madmac

Michell predicted that if the Sun were 500 times larger in diameter it would be a dark star (ie if mass=500*500*500 solar masses). He could have added i think that if the Sun were a few km in diameter it would be a mini dark star (if retaining one solar mass). Neither of these two kinds of dark star need any GR or any singularity. I wonder if the event horizon team will be able to tell whether M87 is a Michellian dark star or a mini dark star or an Einsteinian blackhole singularity.

Do a search here for Cahill, he analyses MMXs using refractive index. Do a search here for Demjanov, he analyses MMXs using permitivity & permeability. And he did a twin media MMX which he called a 1st order MMX (whereas we all call the original MMXs 2nd order).

I had a read of most of the comments & am disappointed, i havent learnt much. The main topic seems to be whether GWs need a medium to propagate -- the answer is in the question -- it cant propagate without a medium. And swansont's comment that em radiation doesnt need a medium is a worry -- it reminds me that standard science continually confuses photons with em radiation -- hencely bringing in em radiation can only confuse rather than clarify. The main side issue seems to be whether GW's & gravity add to the gravity field. I thort that Einstein said yes. In which case the addition must introduce a kind of almost never ending process of addition that sooner or later ends -- which is ok by me, i am not suggesting that that makes it ridiculous. And by the way, Einstein did not believe that binaries made GWs, & even if quadrupolar GWs were true that they did not carry away energy. From an aetherist view gravity is due to the acceleration of the aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated, & this does not appear to offer any scope for such new acceleration to add to the primary acceleration. However, Ranzan says that new additional acceleration happens, due to the contractile nature of aether (the tension annihilates aether outside of the mass in question)(which i dont understand), but Ranzan has an explanation on his website. If so then we have the situation of Aetherists agreeing with Einstein whilst Einsteinists disagree with Einstein. The larger context in the OP appears to be related to LIGO. I see that the latest news re LIGO is that their lovely graph of their costly chirps were produced by LIGO's PR department for public consumption, with an emphasis i suppose on CON. But no mention of that here. And no response from LIGO.

DanMP -- i too am interested in the slowing of light etc in glass water air etc. U mention your own absorption-emission theory -- i dont know enuff about science to comment much -- except that your derivation of the fresnel equation might be say #4, the other 3 giving similar or identical equations (fresnel is #1, fizeau might be #2, Michelson #3). I daresay that this means that there are praps 4 micro explanations for the 4 macro derivations-equations (i dont remember). I would like to mention my idea here (micro explanation #5 if u like). It contradicts your #4, & in that sense is off topic, but i think that such a comparison need not be considered completely off topic, especially as sadly everyone else has entirely neglected to give u any input. I have read Strange's & swansont's comments in thems links. I find phase velocity & group velocity difficult to understand. I am not violently opposed to the standard idea that photons force the electrons (in glass water air) to vibrate & that this creates a feedback field that slows the photons below c (& increases photon frequency) -- with no actual absorption & no re-emission. I think that (your) re-emission must be random -- in which case it must be non-compatible with what we see (light appears to go straight)(albeit bending at different angles at interfaces etc, depending on frequency, but then goes straight again) -- i think that re-emission must scatter light very widely. So what is my own #5. I reckon that light is slowed near mass (ie Einstein was correct)(albeit for the wrong reasons). And i reckon that the micro effect re such slowing is identical for light passing throo mass (where the slowing is of course much stronger). So what is my micro effect. It involves what i call photino-drag. All photons emit a photino field, it is a part of the photon -- & these fields interact, the electron being simply a confined photon (emitting its own photino field) -- & quarks etc being other forms of confined photons (emitting additional photino fields)(ie from all protons & all neutrons)(neutrons might be charge neutral but that doesnt mean that they have no charge fields)(it means that their fields negate in some fashion)(charge fields being due to photinos)(all EM fields are due to photinos) -- the interactions due to congestion slow the outwards spreading of the photinos, which creates a feedback to the main body of the photon, slowing the photon (due to photino-drag). A photon can only have the maximum possible velocity of c if in deep outer space well away from any mass (objects) or other photons (radiation) or any photinos (EM fields)(another kind of radiation) -- in other words, c is an impossibility.

I didnt read Verlinde's full paper in your link https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785.pdf but it is hell to read -- at first glance it looks like a joke paper, silly salad (but i aint a scientist) -- but Verlinde is serious (gulp). Judging by the following snippets it seems to me that what Verlinde is saying is that gravitational force does not need a field, it is a function of location, & this function of location is in effect a field, & therefore a field is not needed. Here Verlinde has not only murdered any sensible definition of a field, he has sawed the field up into little bits & has dressed hizself in its old garments & then strolled out of the embassy. I have just noticed that a Killing vector figures prominently in his paper. ............The holographic principle has not been easy to extract from the laws of Newton and Einstein, and is deeply hidden within them. Conversely, starting from holography, we find that these well known laws come out directly and unavoidably. By reversing the logic that lead people from the laws of gravity to holography, we will obtain a much sharper and even simpler picture of what gravity is. For instance, it clarifies why gravity allows an action at a distance even when there in no mediating force field. The presented ideas are consistent with our knowledge of string theory, but if correct they should have important implications for this theory as well. In particular, the description of gravity as being due to the exchange of closed strings can no longer be valid. In fact, it appears that strings have to be emergent too............. ...........An entropic force is an effective macroscopic force that originates in a system with many degrees of freedom by the statistical tendency to increase its entropy. The force equation is expressed in terms of entropy differences, and is independent of the details of the microscopic dynamics. In particular, there is no fundamental field associated with an entropic force. Entropic forces occur typically in macroscopic systems such as in colloid or bio-physics. Big colloid molecules suspended in an thermal environment of smaller particles, for instance, experience entropic forces due to excluded volume effects. Osmosis is another phenomenon driven by an entropic force. Perhaps the best known example is the elasticity of a................... ..............Space emerges at a macroscopic level only after coarse graining. Hence, there will be a finite entropy associated with each matter configuration. This entropy measures the amount of microscopic information that is invisible to the macroscopic observer. In general, this amount will depend on the distribution of the matter. The information is being processed by the microscopic dynamics, which looks random from a macroscopic point of view. But to determine the force we don’t need the details of the information, nor the exact dynamics, only the amount of information given by the entropy, and the energy that is associated with it. If the entropy changes as a function of the location of the matter distribution, it will lead to an entropic force. Therefore, space can not just emerge by itself. It has to be endowed by a book keeping device that keeps track of the amount of information for a given energy distribution. It turns out, that in a non relativistic situation this device is provided by Newton’s potential Φ. And the resulting entropic force is called gravity................

The thread is -- Did MMX prove no aether or no aetherwind? Miller's MMXs all proved an aetherwind, & hencely all proved an aether. As did Michelson's MMX. But i notice a lot of talk here about aetherdrag. Michelson's 1887 MMX was of course partly looking for zero drag or a little drag or a lot of drag (they thort that they found partial drag). Likewise Michelson's & Gale's 1932 MGX (a giant rectangular pipeline circuit) was looking for aetherdrag (they found none). And Hammar's X was looking for aetherdrag (he found none). From an aetherist viewpoint i wish to advise that aetherdrag does exist, & the value of this drag is probly 100%. However this drag has nought to do with the drags in the MMXs & MGX & the HX, these three Xs relate to a velocity based drag, & we know that the velocity based aetherdrag is 00%. The aetherdrag that does exist is an acceleration based drag, & this drag gives us freefall, gravity, inertia, mass etc. The aether does not like it when an object accelerates, the aether resists, & hencely u need to exert a force to obtain the wanted acceleration. Actually the aether doesnt resist, because the aether is subquantum & has no mass -- the aether merely transfers that-there inertial force tween a pushed quantum object & a nearby quantum object (ie tween quantum masses), the transfer being by gravitational pulses (reverberating back & forth at a speed of in excess of 20 billion c)(Van Flandern). Aether is annihilated in mass, & aether flows in to replace the lost, & the acceleration of the inflow gives us what we call freefall, & the inertial force needed to stop freefall gives us what we call mass & gravity etc. The acceleration field is in effect the gravity field. Earth's aether inflow (probly 11.2 kmps)(ie the escape velocity) adds to the background aetherwind (blowing south to north throo Earth at 500 kmps at 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, Right Ascension 4:30 hrs). Or u might prefer to believe in Einstein's SR & GR & bending of spacetime & zero-aether (but a nice sort of fabric of some sort).

Visible (2D) area of moon = PI r2 (where r = 1,737,100 m) = 9.4798 * 1012 m2. Multiply that area by 1426 w/m2 = 1.3518*1016 joule/sec. (this is where i made my mistake earlier). If I kg = 9*1016 joule (if E=mcc) then moon blocks 0.15020 kg/sec. 380,000,000 m divided by speed of light 300,000,000 m/sec = 1.27 sec. So total loss of light tween moon & earth at eclipse is 1.27 by 0.1502 = 0.191 kg (at any instant). Logic was ok i think, but i messed up the number crunching. Anyhow, the moon's shadow at eclipse has very little mass, & thusly almost zero direct effect re Earth's g & the Allais Effect (or Effects). If desperate i could add the loss of the mass of photons usually emitted by Earth, but i seem to recall that this loss is less than 10% ie less than 142 w/m2, ie less than 0.0191 kg (at any instant)(probably not even half that actually).

1. What is the kg of the gravitationally effective mass of the Sun's photons blocked by the Moon at eclipse ??. Wikileaks says that an average of 1426 watts of the Sun's radiation hits the Moon per square m (ie 1426 joules/sm/sec). And that 89,875,517,873,681,764 joules (of radiation energy??) are equivalent to 1 kg of mass (i guess that this is based on E=mcc). The Moon's radius is 1,737,100 m. Distance tween Moon & Earth is 380,000,000 m. Speed of light is 300,000,000 m/sec. I calculate that this equates to 6.842 kg of the Sun's photons (blocked by the Moon) in each metre tween Moon & Earth. And the total mass of photons along the 380,000,000 m is 1.3 billion kg. Is this calculation & logic ok ?? 2. What is the loss of g on Earth in the zone of total shadow, ie due to the "loss" of mass ?? I found an equation for the g at the end of a long cylinder due to the mass of the cylinder. g=2(PI)G(d)L where d is the density & L the length. If the area of the ray of shadow were 1 sq m the density is 6.842 kg/m3 & the change in g would be 0.178 m/s2 (eg 9.8 goes to 9.978) . For an area of 100 sq km the change in g would be 1.78/10^7 m/s2 (eg 9.8 goes to 9.800 000 0178). Anyhow this is so small that it aint worth calculating the actual shape & size of the Moon's shadow. The loss of photonic mass & the associated gain in g wouldn't affect the azimuth of the plane of Allais' pendulum much at all (but it would affect a good g-meter). Or is my calc & logic wrong ??

"We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradiction, and possible for any number of points". Engelhardt says no it isn't, & no it isn't possible. If Engelhardt is correct then this thread needs to be moved to Trash.

The real question is why does it go slower in glass than in air than in vacuum ??. Perhaps light travels at the same speed always. Perhaps a photon suffers delays as it passes through atoms. Perhaps delays are due to bendings (ie longer path), or due to absorption & later emission (ie longer path). Bending is supposedly explained by waves. But it is equally explained by every photon having an effective width & height (& length).

[tar #226 #227] Sorry i must have missed your postings. Yes i aint a scientist, but i guess that Einsteinians & aetherists agree that if the Earth etc contracts & distorts to an ellipsoid then so does an Earthling's eyeball, & everything looks just the same. I have never done a proper electronic experiment, but i suppose that if u had 2 identical instruments a certain distance apart in the lab, looking for an aetheric signal or something passing throo, then u would need to take account of the length of the wiring etc inside each instrument (tween sensor & recorder anyhow), & add it to the certain distance apart, especially if the signal travelled at c (albeit slowed a little by air). Hmmm -- no, i take that back -- u wouldn't have to add length of wiring -- the delay in instrument 1 is cancelled by the identical delay in instrument 2. But a single lonesome instrument would need allowance. If Cahill's gravitational waves (whatever) travelled at 500 km/sec this is c/600. His distance apart was i think 33cm. He didn't make any allowances for length of wiring -- as i said above, u wouldn't have to (if the 2 instruments were identical & facing the same way).

[Thales et al #26] Thanks once again for the detailed info. I am fairly well up on that sort of stuff, but my memory lets me down. Re my #24 & Mike-from-the-Bronx's #23 & #25, if Mike is correct then it means that the angle of the frame of reference of the stationary observer at 0,0 makes a difference to the paradox. Surely this cannot be correct. In effect the scenario in my #24 is that i have turned the FOR 45dg so that the diamond-diamond is now moving parallel to the xx axis, & i said that there is contraction in the xx direction & zero contraction in the yy direction (compared to stationary). How can i possibly be wrong ??. How can changing the xy angle of the FOR possibly make a difference ??(except ease of calculation). I don't remember Alby mentioning any such requirement in any of his postulates principles laws suppositions presumptions assumptions.

That cant be correct -- the square-diamond can only contract on its diagonal, ie in the direction of apparent movement (45dg here). Its the same thing as a square-diamond momentarily "sitting" directly on the yy axis (with top & bottom corners on the yy axis) & moving parallel to the xx axis (observer at (0,0)). Surely no Einsteinian would say that there was any yy contraction -- all of the contraction would be in the xx direction (the direction of apparent motion). In a pix the top corner & bottom corner could not both be directly on the yy axis because of the light delay -- but both corners would nonetheless always be the same vertical yy distance apart (in every pix, at all times). None of this necessarily applies if the (stationary) observer is inside the (moving) square (a slightly different scenario i admit).

[re HongKongEvil #1] If direction made a difference then if 2 clocks get closer & then meet (cross) & then get further apart, then the relative ticking would change abruptly as they crossed. But no theory predicts this -- Einsteinians don't, aetherists don't, everybody don't. As u say, its a simple calculation -- but contrary to what u say everyone can tell what happens (u say no one can tell) -- but unfortunately the "what happens" don't all agree.