Photonic Aether

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Photonic Aether

Unread postby rjhuntington » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:16 am

That space is not empty should seem intuitively obvious. Electromagnetic waves such as light and radio, which are well known to travel through space, cannot be waves of nothing. Waves have to be waves of something, some medium that can be driven somehow to form waves. Electromagnetic energy is input to the medium, the electromagnetic aether, and electromagnetic waves representational of the input energy propagate outwardly through the aether medium. Propagated waves are called signals. Signals are received when electromagnetic waves physically impact suitable receivers.

A curious shortcoming of 21st-Century mainstream science is that it cannot explain how radio waves propagate through space. We know that radio signals travel at the speed of light because we can time the signals. But because mainstream scientists believe space is empty, they cannot fathom how radio is supported or even what radio is, so they quietly sidestep the issue. Meanwhile, the entrenched scientific opinion is that light propagates as streams of photons traveling through empty space at the upper limit of velocity, though no reason is given for the limit or why there should even be a limit if nothing is there to impede travel. Einstein's clever equations do not explain this.

In the established view, as the Sun "burns its fuel" and gives off light, the photons that are that light fly through empty space at some 300,000 kilometers per second, taking a little over eight minutes to reach Earth, where they strike various objects which can then be seen because the photons impinging upon them are reflected from the objects into the eyes of observers or lenses of cameras and focused onto their retinas or film or chips, forming images thereon of the objects. This simplistic model of reality depends on incoherent streams of photons streaking through space in all directions, and though it tries to explain illumination, it utterly fails to account for the wave properties of light or for radio at all.

I propose that space is filled with photonic aether, literally a continuous sea of photons filling all of space. If one accepts that photons are electromagnetic charge carriers responsible for the phenomenon known as light, one can prove with a simple experiment that space must be filled with photons. Step out into the night and observe the Moon. The observing can be done with a digital video recorder with a fast frame rate. In observing the subject, notice that there are never any gaps in the data. The image of the Moon does not flicker or strobe, no matter how fast the frame rate is. The photonic energy coming from the subject is continuous. As light is received, there is more directly after without interruption.

Thus there is a continuous uninterrupted stream of light, with no gaps in the stream, reaching all the way from the observer to the subject. One could observe the same object from any angle or even all angles simultaneously and get the same results. The only conclusion one can reach is that the space between the object and all possible observers at all angles must be filled with photons. At long last we can explain radio wave propagation - and a lot more.

Radio and light are the same thing, just at different frequencies. Radio is lower on the electromagnetic spectrum than light is, i.e., light has shorter wavelengths than radio signals. Other than that entirely temporal distinction, there is no difference between them. We often see space photos taken by a variety of observing platforms operating in different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and we have seen how objects in space look when viewed in these different lights, visible, x-ray, infra-red. We call it "radio" when we modulate the signal with some intelligence. We could do the same with light. A light wave could be modulated just like a radio wave, then demodulated or decoded to reveal the intelligence encoded therein. Being the same thing, light and radio must propagate the same way.

When light leaves the Sun and travels to Earth in 8.3 minutes, that does not mean the photons that drove the light wave have reached the Earth in that time; they have not. The photons that drove the light wave are still near the Sun, not yet having traveled very far. Their movement is more like the movement of electrons in a wire. When a voltage appears at one end of a wire, it is not because the electrons from the other end got through the wire at light speed; they did not. What moves at light speed is the wave, not the charge carriers.

The propagation mechanism I propose is this. The Sun's processes produce photonic pressure that is applied to the medium of space. Since that space is already filled with photons, the newly radiated photons, which are about to become part of the aether, must push against the aether in order to enter the aether. This creates a pressure wave in the aether. The pressure wave is visible as light. The higher the pressure, the brighter the light. With sound, which is pressure waves in a medium, the greater the pressure the louder the sound. So with light, the greater the pressure, the greater the amplitude of the signal. Therefore what strikes Earth in 8.3 minutes is a pressure wave caused by photons propelled into the aether by the Sun's energetic processes. Those photons become part of the aether.

This model may explain a lot. What about the double-slit experiment? How could a single photon behave the way it does? Simple: it couldn't! When a single photon is launched, that single photon does not fly unimpeded through space only to decide on which slit to go through. It impacts the photonic medium and causes a wave with the energy of one photon, which travels through the medium and then through (one of) the slits. Since the wave has the energy of a single quantum of light, that quantum energy will be transmitted via the wave and since it can't be split any finer, the wave will follow through one slit or the other (possibly randomly but maybe not) and make it appear as if the photon itself chose to go one way or the other. In reality that lone photon is probably still in the aether very near the photon gun it just left. All the beam-splitter experiments may have to be rethought.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby earls » Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:57 am

Aether = Electromagnetic field. Or more simplistically, a magnetic field.

Earth's magnetic field, within the Sun's magnetic field, within the galaxy's magnetic field, within the galactic cluster's magnetic field.

Varying magnetic field densities control how both light and mass propagate.

Mass can be viewed as knots of the parent magnetic field, which can be viewed as the "Higg's Field".
earls
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:48 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby rjhuntington » Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:48 am

earls wrote:Aether = Electromagnetic field. Or more simplistically, a magnetic field.


I would say it's somewhat more complicated than that. For light to propagate without distortion requires a uniform medium. The plasma-based electric and magnetic fields in space are not uniform. Indeed, that's what distinguishes them, their separation of properties, e.g., charge separation. Therefore they are not sufficient by themselves to explain radio waves or light propagation.

I'm suggesting that there is a non-baryonic medium uniformly filling space, that it is comprised of photons, and that it directly supports the propagation of electromagnetic waveform phenomena.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby earls » Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:07 am

There's always plenty of distortion, so I don't follow.

Given your moon example above, you will see "waviness" in the image.

I hear ya, but then you have to explain how your theory follows from and connects to everything else. Not to mention it's currently unstudied so you don't know what cravats you may encounter.
earls
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:48 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby webolife » Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:54 am

rjhuntington,
Do you make the same proposal for gravity? Except for the waves propagating at c, I almost agree with almost everything you said! (The two "almosts" are intentional.) Space is "filled" with light, as it is "filled" with gravity, and it behaves as a pressure. But in my view the "photon" at the source is the same "photon" that is at the double slit and at the receiver[s] beyond the slit, all at the same time! Pack that into re-doing interference experiments!
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby rjhuntington » Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:30 pm

earls wrote:There's always plenty of distortion... Given your moon example above, you will see "waviness" in the image.


Only due to the atmosphere. Observe from above the atmosphere and there's no distortion.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby rjhuntington » Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:34 pm

webolife wrote:Do you make the same proposal for gravity?


I'm not sure what gravity is. Apparently it's a mass effect, but what is mass and why should mass cause gravity? I suspect mass is a field effect, but I haven't figured out how. I do think about it, but I don't have a theory yet.

I do have a theory about the aether, though, as described above. I'm pretty convinced it must be something like that.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby Solar » Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:15 pm

rjhuntington wrote:This model may explain a lot. What about the double-slit experiment? How could a single photon behave the way it does? Simple: it couldn't! When a single photon is launched, that single photon does not fly unimpeded through space only to decide on which slit to go through. It impacts the photonic medium and causes a wave with the energy of one photon, which travels through the medium and then through (one of) the slits. Since the wave has the energy of a single quantum of light, that quantum energy will be transmitted via the wave and since it can't be split any finer, the wave will follow through one slit or the other (possibly randomly but maybe not) and make it appear as if the photon itself chose to go one way or the other. In reality that lone photon is probably still in the aether very near the photon gun it just left. All the beam-splitter experiments may have to be rethought.


I agree with this. Believe it or not I just wrote of this two days ago while having thoughts related to the R.A. Smith theory/thread. There is a visual analogy that can be used to explain this. The thoughts contain references to several other theorist and experimentalist that the author here may be unfamiliar with. But, I'll go ahead and post it there though I hadn't taken time to contemplate Schrödinger/Copenhagen interpretation which began to seem as though they are slightly askew via 'probability of location'.

If this is correct, then there is no need of 'probabilistic location' because the photon would be a punctual event and in line with Smith & Aetherometry i.e. no "traveling" photons.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:39 pm

Have you guys NOT read through Thornhill's site? Why re-re-invent the wheel, when Thornhill has already done it for you, including explaining BOTH light AND gravity under the same self-consistent model (as well as so-called "fundamental" particle structure that gives rise to their magnetic fields)?

(Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

(Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

(A Real 'Theory of Everything')
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

(Antigravity?)
http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html

It's all or mostly in there. Just in different snippets in different sections of the text...

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Quoting Thornhill on Light / Gravity.

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:58 pm

A while back I started trying to comb through his site and re-order some of his text into a more linear form. This was one of the first ones I tried to do. I'll post what I came up with. Keep in mind that pretty much every line in the following bits are taken verbatim (with minimal editing or additions) from different portions of those articles from Wal's site. Effectively [most of] the words are his, the more linear / cohesive ordering / arrangement is mine. (I may have added a line or two here and there as examples or for effect...)

----------

What is Mass?

Current theory only describes the effect of mass. It does not explain the origin of mass.

It tells us that gravity acts in proportion of the mass of an object.

Consider two objects. One has a greater mass and the other has a lesser mass. If we apply an identical accelerating force to each, the object with the greater mass of the two will be accelerated the least (it resists the accelerating force the most effectively) whereas the object with the lesser mass of the two will be accelerated the most (it resists the accelerating force the least effectively).

Curiously, when we accelerate particles (such as electrons, protons and neutrons), they become less responsive to the accelerating force the more they have been accelerated. This increasing resistance to acceleration has been interpreted as an increase in mass.


Current Theory is Confused About Matter and Mass.

Early in the 20th century, numerous textbooks equated the mass of an object with its weight. However, that association has led to confusion on account of the fact that it does not explain why its gravitational mass (what we use to 'weigh' an object on a scale) is identical to its inertial mass (its resistance to acceleration by by an accelerating force). Many textbooks and encyclopedias today still unconsciously slip into the same habit of equating a quantity of mass (a characteristic) with a quantity of matter (a physical object), using the terms interchangeably. This error appears to pervade the field of astrophysics. This unfortunate philosophical indiscretion has given rise to the violation of a fundamental principle of physics: conservation of matter. Matter cannot be created nor annihilated.

The notion that matter can be annihilated when matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. What seems to happen in "annihilation" is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of their internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of extremely low energy.

Thornhill posits that the most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has vanishingly small mass (being the particle with the most tightly packed charges and the one least likely to be distorted rather than accelerated by an accelerating force). A neutrino must have all of the charges to form two particles -- a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own antiparticle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray, split and reconstitute both a particle and its antiparticle.

The vacuum of "empty" space teems with neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting a burst of gamma rays to expand them into the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.


Similarities Between Electrical and Gravitational Forces.

In 1914, Henri Poincaré wrote,
What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.

It makes good sense that the equivalence of gravitation and inertial mass should be explained by the electrical structure of matter. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force.

It may be that the gravitational and electric forces are related and the the speeds of light and gravity are merely the characteristic velocities of electrical disturbances in the medium that pervades space.

The electric and gravitational forces share certain similarities: They both diminish according to an inverse square relationship with the distance from a source. They are both proportional to the product of interacting charges and masses. Both forces work along the line between two sources of charge and/or mass.


…when we apply force to a body, how is that force transferred to overcome inertia? The answer is ‘electrically’ by the repulsion between the outer electrons in the atoms closest to the points of contact. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass strongly suggests that the force of gravity is a manifestation of the electric force.
The origin of mass in the electrical nature of matter.

It is the fundamental origin of the relationship E = mc^2. If gravity is an electrical force, we can see why the gravitational mass of a body is identical to its inertial mass. We have a real classical model with which to explain inertia, gravity, magnetism and quantum theory. Magnetism is a subject on its own to be dealt with later.

Einstein's E = MC^2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge.

Chemists who deal with dipolar molecules have already noted the similarity of their interactions to that of gravity.


Resonant Systems of Charge Can Distort Into Tiny Electric Dipoles.

If "fundamental" particles (like protons, electrons and neutrons) actually have sub-structures composed of resonant systems of circulating charges, they are also subject to distortion into electric dipoles by an electric field. Every "fundamental" particle can be distorted by the presence of others to form tiny electric dipoles.


Electric Dipoles -- Free to Rotate / Line Up to Produce Gravity.

Each subatomic particle is itself a small sphere of orbiting charges (subtrons), whose orbits will be distorted in an external electric field to form an electric dipole. Since each particle is free to rotate, the dipoles will align themselves with the electric field so that they always attract each other (not unlike magnets aligning themselves with an external magnetic field). While each electric dipole is itself quite weak, the sum of all the radially aligned dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star will add up to produce the effect of gravity. Gravity is thus due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.

In summary, the Earth's gravity and surface charge causes radially oriented electrostatic dipoles to be formed by most atoms inside the Earth. Each dipole will align with its inner pole positive and its outer pole negative, aligned with the radial electric field of the Earth. This effect is due to the almost 2000-fold more massive nuclear particles compared to the orbiting electrons.


Planets and Ponderable Bodies in Space May Act Like Electrets

An electret is a dielectric material with a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarization. An electret generates internal and external electric fields and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet.

Neutral atoms distorted by gravity induce an electric field inside a ponderable body. Gravitationally induced dipoles tend to separate charge. Free electrons tend to drift toward the surface. Planets act like spherical electrets with a radial electric dipole polarization.
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Quoting Thornhill on Light / Gravity.

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Electric Field Changes Distort Dipoles, Change Mass & Gravity

If the electric field within the Earth changes, the amount of dipolar distortion felt by its constituent atoms will change and the force of its gravity will change. The electrical stress modifies the apparent mass of the planet.

Planets act like spherical electrets with a radial electric dipole polarization. Free electrons tend to drift toward the surface. When electrons are removed from the surface (through processes like lightning), the internal polarization diminishes causing a diminution of the apparent mass and gravity of that body. Conversely, if electrons are added to a body its internal polarization increases, causing a proportional increase in mass.


Mass is an Electrical Variable – Gravity is Not a Constant

Newton developed a mathematical expression that related an apparent force (gravity) between two ponderable objects to their masses and the distance between them. The expression involved a constant, G, given the impressive title of "Universal Gravitational Constant." However, no evidence was provided for either its universality or its constancy.

This new electrical concept of gravity suggests that Newton's "Universal" "Constant" of Gravitation, G, is a variable dependent upon the charge distribution within a ponderable body. That would explain why G is the most ill-defined "constant" in physics. If mass is an electrical variable, G cannot be constant.


Electrical Orbital Stabilization & Capture

If the changing electrical charge on a planet can directly affect its apparent mass to a significant degree, by way of altering its internal charge polarization and the alignment of the atomic and subatomic electric dipoles throughout its volume, a new and important consideration is introduced into celestial mechanics. The 'clockwork' of the solar system is governed by gravity and its stability is provided electrically. Charge exchange among the planets is they key to orbit stabilization and circularization in an electric solar system. It also provides an efficient means of capture.

Many planetary plasma tails have been found to brush the plasma sheath of the planet in the next orbit outward from the sun. This connection provides an intermittent path for charge exchange between adjacent planets. As the plasma tail of the inner planet sweeps across the plasma sheath of the adjacent outer planet, electrons are transferred via filamentary field-aligned currents (Birkeland currents). As the inner adjacent planet gives up electrons, its internal charge polarization is reduced as is the degree of subatomic electric dipole distortions, thus its apparent mass decreases. In a similar fashion, the adjacent outer planet is the recipient of additional electrons that serve to increase its internal charge polarization and likewise its apparent mass. If the inner adjacent planet's apparent mass decreases through charge exchange, its orbital radius with respect to the sun must decrease slightly in order to conserve energy. Likewise, if the outer adjacent planet's mass increases through charge exchange, its orbital radius with respect to the sun must also increase to conserve energy. The closer the planets are orbitally spaced, the greater the charge exchange between them and resultant orbital adjustments will be.

This seems to be an efficient means for collision avoidance and for rapidly spacing the planetary orbits into a system of "least interaction" -- assuming the inner planet reduces its internal charge polarization (diminishing its mass) and the outer planet increases its internal charge polarization (increasing its mass).

Any body on an eccentric orbit around the sun will experience discharge activity. The discharge will cause non-Newtonian accelerations because the mass of the body will be changing. However, 'gravity' is the operating force.

Orbital eccentricity is damped by 'cometary' charge exchange with the solar wind. As a secondary cathode in the solar discharge, each planet normally supplies some electrons to the solar wind. Such charge exchange varies with a body's distance from the sun over the course of its orbit. The eventual result of the combination of interplanetary charge exchange and 'cometary' charge exchange with the solar wind is that planets settle into low-eccentricity orbits where they disturb each other the least. In the case of an intense comet-like discharge, the continuous discharge can shrink and circularize the planet's orbit. It is an efficient capture mechanism that is not available under Newton's gravitational law.

As an example, the cometary plasma sheath of Venus was found to stretch as far as the Earth during inferior conjunction. Researchers were puzzled by the coherent 'stringy' nature of the Venusian plasma tail. The filamentary 'stringiness' is confirmation of Birkeland currents stretching between Venus and the Earth, which transfer charge between the planets. Venus now has the most circular orbit of any planet.


Mass Cannot Tell us About Composition.

If the Electric Gravity theory is correct, and mass is an electrical variable, then the mass of a ponderable body cannot tell us about its composition. For instance, comets appear to be solid rock and yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluffballs. As they discharge, the suffer what are euphemistically called "non-gravitational" accelerations.

It is their appearance, together with the recently discovered high-temperature minerals retrieved from comet Wild 2, that gives a more accurate picture. Comets and asteroids are rocky fragments of planets. Under the Electric Universe model, comets are highly charged rocky objects on eccentric orbits, discharging when passing through the inner regions of the solar system with which they are out of electrical balance.

Any body on an eccentric orbit around the sun will experience discharge activity. The discharge will cause non-Newtonian accelerations because the mass of the body will be changing. However, 'gravity' is the operating force.


“Anomalous” Acceleration / Deceleration in Electric Solar Sy

Tracking data have shown that both Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft have slowed at a constant rate whiel traveling out of the solar system in opposite directions. Recently, 'anomalous orbital energy changes' have also been observed for several spacecraft that flew by Earth for a gravity assist.

In their time away from Earth, the spacecraft establish a charge polarization with respect to the solar wind.

The Electric Sun model is the only one that explains why the decelerating force on the Pioneer probes remains constant with distance from the sun, something gravity or any other diminishing inverse square law force cannot do. The radial electric field of the sun is weak but constant throughout interplanetary space. Thus the decelerating force felt by the probes must also be constant throughout interplanetary space.

Other spacecraft will likewise attain a charge polarization with respect to the solar wind. As noted in the theory of Electric Gravity, this charge polarization will affect their apparent masses. The effect on spacecraft acceleration with respect to the gravity assists using the Earth is of the same variable nature as the “non-gravitational” acceleration experienced by discharging comets with respect to the Sun.


An immediate objection to this model is that the force between dipoles falls off with the cube of the distance, while gravity diminishes with the square of the distance. But Newton’s law operates counter-intuitively as if the entire mass of the Earth were concentrated at the center of the Earth. The electrical model must take into account the real situation and integrate the effect of all of the dipoles throughout the Earth. The result is the usual inverse square relationship.

The distortion of the subatomic particles is exceedingly small and so the dipole is exceedingly weak. That accounts for the difference between the naked electric force and the gravitational force of some 40 powers of ten.

The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

The extreme weakness of the force of gravity, compared to the electric force, is a measure of the minuscule electric dipolar distortion of nucleons.

The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared.

The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies.
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Quoting Thornhill on Light / Gravity

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:18 pm

Inertial Mass – Measure of Distortion Rather Than Acceleration

Charges themselves have no mass, so how do they give "fundamental" particles (like electrons, protons and neutrons) the property of mass?

In Thornhill's theory on Electric Gravity, "fundamental" particles aren't as "fundamental" as we once thought. They are composed of tiny nearly massless charged particles (subtrons) in resonant orbits and have structure.

An electric field will transversely squash the subtron orbits within an electron or proton. If you cause acceleration at one point in a circular orbit and a deceleration at the diametrically opposite point of the orbit, the result is an elliptical orbit. In the case of an accelerated particle, the orbit will tend to flatten in the direction of the applied force.

It seems that the more energy is supplied to accelerate a particle, the more distorted a particle becomes. The more distorted a particle becomes, the more easily the energy supplied to accelerate the particle is assimilated inelastically in further distortion rather than in acceleration. In other words, the electric force becomes less and less effective at acceleration... Hence the apparent increase in mass, as Einstein would have us interpret it.

In essence, the inertial mass of a particle is a measure of the degree to which it responds to an electric field by distorting rather than accelerating. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause.

This model implies that the charge centers of a proton at rest are more separate than those of an electron at rest. The charge centers of an electron at rest are likewise more separate than those of a neutrino at rest. That allows a proton to distort more readily than an electron, which distorts more easily than a neutrino, in the same electric field. This may well account for their classical differences in size and mass.

The advantage of this interpretation of the conversion of mass into energy and vice versa is that we are not forced to accept the increase of mass to infinity as a moving mass approaches the speed of light.


MGmirkin wrote:Speed Limits? -- Speed of Light vs Speed of Gravity

In our view, the crucial difference between the near infinite speed of the electric force (gravity) and the relative dawdle of light on any cosmic scale is that light is a slower, oscillating transverse wave (like the ripples on a pond), while the electric force is a much faster longitudinal wave (like the speed of sound through the same pond's water). The speed of gravity (the electric force) is almost infinite on our scale.


MGmirkin wrote:What is the Aether?

Wal Thornhill and others have argued that a plenum of neutrinos form the aether. After all, "empty" space is not actually a vacuum. Each cubic centimeter is teeming with neutrinos! This would be a major simplification.

Based upon existing nuclear experiments, Thornhill has proposed that neutrinos are the most collapsed, lowest energy state of matter. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray, split and reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle.

Neutrinos are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting a burst of gamma rays to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.

Neutrinos exhibit vanishingly small mass (the ability to distort in lieu of acceleration, in Thornhill's theory on Electric Gravity). However, being normal matter, they are resonant systems of orbiting charge (subtrons) and capable of forming weak electric dipoles. They will respond to the electric force by distorting to form such a dipole aligned with the local electric field.

The speed of light in a "vacuum" is therefore a measure of the delay in response of the neutrino to the electric force.

In an oscillating electromagnetic field a neutrino must rotate through 360˚ per cycle. That would link the speed of light in a vacuum to the moment of inertia of a neutrino.

The residual found in the Michelson-Morely experiments shows that the Earth and all ponderable bodies entrain the aether (drag it along with them).

Dayton miller carried out far more rigorous repeats of the Michelson-Morely experiments at different locations and elevations. His experiments also yielded a residual, which allowed him to conclude that ponderable bodies entrain the aether. He was able to determine the relative motion of the solar sytem, with respect to the aether.

This makes sense in light of an aether synonymous with a 'neutrino sea.' Having some mass, neutrinos must be 'dragged along' by gravitating bodies. They form a kind of extended 'atmosphere' which will bend light. It has nothing to do with a metaphysical 'warping of space.' The bending of starlight near the Sun (boldly claimed by Einsteinian relativists to be the first successful test of general relativity) is simply the effect expected of an extensive neutrino atmosphere held to the Sun by gravity. Light will be slowed in the denser medium causing a normal refraction or bending of light.

Once again, this is at odds with Einstein's metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell's aether: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can waves be transmitted if there is no medium through which to transmit them? Can 'nothing' wave? Can a conflated mathematico-metaphysical mesh of 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time flap in the breeze?


Implications for Podkletnov Rotating Superconducting Disk Experiment

Conducting metals will shield electric fields. However, the lack of electron movement in response to the gravitational force isa pointer to why we cannot shield against gravity simply be standing on a metal plate. Gravity cannot be shielded by normal electrostatic shielding methodology and materials because all subatomic particles within the gravitational field respond to the dipolar distortion, whether they are metals or non-metals. If gravity is an electric dipole force between subatomic particles, it is clear that the force “daisy chains” through matter regardless of whether it is conducting or non-conducting.

The electrical model may offer a method of understanding the Podkletnov rotating superconductor experiment.

When the thermal energy of a conductor is reduced to a level where it becomes a superconductor, the resonant behaviour of the conduction electrons extends throughout the entire conductor and is lossless. The atomic nuclei are also involved in the macroscopic resonance and that may explain why particular atomic nuclei in particular proportions work best as superconductors.

This offers a clue to the reported ‘gravity shielding’ effects of a spinning, superconducting disk. Electrons in a superconductor exhibit a ‘connectedness,’ which means that their inertia is increased. Anything that interferes with the ability of the subatomic particles within the spinning disk to align their gravitationally induced dipoles with those of the earth will exhibit antigravity effects.

If we envisage the electric force of gravity acting on a static horizontal disk, it distorts all of the subatomic particles in the disk in the direction of the gravitational force and consequently forms small vertical electric dipoles. If we spin the disk, there is an accelerative force toward the center of the disk, which will distort the particles radially. These particle distortions must rotate through 360 degrees for each revolution of the disk. But as we have seen, superconductors fiercely resist such accelerations so there will be a lag in orientation of the dipoles.

All that is required to provide a gravitational shield like that claimed by Podkletnov is to have the gravitationally induced dipoles offset from the vertical by particle distortion. It seems probable that the effect would be more marked if the disk were rotated in the vertical plane. In that case the gravitational dipoles have to rotate through 360 degrees each revolution and the opportunity for offset from the vertical seems much greater.

It is a curious fact that conduction electrons in a superconducting magnet have an inertia that is the square of the number of electrons, instead of the normal Newtonian linear relationship. This seems to be telling us that the electrons in Podkletnov’s spinning superconducting disk are able to absorb energy more by distortion than by acceleration (an increase in apparent mass).

Support for antigravity implicitly undermines Einstein’s theory.
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby Solar » Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:07 pm

Not trying to reinvent the wheel Michael. Just a slower walk through the park towards the neutrino sea (aether). In particular, not withstanding dipole distortion (polarization) and electret dielectric, my comment centers around the relation established with/via the EU's support of certain aspects of the work of Sansbury:

At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles. The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. - Some Basics


That is to say a 'superluminal stimulus' induces the polarization (dipole distortion) - and that the 'perturbation' via that 'stimulus' of any of the 'resonant phase-states' (particle zoo-photons in this case) by a barrier may un-organize that 'phase-state' leaving only the presence of that 'stimulus' (superluminal phase wave). That pretty much calls for another look at the Double-Slit experiment and it's interpretation. Like the work of Sansbury may indicate, there would have been no "photon" (resonant state) traversing a distance to 'hit' the detector - only the 'superluminal stimulus' and subsequent reorganization at some point afterward.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby seasmith » Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:35 pm

~
Hi Michael,

As an aid to some of the newer folk on the forum, you might preface your excellent summation above with an explanation of the intrinsic nature of "resonant systems of circulating charges".

Cheers,
s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Photonic Aether

Unread postby MGmirkin » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:28 am

To be honest I'm not especially familiar with resonance, per se.

As far as circulating charge, that seems to be a reference to the notion of subtrons, AKA sub-units of charge that make up the sub-structure of heretofore "fundamental" particles (according to Sansbury and subsequently Thornhill). That is to say, each subtron would have an electrical charge of + or -, and the net charge of all subtrons within a "fundamental" particle (Proton, electron or neutron) sums to the classical charge on that particle.

For instance, a proton might have 2 +subtrons and 1 -subtron, with a net charge of +1. Or an electron might have 2 -subtrons and 1 +subtron, with a net charge of -1. A neutron may have something like 3 +subtrons and 3 -subtrons in a barely-stable configuration that decays to a proton and an electron...

Not say this is necessarily the correct solution. Just one possible interpretation. But it seems like if it's correct it might offer a few advantages, like explaining how the "fundamental" particles acquire their dipole magnetic fields, etc.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest