Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by madmac

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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................
  6. 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).
  7. 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).
  8. 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 ??
  9. "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.
  10. 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).
  11. [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).
  12. [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.
  13. 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).
  14. [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.
  15. I had a think. It is a paradox. And all one needs is 3 pix taken by 3 observers. The pix taken by the original observer (pun intended) will always show 2 corners of the square outside the rectangle. Although the pix will not show the 8 corners at the same moment, due to the different distances travelled by the photons, but this isn't relevant -- the 2 corners will be outside at all times. And the pix will not show the sides as being straight -- but once again this is not relevant. The pixes taken by the 2 observers in the other 2 frames will show the square inside the rectangle. Once again the 8 corners will not be shown at the same moment, & once again this is irrelevant -- the square will be inside at all times. I suspect that Einsteinians are able to explain that this paradox is not a paradox because a proper analysis of what happens in the original observer's frame shows that the square does not break out of the rectangle. Hmmmm, why did the OP specify that the frames are inertial & velocities constant -- it makes no difference to the paradox. But having the original observer at the origin might be crucial -- if elsewhere he-she might see differently (paradox No2 ??). The square & rectangle OP is in effect another version of our beloved train thought experiments. A train & driver is rolling along rails (past a farmer), & another train & driver crosses on an overpass at such an angle & speed that the lower train appears to move diagonally. The question being -- does the train derail?? Warning -- this is a trick question.
  16. Re challenging relativity & promoting aether. Has anyone here mentioned that GTR allows a gravitational aether (ie a space-time field), unrelated to a luminiferous aether ??. In other words both aethers might exist (although STR of course says that luminiferous aether doesn't exist)(& vice versa).
  17. What if the observer is inside the square ???. In other words what if the square & rectangle are over & surround the observer (who is standing at 0,0) ???. I always have difficulty trying to follow these sorts of thought experiments (referring now to the OP). Does the observer see a moving square-diamond ??. How ??. Wouldn't the lights (from say the 4 corners) take 4 times (or at least 3) to reach the eye ??. ((Likewise for the moving rectangle-diamond)). I suppose that the observer is looking somewhat down on the square-diamond, otherwise he will see 2 points joined by a line instead of 4 corners joined by 4 lines (or 4 curves). ((Likewise for the rectangle-diamond)). Or does the observer deduce a moving square-diamond ??. Here he sees apparent information (perhaps a pix taken by a camera), & then calculates or reasons the corrected true information (eg the position of the 4 or 8 corners at a particular time). Would his deducing need a fine grid of small rods marking out the xx's & yy's ??. Or would it need lots of observers with lots of clocks. Or all three ??. I am not sure whether Q1 Q2 Q3 & Q4 relate to what is seen by 3 or more observers (in which case 3 or more pixes will answer the questions), or whether the questions relate to what is deduced (ie what is apparent or what is true). It might be that what is seen in a certain frame is not true in that frame. Especially perhaps because what is seen depends on light taking time to reach the eye. The main question, Q5, isn't actually stated, it is inferred (Q5 -- STR says that 2 corners will break out of the rectangle, true or false). Here again, does this mean seen or does it mean deduced. Re Q4 -- I reckon that it is a paradox if some frames see breaking out & some don't. And i reckon that it is a paradox if in some frame u see breaking out but deduce that in fact there is no breaking out. But if all seeings & all deductions are all in agreement then there is no paradox. But i don't know how this will end -- it might end up being a paradox, or not (dunno). Plus, what if the observer is inside the square. If this makes much difference then here we might have another paradox.
  18. I see one problem that affects the ticking rate of micro-processes, it is the Shnoll effect. Or putting it another way, we don't know what the effect is, but Shnoll has measured it & has given it a name. Except that we do know a little about it, Reg Cahill has shown that it is some type of turbulence in the aether, & calls it gravitational waves (that travel at 500 km/sec). I reckon that it is due to the reverberation of gravity. There are at least 3 kinds of effect (according to Shnoll)(or at least 3 sources) -- the Sun -- The Milky Way -- & other galaxies (i am not sure whether Shnoll said this or i said this). Anyhow it means that one cannot have much accuracy of anything. In the case of 2 Strontium clocks (in the same lab), they might appear to be ok at a macro level (eg averaging their ticking over a second or more), but will be seen to vary at a micro level (eg comparing ticking instant by instant). The NIST had this problem with their Al+ clocks -- they took averages over a long time (eg one minute)(cant remember). If u keep a close eye at the micro level u will see that the changes on one clock always lag the other -- ie it is not random -- the Adelaide clock always cops the change before the London clock. In the lab the Strontium clocks will show the effect passing through (south to north), in as little as 1 cm. 500 km/sec is 50,000,000 cm/sec, hencely they would detect the direction of the passing of the effect at much closer spacings even. With a little juggling, they could measure the exact direction (in 3D) & speed of the changes. If the perturbations travel at the same speed as the aether-wind (i think yes), then here they have perhaps the best version of an MMX. But they wont admit of an aether, or a Shnoll effect, they will just keep taking long averages. And think of all of the troubles experienced with lasers -- noise, balance, walkoff, wander, variance (whatever). Damned lasers.
  19. [re Strange #222] It doesn't have to be aether (religion) related -- one can have a relativity where time is constant & c aint without needing an aether. But i don't know whether such a (constant time) theory can predict-explain faster ticking at higher altitude (it needs an aether). Re space-time. Yes, ok, i can understand a time in GTR. But in that case i have difficulty in understanding why STR is allergic to simultaneity. Anyhow that is another subject. Re no outer edge in a BB universe, i will have to read up on that. [re StringJunky # 223] Yes i was thinking of Al+ clocks which have detected i think 33cm. Strontium clocks detecting (or capable of detecting) 2cm is mind blowing. But, i would love to see how it all works in the southern hemisphere (my aether theory says ticking slows with higher altitude down here)(if it don't then my aether theory is a dead duck)(this would be a simple experiment, & not needing the latest clocks).
  20. [stringJunky #208] It can predict the time difference between two points 8 inches apart in altitude; cant argue with that. I reckon it (STR) can predict a time difference for a 1 inch difference in altitude, or even 1/8". Perhaps your meaning was a prediction that could be tested, & that modern testing is limited to about 8" of altitude. I am uneasy about the wording "the" time difference. In STR there is no time, thusly there can be no "the" time difference. It might be better to say "a" time difference -- even here i prefer "a ticking difference" (to steer clear of using the word "time"). And "it" is not alone, some aether theories too can make a good prediction re altitude & ticking etc. Aether theories have both ticking & real (absolute universal) time. However, despite that, i doubt that they can help re questions re T0 at a BigBang, as i doubt that any aether theory (that i have ever heard of) supports a BigBang (i might be wrong, i will check). I suppose that T0 & the BigBang depends. Why cant u have a BigBang happening in an existing old universe ??, in which case u don't have or need a T0. Wouldn't it be funny if the Sun & Earth were on an outer edge of the standard BigBang universe. We would see blackness in one direction, & lots of stuff in the other direction, & very little stuff when looking left or right. And we would have a T0. If the spin axis were so, then at the say South Pole we would see zero stars & galaxies, but the North Pole sky would be alive. Hmmm -- but we might see an occasional meteor in the southern sky (better than nothing).
  21. [re Bignose #12] Í had a look at the Herrman et al paper. Its very technical & difficult to follow. I see at least 2 issues (there are others). In one part they analyse the possible influence of the CMB of 370 km/sec (aetherists i think like a figure of 470 km/sec, no big deal). The problem being that Herrman & Co also adopt the CMB direction (which is almost 90dg different to the angle aetherists like). Aetherists use a local angle found by many measurements & which relates to our solar system, whereas the CMB angle is the angle in a distant part of the cosmos or universe even. The B in CMB is short for background, background being very far far far away, having no relationship to Herrman & Co's laboratory. The main issue is that Herrman & Co don't appear to allow for length contraction or extension in their 2 orthogonal resonators due to any varying aether-wind (the wind speed doesn't vary much, but the angle does, ie per rotation of the apparatus).
  22. [re quickquestion #1]. I see that Isaac McPhee has now written 3 science books. He is not a scientist --does he have any novel ideas ??? His books get good reviews, but i suspect that he has learnt little about aether (or anything else). U would be better off doing what i do -- i google lots of online physics articles & books including history -- the best ones deal with a small specific topic (eg aether)(Michelson-Morley)(Miller). There are many types of relativity -- Einsteinian relativity is one, here the speed of light is constant & time aint. Lorentzian relativity says that time is constant & the speed of light aint (ticking aint time, it is just ticking). There have been many types of aether over the years -- i reckon at least 10 -- which potentially expands to over 100 if u look at all of the possible combinations. McPhee seems to have taken a fancy to one of the stagnant aethers (which shows that he hasn't learnt much). Although even today there are scientists who believe in a stagnant aether (i don't, i believe in a free-range aether, but i aint a scientist).
  23. [re kipingram]. I hadn't twigged that 2 identical circular orbits must always cross twice, not matter the angle. And that oribitors if meeting once must meet twice per orbit, no matter the direction. [re J C MacSwell]. I don't see any tending toward disagreement (& then tending back). Although u would i think get such tendings if including real-world moon & sun effects etc, & perhaps Earthly spin -- but then the whole circular orbit thing explodes. Unless there is something else i haven't thought of that gives little (perfectly balanced, twice per orbit, plus & minus) tendings. Would your tendings involve change of speed??, or change of shape of orbit??? (or both????).
  24. Yes, i see, any 2 pix of the one event taken at close range at the same place & time will of course always agree (silly me). Ok, so my 9 possible outcomes in #2 are in fact only 3, eg (+1 & +1) or (0 & 0) or (-1 & -1). For my special case i arrive at (0 & 0) by symmetry (no calcs needed). Assuming of course that my special case is possible (ie that scenario might be impossible even for a thought experiment). And, as an aside, i suspect that the twins can synchronise clocks, if not on the first pass, then at least on subsequent passes. And, furthermore, i suspect that this applies to all such scenarios in the OP, not just to my special (symmetrical) case, if the relative time dilation gain per pass is constant, eg if the pairs of pix each show 0, 0, 0, 0............ this shows 0 relative time dilation per pass, & eg if the pairs of pix each show +1, +2, +3, +4............ this shows +1 relative time dilation per pass.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.