"I
hope the 6th edition will stand as a testament for the need of
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL ARTICLES on non-local physics. This branch of
physics has been ignored for over 100 years. It offers new concepts
like non-directional motion, perpendicular reaction forces, non-local
astronomy, dimensional effects, and many others. Deep insights into
"fields" and rotational time displacement can lead to applications that
are currently inconceivable and absolutely astonishing. It is sad that
non-local physics has not received the attention it deserves from the
scientific community. -BF"
This star's atmosphere has numerous heavy elements that are abnormally high in abundance and
which also have short, radioactive half-lives. Astronomers say this star "should not exist".
But an explanation within the scope of non-local physics is straight-forward.
This
is a revised edition of the original and includes new material of
practical interest. And it gives a more detailed treatment
of intrinsic spin than that presented in Beyond Einstein.
I
am having second thoughts about the statement made on page 64:
“Initially
there will be alinear jet that will
ultimately place planets in a flat orbital plane and result in planets that are
located at specific distances from the reforming star.”
The
problem here is one of energy. A jet requires two dimensions of temporal motion
and one dimension of spatial motion. I doubt that a Type 1 supernova has this
required energy available.
Another
possibility, with a lesser energy requirement, is that of one dimension of
temporal motion and two dimensions of spatial motion. This would produce a flat
disk of debris; the quantization would segregate this into discrete rings like
those visible in the photographs on page 65. Ultimately the system becomes a
series of asteroid belts surrounding a central star. The belts eventually
coalesce into individual planets.
Hypothetically,
if somewhat more energy is available, a cone shaped structure could be
produced. (which will appear with its mirror image, forming an hourglass
shape). This can beclearly seen in two
Hubble images on page 63. Again note the quantization rings. It is not clear
that this could condense into a planetary system, but maybe a binary star
system is possible.
What is
really weird is the formation of systems that appear rectangular or square such
as those shown on page 69.I think this
could stem from “quantum like laws” that deal with intrinsic spin orientation.
Use of Geometric Algebra (a.k.a. Clifford algebra) might clarify a geometric
relationship, as it “integrates different mathematical
concepts highlighting geometrical meanings that are often hidden in the ordinary
algebra.” (p. 89)But for now, it is a
mystery.
I hope
that professional astronomers will have both the curiosity and “creative
arrogance” to investigate these possibilities and to publish their findings.
"Astronomers
have taken a new census of matter in the universe by examining how
bright flashes of radio waves from other galaxies, called fast radio
bursts, are distorted by particles on their way to Earth. This analysis
shows that about half of the universe’s ordinary matter, which has
eluded detection for decades, is lurking in intergalactic space,
researchers report online May 27 in Nature.
The
mystery of the missing matter has vexed cosmologists for some 20 years.
This elusive material isn’t the invisible, unidentified dark matter
that makes up most of the mass in the universe. It’s ordinary matter,
composed of garden-variety particles called baryons, such as protons
and neutrons (SN: 10/11/17).
Scientists have long suspected the
missing matter is hiding between galaxies, along filaments of gas
strung between galaxy clusters in a vast cosmic web (SN: 1/20/14). “But
we haven’t been able to detect it very well, because it’s really,
really diffuse, and it’s not shining brightly,” says Jason Hessels, an
astrophysicist at the University of Amsterdam not involved in the new
work."
"A
decade ago, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope detected two
enormous plumes of highly energetic gas extending above and below the
disk of the Milky Way galaxy. The combined plumes, dubbed Fermi
bubbles, extend a total of some 50,000 light years.
These
“bubbles” remain largely mysterious, and continued research has turned
up several surprises. According to Science News, recent findings from
the eROSITA X-ray telescope has shown that the plumes produce a
powerful flux of X-rays and energetic gamma rays.
While
much remains mysterious about the Fermi bubbles, one thing about them
seems clear: They are the aftermath of a stupendous explosion, a few
million years ago, in the heart of our galaxy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beyond Einstein, 1st edition
Click this link to download BeyondEinstein.pdf
(2015; Registration: TX 8-223-345)
Format:
The document format supports printing of
two pages per sheet, and binding on the left long edge.
Intended
audience:
1. People who enjoy science, especially
physics.
2. People who teach physics, especially at
the highschool and college level.
3. People who want our society to
progress, and who want to eliminate blindspots and misconceptions.
Errata (2nd ed.): A clarification is needed regarding the dimensions of the expansion of a balloon surface. The "dimension" of the spatial surface expansion is given as s2/t. Note that this is NOT two dimensions of motion. A "motional dimension", as I often call it, is (s/t)1 or (t/s)1. "Two motional dimensions" would be (s/t)2 or (t/s)2
. I have not found clear, unambiguous, non-confusing terminology here. Example: mass is (t3/s3). That is, mass is ONE three-dimensional motion, not three (dimensionally separate) one-dimensional motions (t/s)3 Again, this usage is different from what you learned in highschool
(page 7). Be careful, and anticipate some confusion with this
terminology (until the dust settles). Likewise, do not
confuse "dimension" with "intensity" or "amount". (Upon review, I find my own explanation confusing here!)
Not mentioned in Beyond Einstein (2nd ed.):
"Review of Electrogravitics & Electrokinetics Propulsion". Thomas F. Valone (2015), International Journal of Geosciences, Vol.06 No.04(2015), Article ID:55806, 15 pages http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2015042015204020.pdf
This
is a comprehensive and important document. Be sure to read it,
especially the parts about the effects on gravitation of high voltage
DC monopolar pulsed power with asymmetric wave shapes.
"Capacitive
Discharge Electromagnetic propulsion system", James Wayne Purvis (2018)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/10135323.pdf
Photons do not accelerate
up to light speed when emitted from an atom. The emission takes place
AT lightspeed, from our standpoint, or at zero speed (1/1) from
the photon's standpoint. The photon has no independent motion, and is
swept along in the Expansive Ether. It is the atoms of matter
that have independent motion with respect to the Ether. Atoms are
moving temporally (not spatially) at the speed of light. The photon's instant speed could be viewed as a non-local effect.
"Black Holes are a Mathematical Fantasy, not a Physical Reality",
Gurcharn S. Sandhu, Applied Physics Research; Vol. 11, No. 4; 2019 https://tinyurl.com/y2pu3v4q
"Gravitational
wave physics is entering a phase in which it is crucial to interpret
the observations impartially. Therefore, a statistical detection
algorithm such as the one proposed by the Copenhagen Group has to be
implemented. One does not have to be an expert in signal analysis to
realize that fishing for similarities with expected signals in a noisy
background bears the danger of false-positive events. LIGO/Virgo’s
current practice is designed to produce such illusions, and sticking to
the faulty method will not convince the scientific community in the
long run."
Although the term is unfamiliar, most of us have experienced the
phenomenon of "auditory pareidolia". One hears patterns of
conversations or radio programs in the sound of rushing air,
running water, white noise, etc. The "conversations" sound very real,
but are just below the level of intelligibility(usually)
and are continuous (unlike normal conversations). It all stops
when all the white noise sources are turned off. Unless you know what
is going on, the effect can be somewhat unnerving. People may
even think they hear hidden messages in music when the tapes are played
backwards.
A similar phenomenon can happen in astronomy. As
mentioned above and below, "signals" can be seen in random data or
noise. And, yes, it can be recognized by computers and AI just as it
can be by the human mind. This is a troublesome trait when
astronomers search for gravitational waves. As above: "fishing for
similarities with expected signals in a noisy
background bears the danger of false-positive events." The "detected"
gravitational waves may only be an illusion.
"Explained:
Sigma How do you know when a new finding is significant? The
sigma value can tell you — but watch out for dead fish", David L.
Chandler, MIT News Office, February 9, 2012 http://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-sigma-0209
"Many
published papers in the last decade have claimed significant
correlations between certain kinds of behaviors or thought processes
and brain images captured by magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. But
sometimes these tests can find apparent correlations that are just the
results of natural fluctuations, or “noise,” in the system. One
researcher in 2009 duplicated one such experiment, on the recognition
of facial expressions, only instead of human subjects he scanned a dead
fish — and found “significant” results. . . .
So
bear in mind, just because something meets an accepted definition of
“significance,” that doesn’t necessarily make it significant. It all
depends on the context."
You
make a fool of yourself if you declare that you have discovered
something, when all you are observing is random chance. From this point
of view, what matters is the probability that, when you find that a
result is ‘statistically significant’, there is actually a real effect.
If you find a ‘significant’ result when there is nothing but chance at
play, your result is a false positive, and the chance of getting a
false positive is often alarmingly high. This probability will be
called false discovery rate in this paper. It is also often called theerror rate.
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
by Albert Einstein ("Albert Einstein gave an address
on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. He chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of Relativity.
He lectured in German but we present an English translation below. The
lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922." http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html ) Note: only the last paragraph of this interesting speech is quoted below:
"Recapitulating,
we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is
endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for
standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not
be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Physicists
say space has properties of magnetic permeability, electric
permittivity, and a free space impedance of 377 ohms.
Mathematians say it is "metrizable" (supports the
common concept of distance; not all "spaces" do this.). Astronomers say
it "progresses" or "expands" and has three dimensions. With space
having so many properties useful to physics, we may as well say it is a
manifestation of an ether,
Does time
also have specific properties? It probably does, but this
possibility has not been investigated "physically". All that is
commonly known is that time progresses and is scalar in the
equations of space.
More about the Twin Paradox:
Why stop at two people—twins? Why not have dozens
of people, each with their own clock, moving at dozens of
different speeds? All the clocks will run at different rates, either
compared with each other or compared against a master clock. According
to SR this is not a contradiction and all observers are correct.
So is this reductio ad absurdum
or is it "proof by paradox method"? The use of the "orthogonal
sum clock" mentioned in the paper would resolve this problem.
Is
the Universe finite or infinite in extent? My answer is that it is
apparently BOTH finite AND infinite in extent. Your reaction might be
"I am not ready for this!" But I think you have been in this
realm of terra incognita
before. Remember "motionless motion"? Remember "motion with no
direction"? Remember the "speed of light is zero"? Remember motion cancellers? Remember "rotation
with no angular momentum"?* This is just more of the same.
(*See: Atomic_and_Photon_Spin_Systems)
More on the wave/particle duality:
This problem concerns how a rotating entity manifests itself to
an observer in a linear extensional reference system. Picture a clock
with only a seconds hand. Viewed face on, the observer can see the
"whole picture" in its true-to-fact form.. But viewed edgewise, the
observer can see only a projection. He sees the seconds hand at full
length at the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions. But at the 3
o'clock and 9 o'clock positions, the seconds hand has zero length and
even seems to go out of existence! But such an appearance is
simply due to limitations of the reference system.
Suppose
there was a light above the clock and a strip chart recorder with
film was placed below it and moving perpendicularly to the clock face.
On the film, the observer would see a shadow that definitely has
the characteristics of a wave--something that periodically varies in
amplitude with time and position.
In physics, particles
will have both "intrinsic spin' (or "intrinsic rotation") as well as
linear motion. Depending on the reference system, the entity will
manifest as a wave or as a particle (and in some experiments it can
even act as both!). We think
of these effects as spatial. But motion also has a temporal component.
In the equations of spatial motion, time is always scalar (has
only a magnitude). In the interference experiments the position of a
particle can be found at a definite location, but strangely its
position seems to be governed by the mathematics of a probabililty
distribution that is derived from the characteristics of the wave. Its
final location has a sort of "definite randomness" whereby an overall
pattern can be predicted, but not the position in space or time of an
individual particle. Again, this is simply a limitation of the
reference system. The full motion is comprised of three
dimensions of space and three dimensions of time, but in a spatial
reference system, we can see only the effects of the progression
of time, not dimensional positions in time. If we could see
the whole picture "face on" (as with the clock), there would be no
mystery to interference phenomena. "Feynman's drain" would be fully flushed out!
The ultimate lesson is this: The reality and its manifestations may be different things.
"Since the nineteenth
century physical theorists have considered that electromagnetic mass
must exhibit tensor properties if causal delays characterize the
interactions of electric charges. In 1960 Chalmers W. Sherwin and
Robert D. Rawcliffe enlisted the help of mentors of the A. O. Nier
highresolution mass spectrograph to test this hypothesis, using the
predicted mass line-splitting of a football-shaped Lu175 nucleus of
spin 7/2 (a highly asymmetrical charge distribution). No line-splitting
was observed. This null result showed that mass behaves in just the way
Newton thought, as a scalar, never as a tensor. What, then went wrong
with the theory? We argue that the basic assumption of retardation of
distant action was at fault, and that the null result in fact provides
strong inferential evidence of instant action-at-a-distance of a
Coulomb field."
“While at Illinois he conceived and
caused to be performed the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment
(“Electromagnetic Mass & the Inertial Properties of Nuclei,”
Report 1-92, March 14, 1960, Coordinated Science Laboratory, University
of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois), an experiment establishing the lack
of tensor properties of nuclear mass that I
personally consider to rank in significance with Michelson-Morely, as
one of the great, all-encompassing null results of our time. It is a
commentary on the prevailing state of the scientific literature that
this experiment was never reported in the regular journals.”
Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation
Superluminal information transfer confirmed by simple experiment
A
simple experiment has been performed in order to measure propagation
speed of the electric field. The results show that the Coulomb
interaction propagates substantially faster than at speed of light c.
Fig. 1: Schematic of the experiment
The
experiment uses a spark gap between two conducting spheres acting as
capacitors of opposite electric charge. After spark-formation, this
rapidly collapsing dipole field is measured by an oscilloscope
connected via probes to conducting detector-spheres. Whereas the mutual
distance between the detector spheres connected to the oscilloscope
remains at Δx = 1.65 m (from left probe tip to right probe tip),
different distances from the spark-gap have been measured.
The
measured propagation speeds v = Δx/Δt from the left to the right
detector sphere, with Δt averaged over each five measurements, range
from around 1.4 c to 5 c, and show a dependence on the distance from
the spark gap.
The
by far simplest explanation of the experiment is the hypothesis that
the Coulomb interaction conforms to Coulomb, who assumed instantaneous
interaction at a distance. The dependence of the measured propagation
speed on the distance of the measurement setup from the spark gap is
explained by dissipative losses and "image charge" complication,
leading to electric currents in the ground and the walls.
Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields
William D. Walker(Submitted on 6 Sep 2000)
A
simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic
fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an
oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt
sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a
parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference
between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as
the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase
vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field
waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter
wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the
source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed.
The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they
propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward
propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and
then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source.
The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic
theory.
Comments:17
pages, Presented at Vigier III Symposium: Gravitation and Cosmology,
Berkeley, California, USA, August 21-25, 2000Subjects:General Physics (physics.gen-ph); Classical Physics (physics.class-ph) Cite as:arXiv:physics/0009023[physics.gen-ph] (orhttps://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023v1[physics.gen-ph] for this version) (BF note 1-31-20: The change in speed of the waves within one wavelength of distance sounds a lot like evanescent waves
that are being produced along with the usual electromagnetic waves.
This should have important practical and theoretical implications.)
"The
fact that evanescent waves travel with superluminal speeds (cf. e.g.
Fig. 4) has actually been verified in a series of famous experiments,
performed since 1992 onwards by R. Chiao, P.G. Kwiat and A. Steinberg’s
group at Berkeley [44], by G. Nimtz et al. at Cologne [20], by A.
Ranfagni and colleagues at Florence [30], and by others at Vienna,
Orsay and Rennes [30], which verified that “tunnelling photons” travel
with superluminal group velocities.7 Let us add also that extended
relativity had predicted [50] evanescent waves endowed with
faster-than-c speeds; the whole matter therefore appears to be
theoretically consistent." (Physics Before and After Einstein, Edited by Marco Mamone Capria (2005) p. 272 )
)
Not mentioned in "Intuitive Concepts for Atomic and Photon Spin Systems"
Conversion of angular momentum to Linear Momentum and vice versa
Certain
ordinary physical systems show that "spontaneous" conversions of linear
momentum to angular momentum (and vice versa) are possible. Some
examples:
The Rattleback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattleback
"A
rattleback is a semi-ellipsoidal top which will rotate on its axis in a
preferred direction. If spun in the opposite direction, it becomes
unstable, "rattles" to a stop and reverses its spin to the preferred
direction."
The Wilberforce_pendulum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilberforce_pendulum
"When
correctly adjusted and set in motion, it exhibits a curious motion in
which periods of purely rotational oscillation gradually alternate with
periods of purely up and down oscillation. The energy stored in the
device shifts slowly back and forth between the translational 'up and
down' oscillation mode and the torsional 'clockwise and
counterclockwise' oscillation mode, until the motion eventually dies
away."
Can something like this happen in atomic systems? Can a photon-type of motion convert from a configuration that does not have angular momentum (linear polarization) to, say, a 2 pi or 4 pi spin system that does have angular momentum?
Also,
can triaxial spin systems spontaneously flip between metastable angular
momentum states? "Gold Nucleus is Wobbly" February 5, 2020
Physics 13, s17 https://physics.aps.org/articles/v13/s17 (triaxial nuclei and possible Dzhanibekov effect)
Pictures
"Quantum
unidirectional rotation directly imaged with molecules" Kenta Mizuse,
et al. (2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEU510EHCQ
Science Advances
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=oDuL2mOZ79_7y30xDYULZDp9Bml8MTU3ODg4NjU0NUAxNTc4ODAwMTQ1&event=video_description&v=NAEU510EHCQ&q=http%3A%2F%2Fadvances.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2F1%2F6%2Fe1400185
Spin Dimensions: From "Spin Systems":
"Within
this temporal world, spins can have many orientations. Just how many
quantized “spin dimensions” there are is unknown, but the number is not
trivial. A naïve guesswork calculation would be something like 22 x 22 x 23 [= 128]; this could be clarified with geometric algebra (proposed in Beyond Einstein
(2nd ed.) ) It is an important number because it affects how magnitudes
of the quantum world transform when they are mapped into a spatial
reference system." "Intuitive Concepts for Atomic and Photon Spin Systems" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338293585_Intuitive_Concepts_for_Atomic_and_Photon_Spin_Systems
Compare that with this:
"The
controversy around the structure of the molecule arises because
although it has few atomic components the electrons exist in a state
comprising not just four dimensions – like our everyday "big" world –
but 126." ("After 90 years, scientists reveal the structure of
benzene", March 5,
2020 https://phys.org/news/2020-03-years-scientists-reveal-benzene.html )
Beyond Einstein, 1st ed., Errata:
page
2: In the phrase "the Universe really does have non-casual, non-local
behaviors", the words "non-casual" should be deleted. The word
"casual" was an unintented mis-spelling of "causal"; Even so, the
non-local events described are clearly caused by the experimental conditions imposed by the experimenter.
pages 8 and 22: the words "gravity waves" should be changed to "gravitational waves"
Not mentioned in Beyond Einstein (1st ed.):
There is also a diffuse Far Ultraviolet (FUV) background:
“the source of a substantial fraction of the FUV background radiation
remains a mystery. The radiation is remarkably uniform at both far
northern and far southern Galactic latitudes…” See “The Mystery of the
Cosmic Diffuse Ultraviolet Background Radiation”, Richard Conn Henry,
Jayant Murthy, James Overduin, Joshua Tyler (2014)
arxiv.org/abs/1404.5714
Another thought about a two-in-one (local + non-local) Universe:
“What we know as the universe could actually be just one of a pair that
exists in the same space but at different times.” (Science News, July
25, 2015, p. 17 “Times Arrow”.)
High redshift objects:
light speed?
Quasars, certain galaxies, and gamma
ray bursters have redshifts above z = 1. Example: the quasar ULAS J1120+0641, is atz= 7.1The "non-local" interpretation is that this kind of
redshift represents motion at 7 times the speed of light.
The "local" interpretation is that these redshifts are Hubble
shifts (indicative of distance) and should be "corrected" to less than
light speed. (Refs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Highest_redshifts ; http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1219/ see note 3 )
I
made some brief comments about the Aether on page 12 ("The static
Aether was not detectable"). Most textbooks will state that the
fringe shift of the Michelson-Morley experiment was absolutely zero
(within experimental error). I believed that the non-directional motion
described in my article would affect the perpendicular beams equally,
and result in no fringe shift. But apparently there actually was
a small fringe shift. Yet this piece of experimental data got buried by
institutional politics because of prevailing views about Relativity.
This subject will have to be revisited.
"Although the theories cannot answer what happens atc,
the scientists suspect that an object crossing the "light barrier" may
have some very interesting consequences. They compare our current
understanding of this boundary to that of an object crossing the sound
barrier for the first time, an event that was highly disputed before it
was achieved in 1947.
"People
wondered what would happen," Hill said. "Were we all going to
disintegrate? Would the plane fall apart? It turns out passing through
the speed of sound led to a big bang. I suspect going through the speed
of light will be more interesting. I have a feeling the world will
change in some dramatic way as we move through the speed oflight. All sorts of things could happen. Time and space could interchange."
"The
world we experience possesses all the qualities of locality. We have a
strong sense of place and of the relations among places. . . . And yet
multiple branches of physics now suggest that, at a deeper level, there
may be no such thing as place and no such thing as distance. Physics
experiments can bind the fate of two particles together so that they
behave like a pair of magic coins. . . . They act in a coordinated way
even though no force passes through the space between them. Those
particles might zip off to opposite sides of the universe, and still
they act in unison. The particles violate locality—they transcend space."
"Experimental Confirmation of the
Doubts about Authenticity of Event
GW150914", Lukanenkov, A.V.
(2017). Journal of Applied Mathematics
and Physics, 5, 538-550.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2017.52046 http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JAMP_2017022815573592.pdf
Search
for Gravitational Waves Associated with Gamma-Ray Bursts During the
First Advanced LIGO Observing Run and Implications for the Origin of
GRB 150906B
"We present the
results of the search for gravitational waves (GWs) associated with
γ-ray bursts detected during the first observing run of the Advanced
Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). We find no
evidence of a GW signal for any of the 41 γ-ray bursts for which LIGO
data are available with sufficient duration." https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07947
If gravity
propagated at the speed of light instead of instantaneously, the
effects on orbits of satelites and solar system planets would be very
obvious. However, these are relatively small systems.
Instead of a solar system, consider the effects on something the
size of a galaxy:
We know, the
solar system and other stars are orbiting around the center of the
Milky Way and the radius of the Milky Way is larger than 5☓104 light-year. . . . But, we know, the Milky Way is moving with a speed on the level of 5☓102km/s.[6]
Therefore, the distance between the retarded position and present
position of the center of the Milky way is . . . 25 light-year.
And, a galaxy is usually older than . . . 1☓1010 years . . . . The distance between the retarded and present positions of this center should become larger than 5 x 106
ly. In this case, a spiral galaxy could not maintain with the form of a
disc. Instead, it was a very long strip along the direction of the
galaxy moving. However, no galaxy has become such a long strip one.
("The speed of gravit;y: An observation on galaxy motions
", Yin Zhu (September 2016) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30917.45287
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308409482_The_speed_of_gravity_An_observation_on_galaxy_motions )
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIGO'S RECENT DETECTION OF
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES CAUSED BY MERGING BLACK HOLES”, Stephen J. Crothers (4
March 2016)http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v4.pdf
Abstract The LIGO
Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration have announced that on 14
September 2015, LIGO detected an Einstein gravitational wave directly for the
first time, with the first observation of a binary black hole merger. The
announcement was made with much media attention. Not so long ago similar media
excitement surrounded the announcement by the BICEP2 Team of detection of
primordial gravitational waves imprinted in Bmode polarisations of a Cosmic Microwave
Background, which proved to be naught. . . .The insurmountable problem for the credibility of LIGO's
claims is the questionable character of the theoretical assumptions upon which
they are based.In
this paper various arguments are presented according to which the basic
theoretical assumptions, and the consequential claims of detecting
gravitational waves, are proven false.The apparent detection by the LIGO-Virgo Collaborations
is not related to gravitational waves or to the collision and merger of black
holes.
Appendix A . . .
However, the crucial point of the foregoing mathematical
development is that Einstein's gravitational waves do not have a unique speed
of propagation. The speed of the waves is coordinate dependent, as the
condition at Eq.(A.6) attests. It is the constraint at Eq.(A.6) that selects a
set of coordinates to produce the propagation speed c. A different set of
coordinates yields a different speed of propagation, as Eq.(A.3) does not have
to be constrained by Eq.(A.6). Einstein deliberately chose a set of coordinates that yields the
desired speed of propagation at that of light in vacuum (i.e. c = 2.998x108
m/s) in order to satisfy the presupposition that propagation is at speed c.
There is no a priori reason why this particular set of coordinates is better
than any other. The sole purpose for the choice is to obtain the desired and
presupposed result.
All
the coordinate-systems differ from Galilean coordinates by small quantities of
the first order. The potentials gμν pertain not only to the
gravitational influence which has objective reality, but also to the
coordinate-system which we select arbitrarily. We can ‘propagate’
coordinate-changes with the speed of thought, and these may be mixed up at will
with the more dilatory propagation discussed above. There does not seem to be
any way of distinguishing a physical and a conventional part in the changes of
gμν. “The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational
waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based
entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only
true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a
certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is
that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is
altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates
and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely
introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from
representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument
thus follows a vicious circle.” Eddington [38 §57]
[38] Eddington, A.S., The Mathematical Theory of Relativity,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
(1963, reproduction of 1923 publication; the paperback edition is from
Forgotten Press and the quote is on p. 130-131) (If
you search the reprint of this book using Amazon's
Look Inside feature, use "vicious circle" for the search text.)
7.–
There is a widespread and erroneous conviction (see e.g. Fock [3],
p.194) according to which in GR gravitation is propagated with the
speed of light in vacuo, i.e. with the speed of light in empty space of
SR. The supporters of this false opinion claim that it follows, e.g.,
from eqs.(4) and (5), when interpreted as differential equations of
wave fronts and rays of GW’s. Now, this is trivially wrong even from
the viewpoint of the believers in the physical existence of GW’s,
because eqs. (4) and (5) – quite independently of their interpretation–
affirm in reality that the concerned wave fronts and rays have a
propagation velocity that depends on the metric tensor gjk(x),
even if this tensor has the form of a mathematical undulation. The
non-existence of physical GW’s has the following consequence: if we
displace a mass, its gravitational field and the related curvature of
the interested manifold displace themselves along with
the mass: under this respect Einstein field and Newton
field behave in an identical way [11].
. . . It is regrettable that various physicists insist on publishing useless considerations and computations on hjk–waves
[13]. It is time that astrophysical community desist from beating the
air – and from squandering the money of the taxpayers.
"Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", Foundations of Physics,Tom Van Flandern, Jean-Pierre Vigier, July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 1031–1068
Abstract ( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016530625645 ) General
relativity has a geometric and a field interpretation. If angular
momentum conservation is invoked in the geometric interpretation to
explain experiments, the causality principle is violated. The field
interpretation avoids this problem by allowing faster-than-light
propagation of gravity in forward time. All existing experiments are in
agreement with that interpretation. This implies the existence of real
superluminal propagation and communication of particles and fields,
free of causality problems. The introduction of real physical
faster-than-light propagation into gravitation, electrodynamics and
quantum theory has important consequences for physics.
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity,
edited by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith (2008) "Global
Positioning System and the twins’ paradox", Tom Van Flandern
.
. . it is entirely possible that reality is Lorentzian, not
Einsteinian, with respect to the relativity of motion. In that case,
physics may have no speed limit when the driving forces are
gravitational or electrodynamic rather than electromagnetic in nature.
And that may be the most important thing that the GPS has helped us to
appreciate.
Abstract. This article analyzes the data for the five gravitational wave (GW) events detected
in Hanford(H1), Livingston(L1) and Virgo(V1) detectors by the LIGO1
collaboration. It is shown
that GW170814, GW170817, GW151226 and GW170104 are very weak signals whose amplitude
does not rise significantly during the GW event, and they are indistinguishable from non-stationary
detector noise.
"On
April 10, 2019, the first image –to be precise –the first “shadow” of a
Black Hole was presented to the public in a press conference at Brussels."
Was
this an "image" of a Black Hole ("shadow") or was it something else?
The giant Black Hole is in the center of Messier 87--a famous
gigantic spherodial galaxy that is about 55 million light-years
from Earth. The Black Hole is about 7.5 microarcseconds in diameter.
The Event Horizon (radio) Telescope has a resolution of about 42
microarcseconds. For comparison, the Hubble space telescope has a
resolution of about 50,000 microarcseconds and a backyard optical
telescope has a resolution of about 1 arc second. Obviously, the
Black Hole cannot be seen optically, and is even below the resolution
of the Event Horizon (radio) Telescope. The pictorial representation of
the data cannot show any features smaller than 42 microarcseconds, but
can show larger features around it. This is a problem because at this
distance and this wavelength, and this resolution, the radio waves are
coherent. They cannot form an image based on interferometer techniques.
The result will be a black spot at the center of the image. So this
"Black Hole" could just be nothing more than a diffraction limited picture of an infinitely remote source.
The second problem is the speed of the
gravitational waves. Einstein states that the speed of these waves is the same
as the speed of light. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this issue too.
This also has very justified reasons. Firstly, there is a fundamental
difference between the propagation of light and the gravitational waves. Light
propagates in a form of quanta called photon. A photon emitted from its source,
which is probably millions of light years away, is the same as the one reaching
our eyes. It is photon entity energy that brings it to us from millions of
light years away. The photon is still the same photon because it keeps total
entity energy along its route. However, the quantum structure of the
gravitational field has not yet been observed. It is likely that the space
fabric is the one to allow the emission of the gravitational energy. It is the
most important evidence that the gravitational field does not lead to the loss
of mass, while radiation does. Propagation of the gravitational energy by the
space texture also reduces its probability of propagation at a constant speed,
i.e., as the gravitational waves propagate, the speed will decrease. Why?
. . . How can this controversy regarding the
gravitational waves end? It is important to end because it leads to unnecessary
time and resource loss. This is the reason I suggest a project to ESA and NASA.
It is not necessary only but obligatory. The project is a different and simpler
renewal of what these organizations have done before.
. . . Now,
with remote sensing, the gravity acceleration can be measured more sensitively
than ever. Therefore this is certainly an achievable proposal.
Mass can store (absorb) energy and momentum, but the reverse is not true.
Mass has the dimensions of t3/s3 . Momentum has the dimensions of t2/s2 . Energy is t1/s1
.
Logically then, mass has enough dimensional freedom to absorb (or
store) a massless particle (having only momentum) and it could also
absorb a photon of energy. But the reverse is not true. Photons cannot
store mass, nor can massless particles store mass. Massless
particles, like the neutrino, however, can acquire more energy (as in
Beta decay).
And if a massless particle becomes part of a massive system (like
an atom) it may contribute to an increase in the mass of that system,
even though it has no mass by itself.
A non-local alternative to the nuclear model of the atom
The common nuclear model of the atom is based on the concept of locality ("touching is space"), not non-locality.
Go
back to Rutherford's original experiment (circa 1911) . He discovered
that a material aggregate (gold foil) has an array of tiny massive
objects ("kernels") in it, each containing most of the mass of the
atom, and each separated by plenty of "space" (or some kind of
emptiness) . What were these massive objects? The previously
existing model was based on spatial contract, viz.
atoms in an aggregate are pictured as touching each other, like
billiard balls in a shoe box. The volume of a ball could be estimated
by calculations from soap film experiments and by known molar volumes
of metals. Rutherford found something that was 10,000 times
smaller in diameter than that implied by this volume. Both
picutures had factual support and so the tiny massive objects became
"nuclei". Hence, the atom "has" a nucleus.
But that is not what his
picture really showed. The tiny massive objects, which contain
virtually all the mass of the atom, and ultimately account for all the
properties of the atom, could be the atoms themselves! The "emptiness"
is simply between the atoms, not within
the atoms. Physicists could have developed a whole new different form
of atomic physics if they had accepted this realization! But
historically, they were neither fluent nor comfortable with the concept
of non-locality.
Some
years later, quantum mechanics began to be developed. It had
features that clearly pointed to a non-locality model. Originally,
electron orbits were thought to be clearly defined (like the orbits of
planets around the Sun), but later the orbits turned into a fuzzy
"electron cloud"; it was not that the electron orbits could not be
found and measured, but it was that they did not have
any sort of actual spatial trajectory in the first place. Later, more
and more conceptual problems developed with the atomic electrons.
It now seems that this model should be discarded and a new one
created based on the concept of non-locality. Atoms exist and
they can have various energy levels based on different types of
intrinsic spin systems (see links above).
Electrons can be an agent to express those energy levels without
actually being "parts" of an atom (any more than a gamma ray is a
"part" of the atom). A conceptually "cleaner" model of the atom could
lead to additional useful insights that are not readily apparent in the
current model.
"Milgrom’s correction allows
gravitational attraction to fall off with distance more slowly than
expected (rather than falling off with the square of distance as per
Newton) when the local gravitational acceleration falls below an
extremely low threshold. This threshold could be linked to other
cosmological properties such as the ‘dark energy’ that accounts for the
accelerating expansion of the Universe. " "Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark-matter?" Corey S. Powell, ed.https://aeon.co/ideas/has-dogma-derailed-the-scientific-search-for-dark-matter
"MOND,
however, proposes that, at very large radii and small accelerations,
gravity decays with distance more slowly than Newton’s inverse square
law. This removes the need for dark matter, providing a clear
explanation for the tight non-Newtonian correlation between visible
matter and radial acceleration." "Galaxy rotation study rules out modified gravity, or does it?" 21 Jun 2018 https://physicsworld.com/a/galaxy-rotation-study-rules-out-modified-gravity-or-does-it/
Why is the speed of light limited to c and not to some other value?
A partial answer: the speed of light equates to the value of 1/1. It is what the speed of light actually is. And this is a number with special properties.
1. Only 1 is equal to its reciprocal 2. Only 1 has the property of 10 = 11 = 12 = 13
The real question: why do humans equate this to 186,000 miles per second?
Can stationary charges radiate electromagnetic radiation?
I
walk across a carpet and then touch a doorknob. A big fat spark leaps
from my hand to the doorknob. The doorknob is now charged. It is also
being accelerated at 9.8 m/sec^2 (like everything else on this planet).
We are told that "accelerated charges radiate eletromagnetic
radiation". Hence the questions:
1. Does the doorknob radiate as long as it retains the charge? Why or why not?
2. Is it possible to accelerate
an object without having it change speed, position, or direction in
space? (this is related to the "motionless motion" discussed in Beyond Einstein)
3.
Suppose the doorknob remains stationary, but the remainder of the room
moves or oscillates. Is radiation present? Does this relate to the
question of absolute motion?
4. Does this question relate to a "change of direction of motion" or a "change of dimension of motion"? See "Origin of Intrinsic Spin" for some insights.
The Periodic Table displayed in chemistry and physics classrooms has only one row based on 12 . The others based on 22, 32, and 42 each have two
rows. The reason for the missing row was not given in the
article. The missing row represents massless particles. These do not
have sufficient intrinsic spin systems to qualify as mass. They
therefore cannot come to rest in a gravitational reference system and
do not have "chemical" properties.
Where is the antimatter?
Symmetry
considerations suggest that antimatter would be just as likely to exist
and matter. So where is it? It is actually here with us in our everyday
living space. It is not really "anti" matter, but "inverted" matter.
That is, it has space/time relationships that are inverted (time/space)
from our perspective. It is represented by an "inverted Periodic
table" (and the masses, as seen from our perspective, can be worked out
in terms of natural quantities as explained elsewhere in the article).
These are all "non-local" to our gravitational reference system and fly
through our system atom-by-atom at the speed of light much like the
massless particles of our own system. And instead of low energies, they
may have extremely high energies. Their distribution in our space is
essentially homogeneous and isotropic. We call them "cosmic rays".
An appeal to my readers
The
paper "Beyond Einstein: non-local physics" indicates that
approximately half of our potential physics knowledge, the non-local portion,
is missing. So far, we have only the non-local physics of quantum mechanics
("physics of unit space") which has a limited (but important) scope.
The non-local "physics of unit speed" has been completely ignored, as
has the important role played by other unit quantity boundaries. It now seems
possible to combine the local and non-local descriptions into ONE seamless physical
theory based on nothing more than space and time relationships (mass and charge
would be derived concepts).
This
would be a huge undertaking. Currently there is nothing in mainstream science
or mainstream publications that even hints of serious interest in this
direction. Engineerable technology has been admirably well developed but the
science--the basic understanding of how the Universe truly works--is still way
off in the weeds. After 100 years we are still arguing about Special and
General Relativity, and even something as simple and basic as gravity is still
enigmatic at its roots.
Another
problem is mathematical representation of physical phenomena. It is highly
desirable to have seamless mathematics for a seamless physical theory. The
mathematical framework must comfortably and naturally handle some rather
strange and thoroughly unfamiliar (but still accessible) concepts:
1. It must accommodate an absolute
reference system based on centerless expansion of fundamental discrete unit
space/time and time/space (i.e., motion and its inverse) and its relationship
to a differential (relative) reference system such as the one in common use. It
must comfortably accommodate motion with direction, motion with no direction
(scalar motion), direction with no motion (intrinsic rotation), and a
fundamentally stationary photon; (See #DiagramSpeedsInGravBoundRef ;In Search of the Geometry of Space, Time and
Motion ;)
All
of this could be handled by the various specialized, piecemeal mathematical
systems commonly taught at the college level, but there seems to be a better
choice: Geometric algebra:
"Geometric algebra and its extension
to geometric calculus unify, simplify, and generalize vast areas of mathematics
involving geometric ideas, including linear algebra, vector calculus, exterior
algebra and calculus, tensor algebra and calculus, quaternions, real analysis,
complex analysis, and euclidean, noneuclidean, and projective geometries. They
provide a common mathematical language for many areas of physics (classical and
quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, special and general relativity) computer
science . . . and other fields." (Linear
and Geometric Algebra, Alan MacDonald (2010) Preface )
_____
"Scientific
knowledge is expressed mathematically, but the importance of the
optimal choice of the appropriate mathematical language is often
underestimated ... . The geometric algebra (Clifford algebra)
formalism, according to Occam’s razor principle, is by far the best
choice for modern physics. Clifford algebra provides a simple and
unifying mathematical language for coding geometric entities and
operations ... . It integrates different mathematical concepts
highlighting geometrical meanings that are often hidden in the ordinary
algebra. ..." ( Maxwell's Equations and Occam's Razor, Francesco Celani, Antonino Oscar Di Tommasoy, Giorgio Vassalloz, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 25 (2017) 1–29 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274378_Maxwell%27s_Equations_and_Occam%27s_Razor )
_____
"Even
though Gibbs was able to reduce Maxwell’s twelve equations down to
four, as mentioned,
his formalism for vectors had significant structural limitations. For
example, the
cross product only applies in three dimensional space, because in four
dimensions there is
an infinity of perpendicular vectors. However, probably most serious in
terms of students
learning physics, is that, conventional vectors do not integrate with
established algebraic
intuitions regarding basic operations. That is, there is no division
operation, the cross product
does not apply in two dimensions and one cannot freely add vectors to
previously known
algebraic elements (scalars), so that vector algebra becomes a
monolithic structure unto
itself. Hence the intuitive understanding of physics concepts, as well
as general geometric
understanding, which depends on the understanding of vectors, is
significantly reduced.
Historically, as vectors became more popular in physics and in various
other fields, new
scientific discoveries such as quantum mechanics and relativity meant
that vector analysis
needed to be supplemented by a basket of other mathematical techniques
such as: tensors,
spinors, matrix algebra, Hilbert spaces, differential forms etc. As
noted in 7
, ‘The result is a
bewildering plethora of mathematical techniques which require much
learning and teaching,
which tend to fragment the subject and which embody wasteful overlaps
and requirements
of translation’. " ( "A simplified approach to electromagnetism
using geometric algebra", James M. Chappell, Azhar Iqbal, Derek Abbott
(November 11, 2010) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.4947.pdf See also: Vectors and Beyond: Geometric Algebra and its
Philosophical Significance,
Peter Simons, dialectica Vol. 63, N° 4 (2010), pp. 381–395
DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2009.01214.x http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/61825/Vectors%20and%20Beyond%20as%20Printed.pdf?sequence=1 )
_____
All
of this could keep an army of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers busy
for 100 years. It is the scientific equivalent of "fill the Earth and
subdue it" or staffing a newly discovered planet.
These
are the things of God, and God will give us assistance just for the asking:
“Let your
cry come to me, and I will give you an answer, and let you see great things and
secret things of which you had no knowledge.”(Bible in Basic English,
Jeremiah 33:3)
Let the asking begin!
"Though your beginning was insignificant, Yet your end will increase greatly. Job 8:7, NASB
"the ant" has "no chief, officer, or ruler" (Proverbs 6:6-7, NASB So, get to work!
