravity, electrostatic force, and magnetic force. I further show that the weak interaction is the proportion of the electrostatic force acting on the magnetic force. I also show how space (Aether) can physically interact with matter.

1. A ray or beam is a macro structure of light, or any long, thin material that begins at a point and extends to another point or as a specific vector. These macro structures obtain their properties from their quantum structures, and the macro structures develop emergent qualities not present in the quantum structures.

2. and 3. According to Dayton Miller, tilting the reference arm in the Michelson Morley experiment had no effect on the data results. The smaller than expected Aether drift measurement was present regardless of the tilt.

https://sota.aetherwizard.com/images/Documents/MillerScience1926.pdf

4. The Sagnac effect occurs within the space surrounding a rotating object and within the space density gradient nearer the surface of the rotating object. A certain amount of space (Aether) rotates with the Earth, which affects the apparent motion of photons much in the same way as the space density gradient around the Sun creates a circular deflection angle (defraction). The very small “inaccuracy” of the calculated circular deflection angle around the Sun is likely due to the Sagnac effect caused by the Sun’s rotation.

It is my view that the Pioneer anomaly is caused by a space density gradient at the outer edges of the Solar system due to the distributed mass of the Oort cloud and the electrostatic headwind of the out-gassing solar wind. However, this is not a calculation that I have made, and I may change my view about the Pioneer anomaly when better data emerges.

[John-Erik]

The ether is the reference, but I never said that it is a frame.

MMX is useless since available ether wind is around 0.3 km/sec – not 30 km/sec. Totation not translation.

MMX is not needed since 30 km/sec is detected in Earth motion in surrounding ether defined by Sun. This was done in aberration in VLBI observations on pulsar signals.

John-Erik

[John-Erik]

No Big Bang – no Pioneer anomaly

John-Erik Persson

john.erik.persson@gmail.com

Abstract

The relation between Newton’s mathematical gravity model and Fatio’s physical model is discussed. It is found that Fatio’s model can help us to get rid of the Big Bang absurdity and also explain the Pioneer anomaly.

Newton’s mistake

300 years ago, Newton said that he needed no hypothesis, and ignored Fatio’s idea. Therefore, he described the effect of gravity by mathematics, without explaining the cause of gravity. However, a deeper analysis reveals that the spherical symmetry in the field of gravity also demands a spherical symmetry in the body causing gravity. So, Newton did not observe a mathematical demand. The fact that gravity causes approximate spherical symmetry in large bodies makes it difficult to see the demand for perfect symmetry. Therefore, this property of gravity is hiding something to us, namely the fact that Newton’s law is an approximation by disregarding the fact that large real bodies only have approximately spherical form. This mistake means that Newton’s law is an approximation and not complete as a physical theory.

A physical theory should be usable also for aspherical bodies. To find such a theory we can split up the gravitating body into small volume elements and apply the law to each element. Then we can find the total effect by an integration. In this modified version we find a law that is independent of spherical symmetry – although a more difficult to use law. An interesting fact is that this modified law easily can be united with the physical mechanism, that was suggested by Fatio. We only have to assume that matter attenuates the flow (in all directions) of neutrino-like particles in proportion to density – probably by absorption of particles. So, if Newton had regarded Fatio’s idea seriously he perhaps would have found that a change in his model from multiplication to integration would open the way for unification with Fatio and thereby find a physical explanation. This unification means that we can explain the cause of gravity – not just describe the effect of gravity.

The idea of attenuation in Fatio’s model means a reduction of the number of particles leaving a gravitating body. The result of this reduction is an ether wind blowing in negative radial direction to the gravitating body, since the number of particles moving away from the body is less than the number of arriving particles. We therefore get an ether falling towards the gravitating body. This means that we have found the cause of gravity as composed of the number of arriving ether particles that not are compensated by particles moving in opposite direction. This (small) number of particles causes the ether wind and thereby also gravity. As a hypothesis we assume this ether wind to be equal to the escape velocity, v_E.

Cosmological red shift

The cosmological red shift is assumed to indicate that distant celestial objects are moving away from us. This assumption would be true if the ether around the observed object had the same state of motion as in the observer’s position, but this is not the fact. Instead, something else is true, namely the fact that a not moving object is surrounded by an ether falling with speed v_E towards the body and away from the observer. Therefore, light instead is generated with a blue shift, f’=f(1+v_E/c) in ether’s frame and then observed as shifted red as f’’=f’(1-v_E/c) by the observer. We can now see that the total effect in the observation becomes f’’=f(1-v_E²/c²). We get a second order Doppler effect in 1-way light. Second order red shifts are always red.

Red shifts are dominating in celestial observations. We can therefore conclude that the values on the radial ether winds are normally larger than the differences in speeds between objects. The radial ether winds are much larger, since a second order effect (of ether wind) is dominating over a first order effect (of body motion).

We have found an explanation to red shift without the Big Bang model. So, if Newton had regarded Fatio’s idea, 300 years ago, more seriously, we would not be disturbed by the absurd concept called Big Bang today.

The Pioneer anomaly

The radial ether wind changes the 2-way speed of light as c’’=c(1-v_E²/c²) in radial direction to the source of gravity. This means that c’’ is increasing with range due to decreasing escape velocity from the Sun. This increase in c’’ can simulate a decrease in the observed speed of the space station. Therefore, the Pioneer anomaly can be an illusion caused by a measurement error, since light speed is not constant. We know the escape velocity from the Sun and can easily calculate this effect. We find agreement to observations. Pioneer anomaly is misunderstood as a result of Newton’s mistake.

Conclusions

We have made a hypothesis by assuming a radial ether wind to be equal to the escape velocity and found that we can explain the following:

1. Gravity to be
   caused by the ether wind.
2. The
   cosmological red shift caused by a second order Doppler effect produced in
   1-way light. We do not need the Big Bang hypothesis.
3. The Pioneer
   anomaly caused by a second order Sagnac effect changing 2-way light speed
   and thereby cause a measurement error creating an illusion of a retardation
   in the space station. We do not need to assume the hypothesis of an
   unknown gravitational effect.
4. Newton made a
   devastating mistake by ignoring Fatio’s valuable hypothesis. This mistake
   has confused scientists for 300 years.

Newton was a religious person and that fact can explain that he regarded mathematics very high and therefore rejected Fatio’s earth-bound idea. Perhaps we should blame the scientific society, instead of Newton, since there seems to be a common mistake in science of regarding the messenger more important than the message. So, the fact that Newton was world famous and Fatio was not may be crucial for the outcome. See the references.

References

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8934

[John-Erik]

No Big Bang – no Pioneer anomaly

John-Erik Persson

john.erik.persson@gmail.com

Abstract

The relation between Newton’s mathematical gravity model and Fatio’s physical model is discussed. It is found that Fatio’s model can help us to get rid of the Big Bang absurdity and also explain the Pioneer anomaly.

Newton’s mistake

300 years ago, Newton said that he needed no hypothesis, and ignored Fatio’s idea. Therefore, he described the effect of gravity by mathematics, without explaining the cause of gravity. However, a deeper analysis reveals that the spherical symmetry in the field of gravity also demands a spherical symmetry in the body causing gravity. So, Newton did not observe a mathematical demand. The fact that gravity causes approximate spherical symmetry in large bodies makes it difficult to see the demand for perfect symmetry. Therefore, this property of gravity is hiding something to us, namely the fact that Newton’s law is an approximation by disregarding the fact that large real bodies only have approximately spherical form. This mistake means that Newton’s law is an approximation and not complete as a physical theory.

A physical theory should be usable also for aspherical bodies. To find such a theory we can split up the gravitating body into small volume elements and apply the law to each element. Then we can find the total effect by an integration. In this modified version we find a law that is independent of spherical symmetry – although a more difficult to use law. An interesting fact is that this modified law easily can be united with the physical mechanism, that was suggested by Fatio. We only have to assume that matter attenuates the flow (in all directions) of neutrino-like particles in proportion to density – probably by absorption of particles. So, if Newton had regarded Fatio’s idea seriously he perhaps would have found that a change in his model from multiplication to integration would open the way for unification with Fatio and thereby find a physical explanation. This unification means that we can explain the cause of gravity – not just describe the effect of gravity.

The idea of attenuation in Fatio’s model means a reduction of the number of particles leaving a gravitating body. The result of this reduction is an ether wind blowing in negative radial direction to the gravitating body, since the number of particles moving away from the body is less than the number of arriving particles. We therefore get an ether falling towards the gravitating body. This means that we have found the cause of gravity as composed of the number of arriving ether particles that not are compensated by particles moving in opposite direction. This (small) number of particles causes the ether wind and thereby also gravity. As a hypothesis we assume this ether wind to be equal to the escape velocity, v_E.

Cosmological red shift

The cosmological red shift is assumed to indicate that distant celestial objects are moving away from us. This assumption would be true if the ether around the observed object had the same state of motion as in the observer’s position, but this is not the fact. Instead, something else is true, namely the fact that a not moving object is surrounded by an ether falling with speed v_E towards the body and away from the observer. Therefore, light instead is generated with a blue shift, f’=f(1+v_E/c) in ether’s frame and then observed as shifted red as f’’=f’(1-v_E/c) by the observer. We can now see that the total effect in the observation becomes f’’=f(1-v_E²/c²). We get a second order Doppler effect in 1-way light. Second order red shifts are always red.

Red shifts are dominating in celestial observations. We can therefore conclude that the values on the radial ether winds are normally larger than the differences in speeds between objects. The radial ether winds are much larger, since a second order effect (of ether wind) is dominating over a first order effect (of body motion).

We have found an explanation to red shift without the Big Bang model. So, if Newton had regarded Fatio’s idea, 300 years ago, more seriously, we would not be disturbed by the absurd concept called Big Bang today.

The Pioneer anomaly

The radial ether wind changes the 2-way speed of light as c’’=c(1-v_E²/c²) in radial direction to the source of gravity. This means that c’’ is increasing with range due to decreasing escape velocity from the Sun. This increase in c’’ can simulate a decrease in the observed speed of the space station. Therefore, the Pioneer anomaly can be an illusion caused by a measurement error, since light speed is not constant. We know the escape velocity from the Sun and can easily calculate this effect. We find agreement to observations. Pioneer anomaly is misunderstood as a result of Newton’s mistake.

Conclusions

We have made a hypothesis by assuming a radial ether wind to be equal to the escape velocity and found that we can explain the following:

1. Gravity to be
   caused by the ether wind.
2. The
   cosmological red shift caused by a second order Doppler effect produced in
   1-way light. We do not need the Big Bang hypothesis.
3. The Pioneer
   anomaly caused by a second order Sagnac effect changing 2-way light speed
   and thereby cause a measurement error creating an illusion of a retardation
   in the space station. We do not need to assume the hypothesis of an
   unknown gravitational effect.
4. Newton made a
   devastating mistake by ignoring Fatio’s valuable hypothesis. This mistake
   has confused scientists for 300 years.

Newton was a religious person and that fact can explain that he regarded mathematics very high and therefore rejected Fatio’s earth-bound idea. Perhaps we should blame the scientific society, instead of Newton, since there seems to be a common mistake in science of regarding the messenger more important than the message. So, the fact that Newton was world famous and Fatio was not may be crucial for the outcome. See the references.

References

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8934

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8663

[John-Erik]

Time dilation not needed is also supportedby the fact that (instead of SRT we can explain clock slowing due to speed) we can use the ether wind reducing 2-way light speed in the same way as was assumed in MMX. This explained in a post to ResearchGate. See link below.

Instead of GRT we can use the ether wind in the same way in radial direction. Instead of gravity potential we can use ether wind squared. We get an effect on 2-way light speed as second order effect for radial light only. (Einstein stated effect on 1-way light for light in all directions.) Therefore, effect on1-way light is much, much larger and equal to the escape velocity.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019?isAnswerFieldFocused=truehttps://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019?isAnswerFieldFocused=true

John-Erik

[John-Erik]

The article I have provided earlier contained no subscrift and superscrift. Therefore I also send a link to a PDF. See below.

Best regards _____________ John-Erik

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358561414_No_Big_Bang_-_no_Pioneer_anomalyhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/358561414_No_Big_Bang_-_no_Pioneer_anomaly

[Shiva]

John-Erik

You still haven’t replied to my single issue with the basis of your theory.

Your theory cannot produce destructive interference. Without this mechanism, you theory cannot represent reality.

You need to address this before addressing anything else. It’s a fundamental and irreconcilable problem that invalidates 100% of your forward theory development from the particle model. (though your very good critiques of the mainstream remain valuable regardless)

How do you create destructive interference when low particle density is a trough (which gives the same light intensity as a peak) and high particle density is a peak, (which also give unaltered light intensity) when medium particle density of overlapping peak and trough somehow grants no light.

Interference is the most crucial aspect of light’s behavior and you currently cannot account for it.

This is a no-go.

If this community is to have any forward progress, eliminating falsehoods in proposed alternatives must be part of the process or we become an infinite garbage generator of no use or interest to the cause of science.

[John-Erik]

Shiva

No, I can explain destructive superposition, since the pos/neg changes are many many orders of magnitude larger than the mean value. Light is not quantized at the Planck level, and his constant is an act of dispair, and an illusion due to observation on MATTER, NOT ON LIGHT. So the constant is an electron property, not relevant for light.

Instead ether is quantized at neutrino level. No energy quanta, no light quanta, only ether quanta.

The neutrino flow in the ether contains lots of energy. Therefore we have made important errors by not regarded energy to/from the ether.

John-Erik

[Shiva]

John, you haven’t explained it. I didn’t say anything about quantization and we’re not talking about constancy. Please focus and don’t change the subject.

Saying pos/neg is higher than mean makes absolutely no sense. Why would there be no light when the particles are moderately spaced but plenty of light when sparse or dense? You’re just grasping at straws by trying use opposition of pos/neg when your explanation of a wave is what’s at stake.

There is no opposition whatsoever to dense and sparse, and the combination is medium. You’re pulling things out of the “ether.”

[John-Erik]

Sorry

The changes are of cource much smaller

John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Shiva

Yes the pos/neg cannot be much larger. Typing error, and you did not regard my correction. Since pos/neg deviations are many many orders of magnitude smaller your objection has no relevance. I did never talk about density of particles I regarded the number per time unit instead, since attenuation matter is reducing the flow by absorbing a very, very small part of the neutrinos. Gravity is caused by the very very small particles that are missing in the flow.

Starting with a flow in all directions in spherical symmetry we see that introduction of a material body causes fewer particles to move away from the body than arriving. this small difference is the ether wind causing gravity. We get an ether wind equal to the escape velocity, ve, much much smaller than propagation speed of individual particle equal to c.

Gravity is a small shift from spherical balance and related to light, since light is small oscillations around the same balance. Light is 2 vectors in a moving wave front.

You should take a look at the 4 page article I pasted in.

With best regards from ______ John-Erik

I have 2 page article and i paste below:

Newton’s mistake: Hypotheses non fingo

Newton found his gravity model by pure mathematics from Kepler’s laws. He did not see that this mathematical relation assumed gravity from a mathematical body with perfect spherical symmetry. However, this model can be made more general, and usable in physics by, doing an integration of density over volume. In this form the law can be used for bodies without spherical symmetry, and therefore usable as a physical relation, and also easily united with the hypothesis that Newton had received from his friend Fatio. Abolishing this suggestion was an important mistake by Newton, and this error is the reason to the fact that we have no explanation to gravity.

Fatio’s model assumes neutrino-like particles to move in all directions with light speed, c. A very small part of these particles is assumed to be absorbed inside matter. Since fewer particles are leaving a body than the number of arriving particles the net result is that the ether gets a motion in negative radial direction. We get a falling ether. Since massive particles approaching Earth with low initial kinetic energy are arriving with the escape velocity, v_e, it can be reasonable to guess that the radially moving ether also arrives with this speed, v_e.

Pioneer anomaly

The 2-way speed of light in radial direction to a body becomes c₂=c(1-v_e²/c²). Therefore, 2-way speed of light radial to the Sun is increasing with distance to the Sun. This increase can simulate a decrease in speed for the Pioneer anomaly. So, Pioneer anomaly can be an illusion due to changed light speed. This effect is easily calculated and found to be in agreement to observations.

Cosmologic red shift

Light generated inside a radial ether wind becomes blue shifted f’=f(1+v_e/c) in the frame of the ether. When this light is observed by an observer in the same frame as the source the light is red shifted f’’=f’(1-v_e/c). The total effect becomes therefore f’’=f(1-v_e²/c²). So, we get a second order Doppler effect in 1-way light. So, the Big Bang idea of increasing distances between celest bodies can be an illusion caused by ether motion instead of by motion of bodies.

Newton’s mistake

If Newton had listened more seriously to Fatio’s model he could have found out that THE BIG BANG MODEL, AS WELL AS THE PIONEER ANOMALY, ARE ONLY ILLUSIONS AND ALSO FOUND THAT FATIO’S MODEL EXPLAINED GRAVITY.

See also:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/9144Newton’s mistake: Hypotheses non fingo

Newton found his gravity model by pure mathematics from Kepler’s laws. He did not see that this mathematical relation assumed gravity from a mathematical body with perfect spherical symmetry. However, this model can be made more general, and usable in physics by, doing an integration of density over volume. In this form the law can be used for bodies without spherical symmetry, and therefore usable as a physical relation, and also easily united with the hypothesis that Newton had received from his friend Fatio. Abolishing this suggestion was an important mistake by Newton, and this error is the reason to the fact that we have no explanation to gravity.
Fatio’s model assumes neutrino-like particles to move in all directions with light speed, c. A very small part of these particles is assumed to be absorbed inside matter. Since fewer particles are leaving a body than the number of arriving particles the net result is that the ether gets a motion in negative radial direction. We get a falling ether. Since massive particles approaching Earth with low initial kinetic energy are arriving with the escape velocity, ve, it can be reasonable to guess that the radially moving ether also arrives with this speed, ve.
Pioneer anomaly
The 2-way speed of light in radial direction to a body becomes c2=c(1-ve2/c2). Therefore, 2-way speed of light radial to the Sun is increasing with distance to the Sun. This increase can simulate a decrease in speed for the Pioneer anomaly. So, Pioneer anomaly can be an illusion due to changed light speed. This effect is easily calculated and found to be in agreement to observations.
Cosmologic red shift
Light generated inside a radial ether wind becomes blue shifted f’=f(1+ve/c) in the frame of the ether. When this light is observed by an observer in the same frame as the source the light is red shifted f’’=f’(1-ve/c). The total effect becomes therefore f’’=f(1-ve2/c2). So, we get a second order Doppler effect in 1-way light. So, the Big Bang idea of increasing distances between celest bodies can be an illusion caused by ether motion instead of by motion of bodies.
Newton’s mistake
If Newton had listened more seriously to Fatio’s model he could have found out that THE BIG BANG MODEL, AS WELL AS THE PIONEER ANOMALY, ARE ONLY ILLUSIONS AND ALSO FOUND THAT FATIO’S MODEL EXPLAINED GRAVITY.
See also:
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/9144

[Shiva]

” I did never talk about density of particles I regarded the number per time unit instead”

Yes, and that equates to particle density of the stream of particles at any given point. This is demonstrated in your illustrations. It’s an irrelevant distinction. You know what I mean and using semantics as crutch is always counter-productive.

So, you can take any of my comments above and substitute the word “density” for “average number of particles per unit time” and the conversation remains perfectly the same. (because that’s what I meant)

“Yes the pos/neg cannot be much larger. Typing error, and you did not regard my correction.”

There were too many things discussed for me to have known what you were referring to. But not let’s address the new idea. You’re now saying that then total deviation of number of particles that make up the wave is very small.

Again, this has zero effect on the conversation. Small or large deviation creating a wave; you lack a mechanism for destructive interference when a peak shares a space with a trough.

“this small difference is the ether wind causing gravity.”

Gravity?? STOP changing the subject! You’re avoiding the problem. Destructive interference, nothing else!

All the rest is irrelevant. This is a fundamental failure that invalidates everything that relies upon your theory of light. (which is everything)

I know about the pioneer anomalies; not the subject.
I know about cosmological redshift; not the subject.

I know about newtonian gravity; Not. The. Subject.

Destructive interference is the subject. FOCUS!

It just won’t work in a stream of particle-based theory.

(you need to abandon streams of particles and return to aether and I can show you how)

[John-Erik]

Shiva

…irrelevant distinction…

No, if flow is attenuated in one direction, but not in opposite direction, we change average value and introduce an ether wind. Ether wind is a vector and density is a scalar. We cannot substitute a vector with a scalar.

…new idea…

No new idea just a typing error that i had corrected.

Destructive superposition follows from the fact that fields are linear and additive. This is not in conflict with a flow in ALL directions.

…from particle flow back to ether…

No, the flow in all direction IS the ether. The ether MUST explain gravity. This is not changing subject. The fact that we introduce an ether means that we can explain Pioneer anomaly and cosmologic red ahift. This IMPORTANT, not change of subject.

John-Erik

[Shiva]

“We cannot substitute a vector with a scalar.”

Wow, I say semantics digression is counter-productive and you go right into semantics digression.

Destructive interference… that’s the subject. Pedantic posturing about irrelevant terminology when you know exactly what a person meant, is not the subject. (Though perhaps such conversational maneuvers should be the subject?)

“No new idea just a typing error that i had corrected.”

The new idea I was referring to was using positive and negative to represent the peak and trough of a wave. If you already do that somewhere, I really don’t care. Seems unlikely, but fine, we’ll just say you’ve always considered the peak and tough to be positive and negative.

Still irrelevant. Still does nothing for destructive interference.

“Destructive superposition follows from the fact that fields are linear and additive. This is not in conflict with a flow in ALL directions.”

No it doesn’t. There’s nothing “natural” about your philosophy here. If you’re going to just posit something that I must religiously believe …that there is something subtractive about light, then why even talk about particles? You can just use hand-wavey “fields” and require that I believe they work in he way you say without any mechanical or rational reasoning whatsoever. That’s what field theories already do without any aether.

You are just saying moderate particle per time transmits zero light while high and low particles per tie do not and then giving a field-based explanation. You’re asking that I just believe utter nonsense that has no explanation. You asking me to believe your nonsense over the mainstream nonsense without any physical reasoning. A modern field without a medium can behave magically and light need not have a carrier whatsoever in the mainstream explanation. We can just wave our hands and say it does whatever. (Natural philosophy be-damned)

But if you are going to abandon mechanical reasoning, then your theory is just another religious belief system. It’s not natural philosophy; it’s modern field woowoo.

If you’re going to posit a mechanism for waves, then they better be mechanically reasonable otherwise you’re putting lipstick on a pig. There’s no reason whatsoever for you to posit streams of particles if they have no reasoning or rational behaviors. If you’re going to use modern fields, then you don’t need anything under them for that magical belief system. It works just fine as an abstraction.

If you’re going to explain what’s below them without reasonable mechanics, then you could just as easily talk about the vector potential of fairy farts. It’s additional nonsense for me to gulp down carte blanche and I refuse.

You’re at an impasse because the fact is that it just doesn’t work but you don’t want to face the facts. “Fields are additive” is not an explanation, it’s an article of faith.

There may be recoverable work that you can find within your current theories if you just bite the bullet and see the truth. Your theory of wave mechanics is physically untenable. Period. No way out.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s science. You have failures. That doesn’t mean everything you ever did was worthless or completely wrong; it wasn’t. Sometimes there are new perspectives on old work that revitalizes it or even rescues it.

Did you know that Maxwell’s work that used regular elasticity (as per Green) was a failure and had to be updated by Fitzgerald to include rotational elasticity?