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: ".
TSW: "The conventional interpretation sees the redshift as a result of the relative motion of the observer and the observed ..."
BW: Which is very strange, because SR [Special Relativity Theory] stipulates a SOL [speed of light] that is independent of the velocity of the emitter. If c is a constant, then there shouldn't be ANY Doppler shift at all. I've never seen an explanation that reconciles SR with redshift.
[GB: Good point. This is
another of the many logical contradictions in Special Relativity Theory. In addition, the Doppler shift only can occur for wave
motion in a medium. Regressive physicists continue to ignore the evidence for
an aether medium. For instance, the light from the first galaxy discovered,
Andromeda, is blueshifted—an obvious proof that the Doppler shift occurs for
light and that aether therefore must exist.]
TSW: Asimov: "... if it were indeed losing energy in this fashion, no one could offer a reasonable explanation as to what became of that energy."
BW: Which is the problem with any wave theory of light: the media not only slows, it also disperses the energy in every kinetic collision of its component particles. If light is a wave in an aether media, the night sky should be a uniform shade of dark red, with no stars visible.
[GB: It is also a problem
with any corpuscular theory of light. No microcosm can travel from source to
observer without encountering other microcosms that absorb some of its motion.
Even if light were a photon, the many photons from all the various light
sources would collide with each other diminishing the motion of each of them.
This points to the special characteristics of aether particles that I
speculated upon in comments to my Blog of August
28, 2013:
“As mentioned early on, I
assume Planck’s equation to be indicative of “the smallest unit of motion”
(i.e., the collision produced by a single photon or aether particle)… Like
Planck, I assume that this single collision occurs at a velocity of c according to the equation: E = hv.
This assumption implies that the E in the above equation is also equivalent to mc2, which yields a photon or
aether mass of 7.362 X 10-48 g [The actual value could be half this
if we use the equation for kinetic energy (1/2 mv2)]. That result
poses serious implications for further speculation.
The known electron mass is
9.109 X 10-28 g. The known classical electron radius is 2.8179 X 10-13
cm. Thus, the volume of the electron would be 9.3727 X 10-38 cm3.
This yields an electron density of 0.97186 X 1010 g/cm3,
with the number of photons or aether particles being 1.2373 X 1020
in the aether vortex I hypothesized for the structure of the electron at the
end of my E=mc2 paper
published in 2009. All this fits with the extremely small size and high density
that Steve and I consider necessary for the aether model we hypothesized in our
2011 book.”
If the electron density
really is 1010 g/cm3, then the density of aether
particles is many magnitudes greater even though their mass is only about 10-48
g. This high density probably is why light transmission is so efficient. While
we don’t hypothesize that the aether microcosm contains “solid matter,” there
seems to be only a small amount of “empty space” within. The submicrocosmic
absorption of motion probably would be nearly nil and probably would not be
observed for less than intergalactic distances. In any case, we cannot presume
that aether particles have the same properties as the baryonic complexes formed
from them.]
TSW: Olbers: "Why is the sky dark at night?
In an infinite universe with perfect light transmission, any line of sight in any direction would encounter a star. The night sky would be wholly lit up."
BW: Not true. Light is a radial emission, so the further away the star, the weaker the incident energy on Earth. The only paradox is when light is considered a "transmitted" wave, as noted. There's no problem for a light particle to travel forever in a (mostly) vacant (imperfect) vacuum.
[GB: No. As with all
paradoxes, this one contains an incorrect assumption: “perfect light
transmission.” The diminishment of light with distance would occur whether it
was a wave or particle. No microcosm can travel through the macrocosm without
losses per neomechanics. Similarly, no wave motion can travel through the
macrocosm without losses per neomechanics. That is why an unfueled vehicle
stops on its way from LA to Chicago and why LA’s earthquakes are not felt in
Chicago.]
TSW: "... in electromagnetic theory a return
to some form of the ether is necessary."
BW: Not at all. It just requires an energetic particle with structure and motion that produces wave-like effects. Maxwell considered light a "corpuscle" and Ritz explained the correct theory for light emission ... which is the only one compatible with redshift.
BW: Not at all. It just requires an energetic particle with structure and motion that produces wave-like effects. Maxwell considered light a "corpuscle" and Ritz explained the correct theory for light emission ... which is the only one compatible with redshift.
[GB: Read “Universal Cycle
Theory” on this subject. Sorry, but a single particle without a macrocosm cannot
produce “wave-like effects,” as I have explained many times before. Without the
aether, your single particle is like a ship without a sea. See my November
28, 2012 Blog on this in which Morgan Freeman grovels over the
wave-particle duality paradox even though the macrocosmic waves are right in front
of his eyes.]
TSW: Engels: "If the ether offers resistance at all, it must also offer resistance to light, and so at a certain distance be impenetrable to light."
BW: Correct, but he was just echoing Olbers. This is an argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. Engels was primarily a political philosopher, not a scientist.
TSW: Engels: "If the ether offers resistance at all, it must also offer resistance to light, and so at a certain distance be impenetrable to light."
BW: Correct, but he was just echoing Olbers. This is an argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. Engels was primarily a political philosopher, not a scientist.
[GB: Bill, you seem to have gotten this mixed up. By incorrectly assuming “perfect light transmission,” one might conclude that the night sky is dark because the universe is finite. Light from distant stars does not reach us because there aren’t any. As mentioned, this deduction is true for both corpuscular and wave theories. In those days (1823 for Olbers and 1883 for Engels), aether denial had not raised its ugly head. Engels, whether scientist, philosopher, or just one of us, was prescient in his analysis of the situation, although the “if the ether offers resistance at all” part shows a bit of unwarranted uncertainty about what wave motion entails.]
TSW: Dirac: "We may very well have an ether
... provided we are willing to consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized
state, not attainable in practice."
BW: Another argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. There can't be a "perfect vacuum" that is occupied by an idealized aether with ZERO resistance to light and PERFECT transmission. The particle theory doesn't require a perfect vacuum, just mostly vacant space.
BW: Another argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. There can't be a "perfect vacuum" that is occupied by an idealized aether with ZERO resistance to light and PERFECT transmission. The particle theory doesn't require a perfect vacuum, just mostly vacant space.
[GB: Huh? What part of
“idealized state” don’t you get? He is saying that we must choose between
aether or an imagined perfect vacuum. He says nothing about the properties of
the aether medium. Where does he hypothesize ideal zero resistance and perfect
transmission for aether?]
Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 3 of 3)
cotsw 041
Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 3 of 3)
cotsw 041
Posts
10 comments:
[GB: It is also a problem with any corpuscular theory of light. No microcosm can travel from source to observer without encountering other microcosms that absorb some of its motion. Even if light were a photon, the many photons from all the various light sources would collide with each other diminishing the motion of each of them. This points to the special characteristics of aether particles that I speculated upon in comments to my Blog of August 28, 2013:
{Photons are real but have no rest mass. That is why they do not interact with other photons at ordinary energy levels. You cannot compare photons and particles. That is why I suggest to the physics community that they label things as particles if they have rest mass, bosons as photons or virtual photons, and leave photons as wave-like things. It is only when photons encounter mass particles that there is an interaction. Whether photons react to gravity is still a problem for me, but then I seem to be among the few that realize that gravity is a mass phenomen. The field provides the kind of ocscillation that makes “mass.” Therefore, I advocate a field oriented view. Then it is easier to see the relation between mass and field. More mass more gravity. Photons have no rest mass, therefore do not interact with other photons at ordinary energy levels. }
bligh
“As mentioned early on, I assume Planck’s equation to be indicative of “the smallest unit of motion” (i.e., the collision produced by a single photon or aether particle)… Like Planck, I assume that this single collision occurs at a velocity of c according to the equation: E = hv. This assumption implies that the E in the above equation is also equivalent to mc2, which yields a photon or aether mass of 7.362 X 10-48 g [The actual value could be half this if we use the equation for kinetic energy (1/2 mv2)]. That result poses serious implications for further speculation.
{Isn’t all the energy in a photon KE in the forward longitudinal direction and all the other energy is Frequency energy? This latter energy is due to oscillation in the field due to previous causes.}
The known electron mass is 9.109 X 10-28 g. The known classical electron radius is 2.8179 X 10-13cm. Thus, the volume of the electron would be 9.3727 X 10-38 cm3. This yields an electron density of 0.97186 X 1010 g/cm3, with the number of photons or aether particles being 1.2373 X 1020in the aether vortex I hypothesized for the structure of the electron at the end of my E=mc2 paper published in 2009. All this fits with the extremely small size and high density that Steve and I consider necessary for the aether model we hypothesized in our 2011 book.”
{The “Ether Model” I do not think I have read, but “ether” should be “matter” to you. Correct? If so, explain the qualities of matter. I don’t think you have other than making them “particles” of infinitesimal size? And if that is what matter is, then explain where motion comes from. Both of these are explained in my Field Oscillation model.}
If the electron density really is 1010 g/cm3, then the density of aether particles is many magnitudes greater even though their mass is only about 10-48g. This high density probably is why light transmission is so efficient. While we don’t hypothesize that the aether microcosm contains “solid matter,” there seems to be only a small amount of “empty space” within.
{“empty space” qualifies nicely for the “field.”}
The submicrocosmic absorption of motion probably would be nearly nil and probably would not be observed for less than intergalactic distances. In any case, we cannot presume that aether particles have the same properties as the baryonic complexes formed from them.]
{Right! They are derivative, so they share some properties, the more foundational ones.}
BW: Not true. Light is a radial emission, so the further away the star, the weaker the incident energy on Earth.
{But only a bundle of photons will lose some photons, therefore incident energy on Earth. A single photon could theoretically cross the universe without losing energy.”}The only paradox is when light is considered a "transmitted" wave, as noted. There's no problem for a light particle to travel forever in a (mostly) vacant (imperfect) vacuum.
{And that is the argument about BBT. Either photons lose KE, or Frequency, or both due to drag in the field, or not. But to make up new volumes of “space” is philosophically bogus. To materialists anyway. I say photons lose energy through tired light by interactions or by “drag” effects from the field that has to account for their energy.}
[GB: No. As with all paradoxes, this one contains an incorrect assumption: “perfect light transmission.” The diminishment of light with distance would occur whether it was a wave or particle. No microcosm can travel through the macrocosm without losses per neomechanics. Similarly, no wave motion can travel through the macrocosm without losses per neomechanics. That is why an unfueled vehicle stops on its way from LA to Chicago and why LA’s earthquakes are not felt in Chicago.]
{Agree, either “particles” or “wave” energies.}
[GB: Bill, you seem to have gotten this mixed up. By incorrectly assuming “perfect light transmission,” one might conclude that the night sky is dark because the universe is finite. Light from distant stars does not reach us because there aren’t any. As mentioned, this deduction is true for both corpuscular and wave theories. In those days (1823 for Olbers and 1883 for Engels), aether denial had not raised its ugly head. Engels, whether scientist, philosopher, or just one of us, was prescient in his analysis of the situation, although the “if the ether offers resistance at all” part shows a bit of unwarranted uncertainty about what wave motion entails.]
{Right! I say that there is no known perfect permanent energy deposition in the vacuum, or field. Energy transforms eventually. That is acknowledgement of a return to the field, where it can be transformed back again in recognizable forms or other hidden forms, such as virtual photons. Virtual photons are just hidden energy in the field. Call it matter or matter in motion, all the same thing. An oscillation field is matter in motion, if you want to use those terms. I prefer oscillations of wave-like forms and oscillations of particle-like forms.}
TSW: Dirac: "We may very well have an ether ... provided we are willing to consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice."
{No one, including Dirac, Aristotle or the three of us can know whether or not a vacuum field can exist in an idealized neutral or balanced state in some parts of the universe. I say, along with Aristotle that it does. That would be Aristotle’s Potential, and (mine) or others zero point energy. Just a small area of balanced field with contribution to particles or field. This of course, is foreign to those who consider particles or matter primary in the sense that their motion “makes” field. Ok, say that or consider that, but I say then explain motion to me. My theory takes care of all contingencies.}
[GB: Huh? What part of “idealized state” don’t you get? He is saying that we must choose between aether or an imagined perfect vacuum. He says nothing about the properties of the aether medium. Where does he hypothesize ideal zero resistance and perfect transmission for aether?]
{if we choose an aether, which would be rational as opposed to a “nothing” which is irrational, then I still say there can be areas of the aether (vacuum, field) without photons or particles. A neutral part of the field. I doubt Dirac would argue with this today, if he did indeed a while back.}
Post a Comment