Gravity as an electromagnetic phenomena via WSM and LNH

[RayTomes]

I came to this idea by a very long and circuitous path, but I believe that it is entirely logical and consistent with the deepest parts of established physical theory. By which I mean Maxwell's equations plus the understanding that particles are electromagnetic phenomena. These days this is called WSM for Wave Structure of Matter and I will list some resources relating to that below.

In essence, the EM equations of Maxwell allow solutions that are spherical standing waves. There are many possible solutions with different polarization schemes and such like which can potentially explain all the different particle properties. A bright chap once said that "what the laws of physics do not disallow is compulsory". This means that such waves must indeed exist, and that being so, they clearly must be particles. The idea goes back to the famous mathematician Clifford who unfortunately died before he convinced everyone. Then Schroedinger and de Broglie both believed that particles and quantum phenomena generally were real waves not some sort of probability nonsense.

Enough preamble. Once it is accepted that particles are real electromagnetic standing waves then we are to understand that their standing waves necessarily consist of an inwards and an outwards component. The outwards component is of course the inwards component after it passes through the centre. There is no singularity at the centre, because EM is non-linear a phase change occurs at the centre so that there is no infinity. The outgoing wave of each particle becomes the ingoing wave of all other particles in the Universe and vice versa.

This can be confirmed by a number of coincidences that otherwise make no sense. One of these is that the observable universe just happens to be the distance over which the outgoing wave can penetrate no further because it hits the surface of other particles. This leads to the famous LNH (Large Numbers Hypothesis - popular with Dirac and Eddington - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_larg ... hypothesis) which observes several coincidences. One is that the number of particles in the observable universe is about 10^80 and the radius of the observable universe is about 10^40 times the radius of a nucleon. This follows naturally from the fact that with distance r, the surface of a sphere grows with r^2 as a matter of simple geometry.

One step that I put in here which is not generally recognizes is that the Harmonics Theory (http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html) predicts that standing wave energy is gradually going to harmonics or smaller scales as a continuous process. This means that within nucleons the production of quark waves is gradually happening. This increases the energy over time that is within any nucleon, so that its mass slowly increases. The rate of that increase is the same 1 part in 10^40 per nucleon oscillation. Nucleons (like all particles) oscillate at their Compton frequency of about 10^23 Hz which means that their mass grows at the Hubble rate of about 1 part in 10^10 per year.

This explains gravity as an imbalance between the in wave and the out wave with the out wave being 1 part in 10^40 weaker than the in wave. This is the third factor of the LNH. So gravity really does suck. It really absorbs energy which increases the mass of particles very gradually. Although I had this idea about particle mass increasing over time on my own, I found out that I was not the first as Narlikar and Arp had already been promoting it. However I think that I have found the cause which they did not.

A result of this increase in mass of particles with time is that we see distant galaxies as they were in the distant past. At that time all nucleons had less mass. If nucleons have lower mass then all electron orbital jumps and other atomic spectra have frequencies that are lower in direct proportion to that mass difference. This is a part of the standard physics equations. So it means that distant galaxies have all their spectra moved towards the red. The further away they are, the further back in time we are looking, so the bigger this red shift is. Sound familiar? This explains the Hubble redshift relationship as a direct result of non-linear EM and correctly predicts the Hubble rate and the strength of gravity from the LNH.

We are then to understand that the Universe is not expanding. There was no big bang. Particles are a natural formation of standing waves of EM that are developing harmonics very gradually over time. The rate of this process links together with correct results the strength of gravity, the Hubble red shift and the number of particles in the observable universe and the distance to the horizon as being the limit of nucleon wave penetration.

Some resources:

WSM - Wave Structure of Matter

http://www.keelynet.com/spider/b-100e.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/wsm.html
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/wsm/FSMN_WSM_RT.pdf
http://www.quantummatter.com/
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/External-Links-WSM.htm

LNH - Large Numbers Hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_larg ... hypothesis

VMH - Variable Mass Hypothesis of Narlikar and Arp

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357 ... .text.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=235902

Harmonics Theory by Ray Tomes

http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html

[StevenO]

EM is based on the movement of photons and ions and that has no direct relation to gravity. The simplest explanation for gravity, consistent with the results of General Relativity, is that it is an outward expansion of all matter, even photons, such that relative size appears the same.

BTW, I think if you count photons as particles, that 10^80 number is not going to be adequate.

[RayTomes]

Hi Steven

EM is based on the movement of photons and ions and that has no direct relation to gravity. The simplest explanation for gravity, consistent with the results of General Relativity, is that it is an outward expansion of all matter, even photons, such that relative size appears the same.

I disagree.

BTW, I think if you count photons as particles, that 10^80 number is not going to be adequate.

The 10^80 refers to protons + Neutrons (+ maybe electrons). It does not refer to photons.

Anyway, photons are not particles, that was a mistake. "Photons" as a concept only exist for the purposes of EM being emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts from atomic structures. There is no evidence for any such thing as a "photon in flight".

[StevenO]

Hi Steven

EM is based on the movement of photons and ions and that has no direct relation to gravity. The simplest explanation for gravity, consistent with the results of General Relativity, is that it is an outward expansion of all matter, even photons, such that relative size appears the same.

I disagree.

The right to disagree is one of the reasons we have a forum, but I can easily show you that the analogy works quite well. Take for instance the gravitational abberation of starlight by the sun:

Doing General Relativity with plain Algebra

Through Einstein's equivalence principle we cannot distinguish between a gravity pull down or an acceleration up. That permits us to model gravity as an outward acceleration of matter. This way it becomes straightforward to e.g. calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

• 1. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands a distance of:
  
  • s = at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m
  2. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:
  
  • tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m
    
    θ = 1.68 arcseconds
  3. Voila, the result that made Einstein an instant celebrity.
  
  4. It is just that Einstein could have saved us all this tensor math....

Similar easy calculations can be done for the perihelion precession of Mercury.

Now, could you show me how WSM and LNH would come to these numbers?

BTW, I think if you count photons as particles, that 10^80 number is not going to be adequate.

The 10^80 refers to protons + Neutrons (+ maybe electrons). It does not refer to photons.

Anyway, photons are not particles, that was a mistake. "Photons" as a concept only exist for the purposes of EM being emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts from atomic structures. There is no evidence for any such thing as a "photon in flight".

Since observing a photon is always a local event, there is indeed no such thing as "observing a photon in flight". But it would be hard to have space without photons crossing it. I would actually hold that space is the transit of photons, the act that gives space its distance property.

But actually, I do not believe in "concepts" as basic driving forces of physics. In the end it must all be ruled by simple mechanics. Something has to transmit a force somehow and the driver of E/M forces is simple bombardment by photons. The linear movement of photons transfers the E field and the spin motion of photons transfers the M field.

Miles Mathis has made a very nice visualization of a photon that shows how it appears as a wave while being a discrete particle. You can find it here: Photon Wave Motion (.mov, 700Kb) or here: Photon Wave Motion(.wmv, 5Mb)

[RayTomes]

Hi Steven

Doing General Relativity with plain Algebra

Through Einstein's equivalence principle we cannot distinguish between a gravity pull down or an acceleration up. That permits us to model gravity as an outward acceleration of matter. This way it becomes straightforward to e.g. calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

• 1. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands a distance of:
  
  • s = at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m
  2. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:
  
  • tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m
    
    θ = 1.68 arcseconds
  3. Voila, the result that made Einstein an instant celebrity.

Haha! This is just a coincidence. The deflection is dependent on the distance the light travels from the Sun at closest approach, not the distance of the earth from the Sun. If you consider a "photon" that passe 2 solar radii from the Sun then GR correctly gets the bending. Your calculation doesn't change because it is not dependent on that factor. It is clearly wrong.

4. It is just that Einstein could have saved us all this tensor math.... [/list]

Similar easy calculations can be done for the perihelion precession of Mercury.

Now, could you show me how WSM and LNH would come to these numbers?

I will come back to this. It is rather lengthy.

...
Anyway, photons are not particles, that was a mistake. "Photons" as a concept only exist for the purposes of EM being emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts from atomic structures. There is no evidence for any such thing as a "photon in flight".

Since observing a photon is always a local event, there is indeed no such thing as "observing a photon in flight". But it would be hard to have space without photons crossing it. I would actually hold that space is the transit of photons, the act that gives space its distance property.

Certainly light is crossing space everywhere. But light is an electromagnetic phenomenon described properly by Maxwell's equations, and there are no quanta in those equations.

Try this: http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/ ... WSM_RT.pdf

But actually, I do not believe in "concepts" as basic driving forces of physics. In the end it must all be ruled by simple mechanics. Something has to transmit a force somehow and the driver of E/M forces is simple bombardment by photons. The linear movement of photons transfers the E field and the spin motion of photons transfers the M field.

Mechanics are important of course. But you have to have concepts before you can have mechanics.

Miles Mathis has made a very nice visualization of a photon that shows how it appears as a wave while being a discrete particle. You can find it here: Photon Wave Motion (.mov, 700Kb) or here: Photon Wave Motion(.wmv, 5Mb)

Pretty!

My view (in the above reference) is quite the opposite. Everything is entirely waves of a continuous aether. The particle-like nature of atomic particles is because they are spherical standing waves and so there is an energy concentration near the centre. Light however is just dissipating as inverse square once it gets going. However that does not prevent it causing effects even many light years away. The reason for that is that the vacuum is filled with background energy at all wavelengths that are just on the verge of causing events and a little lucky coordinated wave action is all that is needed to get a result (with very low probability).

[junglelord]

I have too say, I like Ray's ideas much more then Miles.
But then I am a standing wave kind of guy....
Also I fail to see a universe with only two fundamental forces as being balanced.
One needs three forces to achieve nonlinear attributes and five dimensions.
At least thats what I think.

[RayTomes]

The reference that I gave was a bit wider subject than the point that I answered. The section Drip Analogy of Light was the important one here:

Drip Analogy of Light - (Written 16th December 1996 by Ray Tomes)

An analogy to photon behaviour which removes the mystery from QM.

Imagine a tap dripping into a full bucket of water so that waves form and cause drips to fall over the side.

Here are some of the salient points about the wave and particle behaviour of the system. [Comparison to
QM noted]

In falling drips [emitted photons] cause waves to travel [wave-function or e/m field] and result in out
falling drips [absorbed photons] which are discrete events that are causally related ["collapse" of wavefunction]
to the emissions. This model is only 2D compared to a real 3D world and the vertical dimension
has no significance (except that it affects the energy of the emitted wave).

1. Over any long period of time the number of drips falling in and out are the same because the bucket
remains equally full. [Conservation of energy]
2. Each drip that falls out is due to sufficient energy arriving at one time at one point on the edge. Part of
this energy is from an in falling drip that made a wave travel between the two events. [At the speed of
light]
3. In addition to the direct wave arriving at an out falling drip there is a background of ripples left over
from previous waves that bounced off the edges. This energy will have some characteristic distribution by
frequency. [Zero Point Energy]
4. If inward drips are stopped the background energy very soon reaches a level which is not quite
sufficient to cause additional drips out. [Zero Point Field]
5. Any one in falling drip [emitted photon] may result in 0, 1, 2 or more out falling drips [absorbed
photons] but must average exactly 1 and as each drip falling out is an independent event [there is no
"collapse" of the wave-function] the number of out falling drips related to 1 in falling drip is a poisson
distribution of mean 1.
6. Each drip that falls out has taken energy from waves locally but does not affect other locations except
by the propagation of this energy removal which happens at the wave propagation speed. [No non local
effects]
7. Any location at which a drip falls out must have had sufficient energy arriving by convergence at
exactly that place and time. [Back action]
8. Although each out falling drip can normally be traced to a particular in falling drip as a cause, only a
small part of the energy actually comes from that other drip which really acts a the final straw in adding to
the background energy which was just below the out falling drip threshold.
9. Therefore most of the energy and momentum of the out falling drip did not come from the in falling
drip but will be related by the fact of nearly common frequency. [Uncertainty principle]
10. An exception to this will apply when the source and observation are sufficiently close in relation to
the wavelength of the particular wave. In that case the uncertainty will be reduced. [Casimer effect???]
11. There is no sense in which the out falling drip *IS* the "same" drip that fell in even though there may
be a causal connection between them. Each out falling is also related to many other in falling drips waves
which have been multiply reflected. [No "photon" identity]
12. Although all drips in and out are of discrete amounts of energy [particle behaviour] there is no such
thing as a travelling drip [photon in flight], only the wave nature of the surface [wave behaviour] which is
continuous in its behaviour. [Maxwell's equations]

The key point about all this is that space is everywhere filled with waves of many frequencies travelling in
many directions. We do not become aware of these waves unless they cause a change in a nearly stable
configuration or in other words some reaction occurs. We can certainly say that any wave that travels right
on through cannot have any effect and that any wave that is detected has not passed right on through but
has had some energetic reaction.

What is the natural low state of this background energy or zero point field? The natural low state is that
everywhere that there is matter and at every frequency there is almost enough energy to cause an
interaction but usually not quite enough. In the bucket and drip analogy this means that the bucket is full.
Any slight disturbance from a drip falling in will on average cause one drip to fall out.

When QM attempts to explain a photon being absorbed in your eye as a result of a photon being emitted
by a light, it invokes the idea of collapse because that is the only way that it can explain the whole of the
energy of that emitted photon arriving at a single place when the light was expanding outwards as a
spherical shell. Well in this model, Maxwell's equations which are totally continuous, are still perfectly
valid. The result of QM happens because somewhere the wave from the emitted photon combined with
the background energy to cause an event that we know as photon absorption.

There is no such thing as a photon in flight. However all emission and absorption events must be
quantised because they have to move from one essentially stable discrete energy state to another. The
subtlety of this caused great consternation to physicists a century ago. They observed the quantised
behaviour and yet regarded Maxwell's equations as having to be continuous. They did not know about
ZPE at that time and by the time the concept came along the damage to common sense had been
complete.

We cannot undo history, but we must make science logical again or it gets stuck in a blind alley. There is
no good reason that realistic models of quantum events cannot be made. There is no good reason to
believe in action at a distance. There is every reason to believe that nature operates on a cause and effect
basis without bias and without God playing dice. There is every reason to believe that we can discover a
lot more about nature when common sense views about quantum events prevail.

[keeha]

IMO the best theory and it was great to read a fresh interpretation. Especially the description of the centre.Thanks Ray.

Unfortunately my entire undergrad in chemistry only hat an hour or two for this 'alternative' theory. And I like it better than other unified force theorys in that the visualization, or structure of the mathmatecal concepts.

Whereas modern physics describes what the Universe does, the Aether Physics Model describes what the Universe is - http://www.16pi2.com/aether_physics_model.htm

Metaphysical concepts such as wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which are based upon a mass/energy paradigm are replaced by discrete physics based on an Aether/angular momentum paradigm. All mathematics in the Aether Physics Model are fully compatible with Classical Mechanics. The use of calculus in describing the quantum realm is minimized as all physics concepts, including the "energy binding" equations, are discrete and thus can be expressed in simple algebraic expressions.

Our world is solely made out of electrons -Gabriel LaFreniere

I was at my University a few months ago the and the halls are still filled with the most boring particle structure posters they had when I attended in the early 90's. I toy with the idea as an alumi of offering to pay for some 'updated' wave theory posters from the likes of LaFreniere or 16pi2.

[StevenO]

I have too say, I like Ray's ideas much more then Miles.
But then I am a standing wave kind of guy....
Also I fail to see a universe with only two fundamental forces as being balanced.
One needs three forces to achieve nonlinear attributes and five dimensions.
At least thats what I think.

The number of forces has nothing to do with nonlinearity. The wave models need this nonlinearity to get interfering or standing waves, IMHO unnecessary complexity without explanation.

I prefer the simpler explanation...Miles describes a world with just the pseudoforce of gravity and the repulsive force of the charge field, which causes E/M in ions. His world basically consists of only photons. Matter is higher spin levels of photons. You will finally get five dimensions because of axial spin, the three orthogonal x,y,z head-to-tail spins and the relation of these spins to linear motion.

[StevenO]

Hi Steven

3. Voila, the result that made Einstein an instant celebrity.

Haha! This is just a coincidence.

No, it's no coincidence. It is allowed by Einstein's own Equivalence Principle. I could show you the calculation for Mercury too if you're interested.

The deflection is dependent on the distance the light travels from the Sun at closest approach, not the distance of the earth from the Sun. If you consider a "photon" that passe 2 solar radii from the Sun then GR correctly gets the bending. Your calculation doesn't change because it is not dependent on that factor. It is clearly wrong.

Now you got me confused. What do you mean by "the distance the light travels from the Sun at closest approach"? Does GR calculate bending for lightrays at 2 solar radii for an eclipse? Anyway, the distance in lenght would be minor since one solar radius is about 0.00465 AU. Also please show me where my calculation is wrong. My calculation gives the abberation to the expansion of the earth, not the curvature of space. Photons travel straight paths in that model.

Certainly light is crossing space everywhere. But light is an electromagnetic phenomenon described properly by Maxwell's equations, and there are no quanta in those equations.

The charges and currents are definitely quantized, but Maxwell's equations are just a collection of empirical formula's valid for a system of charges and currents. There is no theory or mechanics behind it. It gives no mechanical explanation for a positive or negative charge or the attractive force between currents.

Mechanics are important of course. But you have to have concepts before you can have mechanics.

If you mean "theory" I might agree with you but otherwise I think it is the same mistake as mainsteam makes: there are no concepts or fancy maths overruling physics. Physics needs to be explained by mechanics. If you cannot find a mechanical theory you have no theory. That math cannot describe physics completely can be seen when looking at a two dimensional curve: a point on a math graph has no extension, while a physical point on a 2D curve has a two dimensional extension. Also, the math graph does normally not represent the physical time dimension.

My view (in the above reference) is quite the opposite. Everything is entirely waves of a continuous aether. The particle-like nature of atomic particles is because they are spherical standing waves and so there is an energy concentration near the centre. Light however is just dissipating as inverse square once it gets going. However that does not prevent it causing effects even many light years away. The reason for that is that the vacuum is filled with background energy at all wavelengths that are just on the verge of causing events and a little lucky coordinated wave action is all that is needed to get a result (with very low probability).

I'm familiar with WSM, but I've failed to understand what causes a standing wave in the midst of space. Why is this aether both flexible and elastic, so it propagates waves, and inflexible and inelastic so it causes standing waves? How do these inelasticities propagate? What prevents this standing wave from dissipating when it propagates?

[RayTomes]

...The wave models need this nonlinearity to get interfering or standing waves, IMHO unnecessary complexity without explanation.

Non-linearity of natural laws is essential. If electromagnetism was linear, then there could be no interaction with matter. Think about it. non-linearity and interaction are the same thing. If there was no interaction between e/m and matter then we could not see. We could not hear. We could not taste or smell or feel anything. Our entire awareness of nature is due to non-linearity. A linear universe is a non-observable universe.

[StevenO]

...The wave models need this nonlinearity to get interfering or standing waves, IMHO unnecessary complexity without explanation.

Non-linearity of natural laws is essential. If electromagnetism was linear, then there could be no interaction with matter. Think about it. non-linearity and interaction are the same thing. If there was no interaction between e/m and matter then we could not see. We could not hear. We could not taste or smell or feel anything. Our entire awareness of nature is due to non-linearity. A linear universe is a non-observable universe.

In the WSM model it is all important, but it does not explain what the non-linearity is mechanically. How does the aether decide to be linear for some waves and non-linear for others?

[junglelord]

The aether mirrors and pumps what ever is emitted by matter and or photons.

[StevenO]

The aether mirrors and pumps what ever is emitted by matter and or photons.

If it just copies what matter and photons are doing, why not do without it? That would be the simpler model.

[junglelord]

The aether mirrors and pumps what ever is emitted by matter and or photons.

If it just copies what matter and photons are doing, why not do without it? That would be the simpler model.

Might be a simpler model, but it would be inaccurate.

It is the mirror quality of the Aether that makes TT Brown electrogravitics functional. Paul Laviolette's Subquantum kinetics is a revolutionary physics methodology that was inspired by advances in our understanding of how nonequilibrium reaction systems spawn self-organizing wave patterns. This fits in well with Ray and myself and how we see the system in operation.

The aether functions as the vacuum, and it makes equal amounts of real charge to what ever has a pulsed ramping charging around it.

Predicted from subquantum kinetics, it accounts for the electrogravitic coupling phenomenon discovered by Townsend Brown and may explain the advanced aerospace propulsion technology utilized in the B-2 bomber.
This equal and opposite charge field, allows the gravity well to form and TT Brown electrogravitics to be realized.
The significant event of the aether is that it can make tremendous mirror charge. This becomes very important in a vehicle like the B2 Stealth Bomber and its charged leading edge....because it doubles the energy that flows through the system.


When the pulse system reaches a peak, the real charge field from the aether stops and then ends, so you must continually pulse and reramp, this then allows the Aether to continually remake a real charge field due a mirror response to local ramping charge, that in and of itself is one of the gems recognized by Violette, Brown and Tesla.