Critique of TSW Part 19a Light

Blog 20140903

As an aether denier, Bill has problems with the wave theory of light despite the contradictions posed by the wave-particle duality of regressive physics.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 1 of 3)

TSW:  "... all photons, assuming they all have identical masses, would have the same energy ... a return to the simple particle or ballistic theory of light was not tenable."

BW: Yes, an unreasonable assumption that they have identical masses. So, although they all have the same fundamental characteristics, the mass of a photon has to be directly correlated to its frequency. Of course, "relativistic mass" confuses the issue with a zero "rest mass", but ... assuming light is traveling at c, then the masses must be different. Also note that a photon doesn't have to be a rigid, spherical particle.

[GB: In other words, the theory is untenable.]

TSW:  "Planck, however, speculated that radiation was emitted in bundles or packets, quanta, which were propagated as waves."

BW: Actually, that interpretation was imposed on him by others; he just noted a mathematical correlation. In my view, the Planck Constant is actually just a conversion factor, from frequency to energy. Properly understood, it just means that frequency is a *proxy* for mass, not that there are "jumps" in light frequency, mass, or energy. There are no bundles or packets. Photons are just (variable) masses in a particular configuration that results in a (variable) frequency in (variable) motion.

[GB: You have shown what a mess is created by the particle theory of light. Elsewhere, I have speculated that the Planck Constant is just what is claimed for it: the smallest unit of motion that we can detect. In neomechanics, this involves collisions between aether particles or between aether particles and ordinary (baryonic) matter. A single particle cannot have a frequency, as that is only a group property. Thus, a water molecule cannot produce a water wave—it takes billions of water molecules to do that. The wave-like properties ascribed to certain individual microcosms are due to the macrocosm in which they exist. A ship at sea produces waves in its macrocosm, while a photon cannot do so because, according to aether deniers, its macrocosm is perfectly empty.]

TSW:  "Einstein‘s light is a microcosm without a macrocosm. This is why he was opposed to the idea of ether ..."

BW: I can provide a dozen Einstein quotes in which he says it *must* exist, but that his formulation doesn't require (or allow) us to measure or quantify any features of the aether medium. As I've pointed out before, SR was just a convenient way to evade the results of the M-M experiment and preserve light as a wave.

[GB: Right, he mentioned that in a famous speech in 1920. It fell on unreceptive ears, and like he said and you repeated, relativity did not require aether. Moreover, as you mentioned before, relativity was not about reality. Note that the Michelson and Morley (1887) experiment was a test of a fixed aether. An entrained aether like the one that Steve and I include in our “Universal Cycle Theory” would not have been detected near sea level. The idea for fixed aether was born of the indeterministic assumption of separability, which opposes the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Even today, various speculators continue to imagine fixed aether models, sometimes including highly regular, fixed fence-like features. In a way, relativity implied that a fixed reference frame was impossible—all things in the universe were moving with respect to all other things. This is one thing we can agree with Einstein (unless one is a finite particle theorist).]

TSW:  "... Morley, Michelson, and Dayton Miller ... performed numerous experiments ... with much improved apparatus. Many were done at high altitude under reduced shielding, which increased the effect dramatically ... Voluminous evidence was compiled in favor of ether drift."

BW: M-M and Miller concluded exactly the same thing: no detection of known planetary motion. M-M thought they had found a tiny effect, about one fortieth of their prediction, but Miller explicitly said Earth motion "could not be identified in the curves of observation." He did report a tiny cosmologic drift, "incompatible with zero", toward the constellation Dorado, which also happens to be the South Ecliptic Pole, suggesting that the deviation was simply an effect of cyclical ecliptic tilts.

[GB: Check again. Miller’s work showed about 10 km/s at the highest elevation. Here is Figure 8-2 from TSW (p. 202) that I prepared from aether measurements:

Note that the velocity measured is a function of the square root of the altitude. The data suggest that the expected motion of Earth around the sun (30 km/s) would not be detectable until the stratosphere was reached.]

TSW:  "... unheralded experiments in the Ukraine by Y. M. Galaev once again confirmed Miller’s detection of the ether."

BW: He only confirmed the tiny cosmologic drift found by Miller. Both results have been highly disputed and neither has been confirmed by any modern experiment. Aether "entrainment" was disproved by Feynman, since the friction would require that the Earth's orbital velocity would have been reduced by 20% since the planet's formation ... clearly not possible.

[GB: Galaev’s work is not all that old: 2002. Please let me know of any “modern” experiment that falsified Galaev. I doubt this, since aether research is not really a hotbed of activity among aether deniers of the regressive physics community. I am not familiar with the assumptions used by Feynman, but it seems clear that Earth’s entrained baryonic atmosphere contributes little to reductions in orbital velocity. Figure 8-2 indicates that aether does not respond to gravitation in the same way that nitrogen and oxygen of the atmosphere does.]

TSW:  "4. Like the atmosphere, the density of the etherosphere increases with nearness to the surface of the earth."

BW: This is a direct contradiction of your statement in the Neomechanical Gravitation Theory paper, which says "The activity and density of free aether particles are greatest in the so-called vacuum of intergalactic space ..." You can't have it both ways.

[GB: Good catch Bill. I now suspect that the apparent contradiction is due to the properties of entrainment and the method of measurement rather than the density, which is what I thought it to be in 2007. As mentioned, the entrainment is not a simple function of gravitation as is apparent for the atmosphere (Figure 8-2). This makes sense because aether_-1 particles are the producers of the gravitation of baryonic matter. Any gravitation of aether_-1 particles would be produced by aether_-2 particles in a similar manner. In the second edition, I would change the word “density” to “entrainment” in that sentence.]   

TSW:  "5. Like all wave motion, the velocity of light in ether is not constant, but varies as a function of ether density, temperature, viscosity, and elasticity."

BW: Although you discuss density, you never describe any of the other characteristics. Of course, it's difficult to do that for objects that have never been detected. You're simply assuming that the aether is similar to water, air, and other media ... as has been done for decades.

Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 2 of 3)

cotsw 040