Download Dr. Charles William Lucas

Dr. Charles William Lucas
Common Sense Science http://www.commonsensescience.org/
www.k1man.com/Lucas130114A.pdf The God Particle – Alan Montgemery
Creationists Should Not Accept Quantum Mechanics www.k1man.com/Lucas130114B.pdf
A New Foundation For Modern Physics www.k1man.com/Lucas130114C.pdf
A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles – Part 1 www.k1man.com/Lucas130503A.pdf
Historical Models of the Atom www.k1man.com/Lucas130505A.pdf
Chapter 3: Structuralism – The Key To Reality and Meaning in Science
www.k1man.com/Lucas130812A.pdf
Chapter 1: Mach’s Principle and The Concept of Mass www.k1man.com/Lucas130819A.pdf
http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/06/16/the-return-of-lucas-recap-corr-june15-2006/
Criticism of Dr. Lucas
Speaker:
Charles William Lucas
www.k1man.com/Lucas.pdf
Dr. Charles William Lucas
About
Physicist
Interests: Universal Electrodynamic Force, Nuclear Structure, Atomic Structure, Elementary
Particle Structure, Molecular Structure, Force of Gravity, Force of Inertia, Origin of Life at
Molecular Level, Unificat Age: 71
Dr. Charles Lucas earned his doctorate in Intermediate Energy Physics from The College of
William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1972 and then performed post-graduate research
on pions at Catholic University in Washington, DC. He has derived a universal electro-dynamic
force law that describes physical phenomena on all size scales throughout the universe including
what he terms "the pulse of life," on the molecular scale and a new paradigm for medicine. Using
the universal force law he has refined the ring model to describe the complete set of elementary
particles, their decay schemes, reactions, and excited states by introducing the classical concept
of stable elementary particles being composed of primary, secondary and tertiary level three
dimensional closed strings that reflect the chiral symmetry of the universal force. This classical
model conserves energy, total number of charge strings, and unique angular momentum
configurations of the primary strings in all decays and reactions.
Dr. Lucas met David Bergman in 1990, and their collaboration led to the founding of Common
Sense Science in 1997. Many of Lucas's most groundbreaking papers were published in CSS's
journal, Foundations of Science.
Bill is a frequent speaker at science conferences and has been featured in many programs by
Cornerstone TV on a syndicated program titled "Origins." In 2007 Bill presented a three credit
45 hour college course on creation at the International Baptist Bible College of Ukraine in
Russian based on the universal force being identified from the Bible as the Divine force. From
the universal force alone Bill was able to describe many aspects of the creation, the mechanism
causing Noah's flood, what happened to all the water after the flood, and what caused the
division of the continents 101 years later. In 2008 Bill spoke at VA Tech on "The Expansion of
the Earth due to the Decay of Gravity".
Mach’s Principle and the Anomalous Acceleration on Pioneer 10 and 11
NASA has measured an anomalous acceleration o on the Pioneer 10 and 11 space craft that is
unexplainable in terms of politically correct science. This presentation will show that the same
electrodynamic approach to gravity and inertia that explained the unexpectedly high constant
velocity of the outer arms of spiral galaxies also explains the anomalous acceleration measured
on Pioneer 10 and 11 space craft when Mach’s Principle is applied.
Click on www.k1man.com/Lucas140201.mp3
Significance of Quantized Red Shifts www.k1man.com/Lucas130928A.pdf
The theory of relativity was developed under the existential philosophy of science. This philosophy of
science does not support the notion of truth. Its supporters deliberately removed the logical or axiomatic
foundation that had undergird science for over 2000 years and directed it toward truth. Logical rigor is no
longer required in the existential and postmodern philosophies of science. It is no longer a part of its
scientific method. Any assumptions or ideas may be used as hypotheses in science as long as some data
supports their predictions. Falsification of predictions by experimental data is the only criterion for
evaluation of theories. If every assumption or idea in a theory is false, but it can be used to predict some
experimental data, the theory is fine.
We are quibbling over some aspects of relativity theory that are not true. So what! The mainstream does
not follow our rules for doing science. It does not believe in truth.
If we want to make some changes in science, we need to attack the mainstream scientific method and
philosophy and replace it with something better. Quibbling over individual theories such as relativity
theory, quantum mechanics, Maxwell's electrodynamics, evolution theory, ... will not accomplish much in
the long run. We need to confront the real issue!!
The theory of relativity was developed under the existential philosophy of science. This philosophy of
science does not support the notion of truth. Its supporters deliberately removed the logical or axiomatic
foundation that had undergird science for over 2000 years and directed it toward truth. Logical rigor is no
longer required in the existential and postmodern philosophies of science. It is no longer a part of its
scientific method. Any assumptions or ideas may be used as hypotheses in science as long as some data
supports their predictions. Falsification of predictions by experimental data is the only criterion for
evaluation of theories. If every assumption or idea in a theory is false, but it can be used to predict some
experimental data, the theory is fine.
We are quibbling over some aspects of relativity theory that are not true. So what! The mainstream does
not follow our rules for doing science. It does not believe in truth.
If we want to make some changes in science, we need to attack the mainstream scientific method and
philosophy and replace it with something better. Quibbling over individual theories such as relativity
theory, quantum mechanics, Maxwell's electrodynamics, evolution theory, ... will not accomplish much in
the long run. We need to confront the real issue!
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
[email protected]
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: Chan Rasjid <[email protected]>
Cc: Relativity googlegroups.com <[email protected]>; Al McDowell
<[email protected]>; Patriot293 <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
<[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; Lou
LaFollette <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Aug 28, 2014 4:43 pm
Subject: Re: Photons - what do toroids have to do with it?
All the experimental data on the electron from accelerator scattering
experiments and the Penning trap indicate that the electron has a magnetic
moment and a second spin magnetic moment. These are incompatible
with a spherical electron. The simplest geometrical structure that can
support both is a continuous spinning charge going around the
circumference of a toroid and also simultaneously around the cross section
of the toroid forming a spring like a slinky with its ends connected together.
Bill
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Chan Rasjid <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Franklin,
I have just casually gone through this:
"Inertial Mass of Charged Elementary Particles", David L. Bergman.
I find the article very interesting. It is based on the toroidal ring charge model for fundamental charge
particles - electron, positron, proton, anti-proton. Bill Lucas's work is also based on this.
Inertia is one of the greatest mystery of classical physics. The related inertial mass of matter exist
because it had to be assumed to be an intrinsic property of matter. Until now, no other theory can give an
explanation - neither QM nor the Standard Model. That Bergman could come out with any model, in itself,
that explain inertia is already a very great achievement. That it is based only on the known laws of
electrodynamics should never be an issue.
As long as the model works (to explain inertia), it is acceptable. The laws of electrodynamics are general;
it works everywhere until they are found to have restricted domains. Lucas & Bergman cannot be
expected to explain
everything in physics, e.g. including electric charge. To explain the electric charge, it falls on our
shoulders - you and me !
You wrote:
"...Certainly it is much simpler than postulation the existence of toroid electron structures. I would think
that such an asymmetric object as a toroid would have shown up in the copious scattering experiments
done on electrons
- but we see nothing like that - an electron acts as a completely symmetric spherical object
experimentally. You have to account for that massive experimental contradiction to your theory."
I know nothing of the physics, but I am not sure that the asymmetric nature of toroid as an electron's
structure should show up. Isn't the size of the structure too small to reveal anything? When the toroidal
rings all rotate randomly at the speed of light, they may "look and feel" symmetrical!
Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:45:56 AM UTC+8, Franklin Hu wrote:
One point that I was trying to make in the conference is that the toroidal ring structure relies intimately on
the action of the electric and magnetic forces. However, (and correct me if I'm wrong), you have no actual
causal mechanism to explain how the electric charge and magnetic fields actually work. You simply use
the formulas and assume that they can work at the dimensions of an electron.
The reason why this may be important is that it is possible that the nature of the electric and magnetic
fields may rule out their use on the dimensions of an electron. If you were to believe my mechanical
explanation for charge as just being a phased wave interaction, then it should be quite obvious that the
attraction/repelling force can only occur within the media of space which is itself composed of positrons
and electrons. Such a force cannot exist internally within an electron which has no such internal medium.
Similarly, the magnetic field cannot exist on the dimensions of the positron/electron since it is the
orientation of the poselectron dipole particle that defines the magnetic field.
That is all speculation on my part, but it demonstrates that if you cannot explain the causal mechanisms
behind charge and magnetism and instead just hide behind blackboard equations, you are making a
potentially bad "assumption" that these forces are good down to the sub-electron level. You are
fundamentally basing your theory on forces you don't understand and have no explanation for. I don't
think anything real can have infinite "smallness" as equations would imply and that nature is
fundamentally quantum in the sense that things can't get infinitely small.
I am still seeking an appropriate model of the positron and electron since I make no particular claim about
their structure except that they should be able to resonate. They could be shaped like a ball or could
literally be shaped like the Liberty bell - as long as it can ring and put waves out into the surrounding
medium. An electric "field" has to consist of something "physical". You just can't write equations on the
board and say good enough - it works that way. That is why I setup a physical field of poselectron dipole
particles and I setup physical waves that travel through that medium. Nothing could be simpler. Certainly
it is much simpler than postulation the existence of toroid electron structures. I would think that such an
asymmetric object as a toroid would have shown up in the copious scattering experiments done on
electrons - but we see nothing like that - an electron acts as a completely symmetric spherical object
experimentally. You have to account for that massive experimental contradiction to your theory.
-Franklin
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
Cc: Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; HARRY
RICKER <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Lou LaFollette <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Photons
I think that one point needs to be made. The toroidal ring model of elementary particles enables
the physical model to predict the value of Planck's constant h from a balance of electric and
magnetic forces in the toroidal ring structure. The result was first derived by Bergman and
Wesley. Attached is a copy of their paper. Quantum mechanics can not predict the value of h.
It takes it from experiment. Should not the physical theory that predicts the value of h be given
precedence over the mathematical theory that cannot?
Also, since the continuous charge in the toroidal ring is moving at the velocity of light, the
velocity of the wave does not go from zero to c instantaneously upon emission or vice-versa on
absorption. It is always moving at c.
Bill
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
All,
Here are a few things about which we can probably agree:
1. EM radiation accelerates instantly to c when it originates and decelerates instantly to a dead stop when it
terminates. If EM radiation had mass, this would require infinite energy. Therefore, EM radiation does not have mass
that travels with it.
2. EM radiation flows through other EM radiation without colliding to change direction. This confirms that EM radiation
does not carry mass as it travels.
3. With no traveling mass, EM radiation must be a "wave," which we have found to consist of oscillating orthogonal
electric and magnetic fields that have a frequency and wavelength whose product equals the speed of light, modified
by the local index of refraction of the material through which the waves travel.
4. Light makes shadows, showing that it travels in "rays" that retain their narrow width as they travel.
5. Light originates with electrons that lose energy when they emit light and gain energy as they receive light.
Therefore, light transfers energy from one electron to another, even though no mass travels with the light. We
probably agree that the electric and magnetic "fields" in the light conduct the energy, but I may be alone in believing
that the "fields" consist of oscillating particles of aether mass that do not travel with the waves.
6. Each electron can only emit or receive a finite amount of energy at a time. This implies that the light emitted or
received by an electron has a beginning and an end in time, which causes a beginning and an end in the spatial
length of the light wave emitted or received by a single electron.
7. Radio waves continue to emit as long as alternating voltage is supplied to the antenna. Thus waves from antennas
are not photons. Nevertheless, antennas the size of electron orbits may receive light traveling in finite lengths.
8. The refraction and diffraction of light is logically explained by long-standing analyses based on light wavelength.
9. Here is where we may begin to disagree. Einstein's wife demonstrated that light is received in photodetectors in
discreet chunks of energy that are equal to Planck's constant times light frequency. In these experiments, electrons
are released from the conduction bands of the atoms of a metal and then must travel against a voltage to cause
current between the anode and cathode. When the voltage is increased to the point that no current flows. the voltage
tells us the energy in the released electrons is no longer enough to overcome the voltage. This condition is a function
of only the monochromatic light frequency and the voltage and is not affected by changing the intensity of the light.
Likewise, when the light frequency is reduced to the point that no current flows at zero voltage, this is the frequency
of light that pushes electrons out of the conduction band but without any additional energy (velocity) to create current.
This energy level is called the "work function" for that photoelectric material. At the point of measuring the work
function, increases in light intensity do not produce current. Pushing electrons out of the conduction band and moving
them against an electric field are a function of light frequency, not intensity, demonstrating the photon nature of light
and measuring Planck's constant.
10. To me, the big question behind the nature of photons is how the electric and magnetic fields in the photons are
structured to carry energy like a soliton in a constrained size of wave. We can probably agree that light is created by
orbiting charge in electrons and / or the orbiting of electrons around an atom, and we can probably agree that the
electron orbits create the fields in the photons, but we are left with the question of the nature of the fields. The
universal view is that the fields are non-physical energy that conveys force without having any mass, which seems
above and beyond the physics that we understand. Rather than describing fields in mechanical terms that we can
understand, we have chosen not to imagine what the fields are.
Al
Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 3:32 pm
Subject: Dr. Bill Lucas - Catholic University
From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. www.k1man.com
Date: 12 February 2014
I am still waiting to receive Dr. Lucas' book that I have ordered. I really don't follow what he is saying
about Special Relativity in his paper with the same title as that book. www.k1man.com/Lucas130503A.pdf
I believe he argues that his approach will arrive at the same results as Special Relativity. See also
www.k1man.com/Lucas.pdf
Here are some of Dr. Lucas' assumptions published at www.k1man.com/NeoClassicalPhysics.pdf
[BL] I took the six empirical laws of electrodynamics and solved them simultaneously without any
idealizations to obtain a more general electrodynamic force law. From this more generalelectrodynamic
force law, I showed that all Special Relativistic effects are not due to the theory of relativity, but are
electrical feedback effects on finite sizeelectrodynamic structures.
[BL] Furthermore I showed that all quantum effects in electrodynamics are due to standing wave or
antenna effects in finite size structures inside elementary particles such as the electron.
[BL] This was confirmed by my superiorelectrodynamic theory of the atom explaining atomic emission
spectra that the relativistic Dirac equation could not explain.
[RB] Your work was –and is – awesome, a major contribution to MS refutation. .
The model isn’t complete , however, until the detailed computation of the stable
atomic extrema for electron locations from the EM laws is published. The value of
your work is also fragmented by being described in periodic newsletters.
[BL] Next I derived the hierarchy of electrodynamicforce effects and discovered that the force of inertia
was due to theelectrodynamic force between a single charge and a vibrating neutral electric dipole. This
enabled the inertial mass to be defined electrodynamically. This was confirmed by the prediction of many
phenomena not previously explained including the unusual gyroscope experiments of Eric Laithwaite.
[BL] Finally I discovered that the force of gravity was due to the electrodynamic force between vibrating
neutral electric dipoles. This was confirmed by explaining the quantization of gravity as expressed
empirically by the the modern version of Bode's Law as developed by Stanley Dermott. Also the
gravitational mass was defined electrodynamically.
[BL] Based on these results above, I was able to show by induction that the general electrodynamic force
law is the universal force. The interior structure of elementary particles, atoms, nuclei, molecules, crystals,
flowers, leaves, animal bodies, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and the universe as a whole was
found have the same symmetry as the universal force law. This symmetry of the structure on all size
scales in the universe is a sign that further confirms this approach.
[RB]I think it would be useful to consider your EM models at a higher level of
abstraction… viz., the aether laws. That would have a potential to further unify the
CSS advances. I assume that you would subscribe to the six axioms of realism as
amended..
[BL] The 5 false assumptions of Special Relativity
[BL] 1. Universe is homogeneous and isotropic idealization
Observations of our solar system and the Milky Way galaxy clearly show that the universe is not
homogeneous and isotropic. There are lumps of matter and stars. The cosmic background radiation
redshifts and blueshifts show that the universe has a center. This idealization requires that the universe
be infinite in size with no center. Our solar system has a finite size, the Milky Way galaxy has a finite size,
the cosmic background radiation shows that the universe obeys the modern version of Bode's law by
Stanley Dermott just like our solar system supporting the notion of a finite size universe.
[BL] 2. Point particle idealization
Many people do not realize that the equations of special relativity are only valid for point particles. Robert
Hofstadter received the Nobel Prize in 1961 for measuring the finite size and internal structure of the
proton and neutron. Since that time the finite size and internal structure have been measured by
scattering experiments for nearly all the elementary particles in nature.
[BL] 3. Inertial reference frame idealization
An inertial reference frames is one that is moving at constant velocity. There are no inertial reference
frames in the universe. No scientist has ever measured anything in an inertial reference frame. Since the
earth rotates on its axis and orbits around the sun which orbits around the center of the Milky W ay galaxy
which orbits around the center of the universe.
[BL] 4. Constancy of the velocity of light in all inertial reference frames idealization
Light is a wave that travels through space. It's velocity is affected by the electromagnetic fields of all
matter around it. For instance as light travels through a material like glass it slows down. The experiments
of Hooper have shown that light travels in the electric and magnetic fields of charged particles which
extend to great distances and have tensile strength. The speed of light is impeded by the presence of
electromagnetic fields from matter. Thus the speed of light in a vacuum increases the farther the light is
from the center of the universe where the impedance of the fields from matter diminishes.
[BL] 5. Maxwellian electrodynamics idealization
Maxwell's electrodynamics is based on 4 of the 6 empirical equations of electrodynamics. Since there are
more unknown variables in those equations than there are equations, Maxwell used a number of
idealizations in order to obtain a solution. These included the point particle idealization, the linear
superposition idealization that all interactions in nature are only linear in the fields (lasers are non-linear),
no conservation of energy, no conservation of momentum, Newton's 3rd law violated. These things were
omitted from Maxwell's equations, because Lenz's empirical law was omitted. Thus Maxwell's equations
are incomplete. The theories of special relativity and the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics
were invented to supplement Maxwell's incomplete version of electrodynamics. Poincare proved from
metatheory that these add-on theories are not fundamental, because no two fundamental theories can
use the same fundamental constants. Since they all use c, only one of them can be fundamental or "true".
Poincare argued that the fundamental theory should be electrodynamics and Maxwell's electrodynamics
should be improved or made more complete such that these other theories are no longer needed.
Maxwellian electrodynamics employs another idealization known as the vector potential. The vector
potential is a construct from vector calculus. It is not a physical thing such as the energy potential from
conservation of energy. A physical potential would be unique. The vector potential is not unique but can
include an arbitrary gradient of a scalar function. This leads to additional arbitrary idealizations known as
gauges.
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
[email protected]
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: Nov 25 Teleconference
Bill
Thanks for your reply. If you have a chance before the meeting (sorry for my delay in
asking this), can you explain "Spatial coherence for stability requires" or send a picture. "The R x (R x
V) and R x (R x A) terms in the electrodynamic force" would seem to be continuous and, not having
studied the topology of toroidal rings, I don't see why toroidal ring paths would be inherently
quantizied.
Nick.
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Nov 25 Teleconference
Nick,
The conceptual physical explanation of quantization in toroidal rings of electrons and orbits of planets is
the R x (R x V) and R x (R x A) terms in the electrodynamic force. Spatial coherence for stability
requires that quantization occur when spiraling around the surface of a toroidal
ring. The electron consists of a spiraling orbit of continuous charge around a toroidal ring like a closed
toroidal spring. The orbits of the planets about the sun are the same with only one spiral around the
cross section of the toroidal ring in one revolution of the toroidal ring.
Bill
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote:
Bill
In your theory, what is the conceptual, physical explanation (in English) of quantized orbits?
Thanks
Nick
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Nov 25 Teleconference
Attached are sample graphical fits of Stanley Dermott's version of
Bode's Law.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]>
wrote:
All,
As suggested, there are three related subjects that can be discussed next week, with plenty of
opportunity for spinning off into other subjects.
First, I suggest we start with a brief description of the Bodes's Law issues. Stanley Dermott,
Tom Van Flandern, and Zecharia Sitchin all modified Bodes's Law for the relative ranges or
periods of the planets, and they all found that there appears to be a missing planet between
Mars and Jupiter. All three guys plugged the hole with the Asteroid Belt. Van Flandern added in
the comets. Their explanations for the cause of the Asteroid Belt and how it relates to Earth are
somewhat different and interesting.
Second, All four versions of Bodes's Law indicate a clear periodicity in the distance and period
of the planets. Bill attributes this to gravity quantification. I believe Bill also relates this
phenomenon to W.G. Tifft and other astronomers who find periodicity in galaxy distances as
indicated by redshift. While Bode's Law indicates that planet distances follow a 2^N distance
pattern from the Sun, Tifft finds that galaxies follow a 2^M 3^N distance pattern, where M and N
are integers. For our discussion, we might brainstorm ideas for how gravity might be quantized
to create these phenomena. Bill probably has the most, or only, ideas here. However, for
example, I can imagine that this effect would occur if the early solar system material were
distributed with a random range of orbital velocities and if solar system gravity were quantized in
intensity by the 2^N rule. I do not have quantization in my gravity theory, but the question for
discussion is whether and how this might occur.
Third, the broader question is: What is a "field?" There seem to be two choices--either material
as I believe or immaterial as we have all been taught. I think we all agree that fields apply force
to visible matter. We probably agree that fields would apply force to invisible matter, like Dark
Matter if it existed, or like the aether if it existed. I think that we would agree that anything that
might resemble the aether should produce the effects of an electric, magnetic, or gravity field.
Or maybe we wouldn't agree on these fundamentals of fields.
Perhaps the most interesting issues might be possible concepts of an immaterial field. Is this
like a wave? If so, can there be a wave without a medium to conduct the wave? Could a field
propagate at infinite speed? Intelligence and immaterial fields seem to be the only things that
we think might have no material or physical presence. Can there be intelligence without a
physical processor or memory without a storage medium? Where and how is our memory
stored in our brain? Our DNA only sequences a couple of dozen amino acids. Where is the data
that tells our DNA how to make the amino acids or to assemble them into cells, or how to decide
what kind of cell to build, or how to operate our immune system, etc.?
Our science seems to involve only the things we can see and touch. The unseen and
untouchable aspects of reality may be far more numerous, far faster, far smaller, and far more
powerful than we deduce from the relatively few things we can see and touch.
We may not answer these questions in 1.5 hrs, but we need to save a few unanswered
questions for future discussions.
Al
-----Original Message----From: Al McDowell
Sent: Nov 14, 2013 8:21 AM
To: Bill Lucas
Cc: "[email protected]" , HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL ,
Pal Asija , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Impulse
Bill,
One explanation might be that light diffracts when it passes an edge of an obstruction, which the
Moon provided.
Al
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lucas
Sent: Nov 14, 2013 1:26 AM
To: Al McDowell
Cc: "[email protected]" , HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL ,
Pal Asija , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Impulse
Al,
The diffraction of the sun light was most noticeable as diffraction
lines moving on the surface of the earth.
Bill
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]>
wrote:
Bill,
Interesting. Sensing the reduction of gravity seems quite understandable. As you say, this
seems like animals sensing tides or an imminent earthquake. Did the diffraction of
sun light look like rings of color around the Moon or like rings of
varying brightness or ?
Al
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lucas
Sent: Nov 13, 2013 6:23 PM
To: Al McDowell
Cc: "[email protected]" , HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL ,
Pal Asija , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Impulse
Al,
With regard to the gravity of the sun diffracted by the moon, I have
been to the site of a total eclipse of the sun by the moon. There is
definitely a diffraction of regular sun light, but also one can feel
the variations of gravity and all of nature seems to respond to it.
They become much more active. Hunters have long known that animals are
more active when the moon is on the other side of the earth producing
a similar effect.
Bill
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]>
wrote:
Bill,
I am aware of two improvements in the Titus-Bode Law for the relative size and speed of the
planets in our solar system. As you point out, Dermott fills the apparent void where Earth should
lie with the Asteroid Belt.
Zecharia Sitchin, in his book Genesis Revisited on pp. 36-38 also fills the void where Earth
should be with the Asteroid Belt. However, in addition, Sitchin removes Earth from it position
between Venus and Mars to get a simple Law for planet distance from the Sun equal to 36
million miles times two to the power of the number of the planet.. Sitchin believes that a rogue
planet from outside our solar system collided with Earth when it was much earlier where the
Asteroid Belt is now. He believes that the collision pushed Earth to its current lower orbit and
created the Asteroid Belt. Tom Van Flandern argues that our comets have orbits that would
allow them to have been created at the position where this collision with Earth would have
occurred. I believe that this collision created the hole in the Earth crust where the Pacific Ocean
was formed as "the water receded and the dry land appeared."
Although this kind of periodic formation of planets seems natural, I cannot relate it to any
quantization of gravity.
Regarding gravity diffraction by the Moon, I am not aware of this evidence, unless you are
refering to the bumps in the Wang Eclipse experiment.
Al
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lucas
Sent: Nov 13, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Al McDowell
Cc: "[email protected]" , HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL ,
Pal Asija , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Impulse
Al,
With regard to Postulate 7 we know that Newton's laws of gravity are
incomplete, because they do not predict any sort of quantization of
the orbits of planets and moons, but the modern empirical version of
Bode's law by Stanley Dermott clearly shows quantization. See
attachments.
With regard to Postulate 8, if gravity is of electrical origin we
would expect to see diffraction effects as the sun passes behind the
moon as we do.
Bill
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Al McDowell <[email protected]>
wrote:
All,
I have added 7th and 8th hypotheses to the list of gravity hypotheses below.
Al
-----Original Message----From: Al McDowell
Sent: Nov 12, 2013 12:03 PM
To: "[email protected]"
Cc: Bill Lucas , HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , Pal Asija , "P.E.
Glenn A. Baxter" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Impulse
Don et al.,
While on the subject of gravity, let me suggest a couple of hypotheses for your consideration:
First, assuming that all visible matter is made of atoms that are made of protons, neutrons and
electrons, called collectively atomic particles, I hypothesize that gravity occurs between every
atomic particle and every other atomic particle. This means that every individual atomic particle
must simultaneously have a gravity force with every other atomic particle over a range at least
as large as our solar system.
Second, I hypothesize that the gravity force between two objects is the sum of the gravity force
between every atomic particle in one object with every atomic particle in the other object. If two
objects have M and N atomic particles, respectively, the gravity force between the two objects is
the sum of M x N gravity forces between an atomic particle in one object and an atomic particle
in the other object. This means that if we discover the cause of gravity between any two atomic
particles, we will know the cause of gravity between any two objects.
Third, while the cause of gravity force between two atomic particles might be due to some yet
undefined mysterious "field," I hypothesize that this "field" can be explained in terms of some yet
unaccepted physical components and processes. This means that the objective for anyone
wishing to understand gravity must be to discover these components and processes that
produce the appearance of the "field" of gravity. All of the aether, electrodynamic, or other
theories of gravity share this objective.
Fourth, I hypothesize that any explanation of the field of gravity must involve things yet
undefined that occur in the space between any two atomic particles.
Fifth, I hypothesize that the field of gravity does not propagate at infinite speed, meaning that
there is no "action at a distance."
Sixth, binary stars would fly apart unless gravity propagated far faster than light. Experiments
described by Tom Van Flandern show that gravity propagates at least 20 billion times the speed
of light. Unless one can disprove this data, I hypothesize that any gravity field or physical
components must travel at least 20 billion times light speed.
Seventh, I hypothesize that Newton's laws of gravity are correct, which requires that any valid
gravity theory produce Newton's laws of gravity.
Eighth, I hypothesize that the Wang Eclipse and Allais Pendulum experiments show that the
Sun gravity is reduced somewhat as it passes through the Moon on its way to Earth. This
requires that a valid gravity theory must explain gravity attenuation as it passes through mass.
I propose that these hypotheses are a virtual box within which any
gravity theory must be defined. Of course, this is only my opinion,
and I may be wrong.
Al
----Original Message----From: Al McDowell
Sent: Nov 11, 2013 2:18 PM
To: "[email protected]"
Cc: Bill Lucas , HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , Pal Asija , "P.E.
Glenn A. Baxter" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
Subject: Impulse
Don,
As you noted in your teleconference summary, I unintentionally twisted
your word "impulse" into the word "impact." Impulse is defined as a
force acting over a finite time period. The gravity-conducting medium
in my theory involves physical impacts that impart impulses.
I can only imagine that the several electron-positron dipole forms of
aether would conduct gravity continuously rather than by finite
impacts or impulses. If we consider the gravity between two hydrogen
atoms, the proton and electron might be the sources of gravity force,
in which case the force from the electron in one atom would have to be
directed to the proton in the other atom. The only way I can see this
happening is if a chain of positron-electron aether particles
connected the two atoms in two strings. However, this is impractical
because the electrons rotate around the proton in each atom. Bill
Lucas has developed a model for the atom in which the electron does
not orbit the proton, solving this problem.
In my model, the subatomic components of each atom are continually
bombarded with tiny particles of a fast aether gas, which broadcast
gravity in all directions. The gravity is encoded in the spin of the
aether particles.
If we set SR and GR aside, our thoughts about what mystery might
conduct gravity between atoms would turn to these kinds of things. The
objective would be to discover how the "field" of gravity works.
Saying it is a field only puts a name on the mystery. Furthermore, if
we say that the field of gravity is caused by an electrodynamic field,
then we have to define what causes an electromagnetic field.
Al
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 11:12 pm
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Al,
It is interesting that your notion of hypothesis does not appear to agree with previously defined
philosophies of science. You are operating under your own philosophy of science and scientific method,
as you say. The question is "Does your philosophy of science have sufficient self-consistency to be
competitive with previous philosophies of science?" Do you apply the test for agreement with empirical
evidence at the most useful place in your scientific procedures for developing science theories? If you
require agreement with empirical data after the hypothesis is formed, it may be too late to be of much
use. Hypotheses are built upon key assumptions, axioms, and postulates. It seems to me that all of these
must be in agreement with empirical data or the hypotheses are worthless. Thus we are back to Newton's
empirical philosophy of science that all theories must be built upon empirical laws as axioms and the
theory determined by deductive logic from those axioms. This approach rules out inherently personal
opinions and makes science more universal.
The answers to these questions can best be determined by an analysis of the various philosophies of
science and their associated scientific methods.
Bill
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Bill,
Your description of the lack of hypotheses in much of science history is fascinating, well worth
teleconference discussion. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
In my use of the term, an "hypothesis" is not a part of "science theory" until it is found consistent
with all empirical evidence and logic, I see "physical science theory" as a metaphysical
description of the physical world. I see the metaphysics of physical science consisting of the
collection of hypotheses that have passed the evidence / logic test. Newton may have gathered
evidence that looks like a 1 / R^2 decline in gravity with distance, but when he specified the
relationship between distance and force with this bit of math, I feel he was stating an hypothesis
that his data confirmed. Somehow this issue seems to be more than semantic.
When "Newton said that scientists should use the empirical laws of electrodynamics in equation
form as ... axioms," I would say that he was defining these axioms as hypotheses that had
enough empirical support to be placed into the accepted metaphysical belief system of the time.
However, if deductions from the axioms violated other empirical evidence, surely Newton would
have considered removing the axioms from their metaphysical belief system.
Maybe one issue here is my idea that a theory should not be considered true if it violates any
piece of valid empirical evidence or logic. Of course, it is judgmental whether a given piece of
evidence is interpreted correctly enough to disqualify a theory. This is why all physics belief
systems are inherently personal opinions.
Al
From: Bill Lucas
Sent: Nov 6, 2013 5:39 PM
To: Al McDowell
Cc: HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , Pal Asija , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Al et al,
I am not sure that all of us understand how science has worked over time. For instance we admire the
work of Isaac Newton, but he claimed that hypotheses have no place in science. See quote below from
the Principia (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)
I have not as yet been able to deduce from phenomena the reason for these properties of gravity, and
I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a
hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or
intuition, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this experimental philosophy,
propositions are deduced from the phenomena and are made general by induction.
Newton, more than anyone else, defined the empirical philosophy of science and its associated scientific
method. No hypotheses were allowed in that scientific method and it was considered very successful in
discovering some of the more general laws of nature. For electrodynamics Newton said that scientists
should use the empirical laws of electrodynamics in equation form as the axioms and derive the more
general electrodynamic force from them by deduction. There is no place for hypotheses.
I claim that the greatest progress in science has been made under the axiomatic, empirical, and
structural philosophies of science which do not employ hypotheses. The other philosophies, such as the
Existential and the Postmodern, employ hypotheses and thereby go off on a tangent that does not lead
to good science. Special and General Relativity theories are examples of theories that were developed
under the existential philosophy of science which employs hypotheses. That is why some of the
empirical data does not agree with these theories.
Does this help us to see why we should discuss the various philosophies of science and their scientific
methods?
Bill
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Bill et al.,
Although a chart of the process for science development is nice, it should not be necessary. My interest is
in defining how we judge what is true. I think this can be described adequately in words.
I strongly agree with your suggestion that after you describe the options that have been or could be
adopted for the science process, each one of us should describe which options we prefer and which we
do not. For example, at the moment, I would describe my process for judging what is true as follows:
I suppose it should be noted that scientific discovery starts with general observation of how the universe
and things within it seem to work. I see the objective of science to be the development and definition of
theories for describing how the universe and things within it work. Simple observation tells us that apples
fall toward the ground. Newton's Laws quantify the results of gravity. Remaining to be discovered are the
causes of gravity.
For me, the process of discovering things like how gravity works involves
the formation and evaluation of hypotheses. The hypotheses are formed with the use of
logic, math, learning what others believe, intuition, and pure guesswork. For an hypothesis to be included
in my belief system of the moment, the hypothesis and all of its axioms must be consistent with all
empirical evidence known by me, using my personal interpretations of the evidence, and it must be
consistent with all valid logic and math. New evidence or logic should force reconsideration of everything
in the belief system.
Bill's "structural" method for science discovery seems quite powerful. The identification of
neutrons
and positrons should force us to question what is in them. At this point, I personally accept
the theory that each of these particles contain three quarks. That forces me to
question what is in a quark. Then I will want to know what is inside the subatomic particles of quarks. This
aspect of science is more than structural. If
we accept that mass increases near c in linear
accelerators, we do not have to accept the SR reason for mass increasing; but if rejecting
SR, we are forced to be on the lookout for another explanation. If we conclude that atomic clock
retardation is not due to GR time dilation, we need to be on the lookout for a more mundane explanation
for why atomic clocks retard. Scientific thought should always seek more answers to questions regarding
the nature of reality.
Most people would say that an ultimate question regarding reality is: Who, what, and where is God? Many
people already hypothesize answers to this question. God is typically portrayed as a universal intelligence
that exists throughout the universe and has been intimately involved in the process of evolving life. The
structural question inside this concept of God is how the universal intelligence of God operates. Although
many believe this question will forever be unanswerable, I suggest that if we discovered how our own
mind works, which must go far beyond the relatively simple biological processes of our neurons, we
would likely begin to glimpse the nature of the mind of God.
So much scientific discovery remains!
Al
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>
ent: Sat, Oct 19, 2013 9:39 am
Subject: Re: Newton v Einstein
Gentlemen,
The theory of relativity was developed under the existential philosophy of science. This philosophy of
science does not support the notion of truth. Its supporters deliberately removed the logical or axiomatic
foundation that had undergird science for over 2000 years and directed it toward truth. Logical rigor is no
longer required in the existential and postmodern philosophies of science. It is no longer a part of its
scientific method. Any assumptions or ideas may be used as hypotheses in science as long as some data
supports their predictions. Falsification of predictions by experimental data is the only criterion for
evaluation of theories. If every assumption or idea in a theory is false, but it can be used to predict some
experimental data, the theory is fine.
We are quibbling over some aspects of relativity theory that are not true. So what! The mainstream does
not follow our rules for doing science. It does not believe in truth.
If we want to make some changes in science, we need to attack the mainstream scientific method and
philosophy and replace it with something better. Quibbling over individual theories such as relativity
theory, quantum mechanics, Maxwell's electrodynamics, evolution theory, ... will not accomplish much in
the long run. We need to confront the real issue!!
Bill
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote:
I am doing an online course on Arguments, and we have all
been invited to give an argument, my argument is below-Newton v Einstein
From Einstein we have:
going by speed of light as constant we
can form the following maths:
Now, we'll use our clock in a little experiment. Suppose the clock
is in frame O' that is moving to the right in frame O with velocity
v. What does an observer in frame O see. As the light leaves the
bottom mirror, it and the mirror are observed to be travelling to the
right with velocity v. Suppose the light takes
time
T to reach the top mirror. Then both mirrors will have travelled to
the right the distance vT, and distance the light will have travelled
as observed by O, is cT, and, by the Pythagorean theorem
(cT)^2 =
(vT)^2 + L^2
so, T^2(c^2 - v^2)
= L^2
T^2 = L^2 / (c^2
- v^2)
T^2 = L^2 / c^2(1
- v^2/c^2))
T = L/c (1/
)
ref:
http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
taking L/c = T ' then this gives: T =
T' (1/
)
i.e. by Einstein we have if speed of
light is constant then clocks go at different rates- called time
dilation.
However if we let L = c' T then
T = L/c (1/
)
becomes = c' T/c (1/
giving c' = c(1/
)
)
so if clocks go at same rate then speed of light is variable.
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: Physics Questions - Big Bang Inflation Speed
Another interesting argument is that according to the cosmic background radiation the temperature of the
universe has come to equilibrium at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Equlibrium means that light from all parts of the
universe is continually in contact with all other parts of the universe. The diameter of the universe is 2 x
13.7 billion light years or 27.4 billion light years. Thus the universe must be at least 27.4 billion years old
to have come to equilibrium.
Bill
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick,
I suggest extending my Big Bang Inflation Speed item as follows:
Physicists claim that the Big Bang was followed by a period of 380,000 years of "Inflation" during which the universe
expanded to a radius of 13.7 billion light-years before light began to appear. Expansion to this distance during this
time means that the universe was expanding an average of 36,000 times the speed of light during the period of
Inflation. Yet Special Relativity requires that nothing travel faster than light.
A common physicist response to the question of how the early universe could "Inflate" at 36,000
times light speed is that "space itself expanded," in which case meter sticks that measure
distance would have expanded as well during this time. (Most of the interior of a meter stick is
the space between the subatomic particles of matter in the stick.) Although Special Relativity
dictates that the Big Bang matter and energy would expand at somewhat less than light speed,
let's assume for discussion that it traveled at full light speed.
If meter sticks expanded as space expanded, and if matter and energy expanded at light speed,
space would have to expand to 36,000 times the Inflation distance, which would be mesured by
tiny meter sticks an average of only 28 micrometers long (1 meter / 36,000) during the Inflation.
The Big Bang matter and energy would have inflated only 1 / 36,000 of the distance to a
universe radius of 13.7 billion ight-years, but the inflation distance before space expansion
would cover 36,000 times more meters as measured by the tiny meter sticks of the Inflation.
Thus the Inflation would extend over the same number of meters in the same amount of time as
without space expansion, still indicating that the Inflation moved at 36,000 times light speed.
Physicists might alternatively argue that the speed of light was larger before space expanded,
claiming that light speed was 36,000 times faster during the Inflation. Since light speed is now
assumed constant, presumably the Inflation ended for some unknown reason 13.7 billion years
ago. The speed of light is one over the square root of permittivity times permeability, which must
have been dramatically smaller during the Inflation. It seems strange that the most notable
constant in the universe, the speed of light, would have been 36,000 times greater in the early
universe. With this argument, the strangely unrealistic concept of a Big Bang becomes even
more divorced from the real world that we see today.
This is difficult to explain simply. I'll think some more about it.
Al
From: Al McDowell
Sent: Oct 7, 2013 2:29 PM
Subject: Physics Questions
All,
The two articles that, taken together, show Olber's Paradox false can be found at
http://www.ronaldkoster.net/olber.pdf and http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/EssaysMechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4273.
Possible questions for the physics mainstream:
1. How do you explain the results of the Wang Eclipse experiment that seems to show gravity attenuation
by the Moon? (All I find is a little mumbo-jumbo and admission that they do not know what is going on.)
2. How fast does gravity propagate to prevent binary stars from spiraling apart?
3. What caused Inflation after the Big Bang at the average velocity of 36,000 the speed of light (13.7
billion light-years in 380,000 years)?
4. What caused the universe Inflation to slow to less than the speed of light?
5. Why do the many Michelson-Morley- Miller and similar experiments all have small "null" results that
always align with the CMB apex toward the Constellation Leo?
6. What explains the Halton Arp photos of low-redshift galaxies connected by filaments of fast material to
nearby high-redshift quasars?
7. Stars are far brighter that hydrogen atoms at 2.7 degrees Kelvin, the apparent sources of the CMB
radiation. The CMB sources must be closer to us than the furthest stars we can see. Thus the CMB
sources are distributed throughout space. If the universe were expanding, the expansiion of the CMB
sources would create redshift in the CMB Planck thermal blackbody distributions in amounts proportional
to their distances from us. Does the perfect fit of CMB data to the Planck distriution mean that the
universe is not expanding?
This is a start.
Al
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: QM
Quantum mechanics like relativity theory has many flaws. The photoelectric effect that initially
supported the concept of a photon, no longer does. When the photoelectric effect was measured on the
amorphous (non-crystalline) form of metals it was found to not exist for most metals that supported it
for crystalline form of the metal. Engineers who make optical chips for computers have found that it is
necessary to make micro antennas inside the computer chips in order to get them to work. The
crystalline form of metals has a crystal lattice that acts as an antenna.
If the photon does not exist as a particle but only a wave, then quantum mechanics and relativity theory
are invalid.
Bill Lucas
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote:
Group
We see many questions/problems in MS relativity theory and cosmology. Are there areas in QM
that you claim to be WRONG? I'm sure many feel that QM or any physics theory could be
improved upon. We have discussed many problems on the model for EM and I'm sure QM
doesn't resolve those issues. But those two issues aside is QM wrong??? Does it have glaring
flaws like relativity???
Nick
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
Also the quasars bound to older galaxies do not have the same redshift suggesting that there are
additional origins of redshifts in addition to velocity Doppler effects.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:08 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger,
If it is indeed correct that the measured redshift is due to a velocity of expansion, then the implication
must be that the earth is at the center of or near to the universe center of expansion. However, I am not
sure I accept the velocity interpretation of redshift because it can not be corroborated by any other
evidence.
Harry
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
For Harry;
From my analysis of galaxy distributions, redshift is real and a measure of Doppler effect, except perhaps
for Quasars where there may be a bias. I do not subscribe to quantization, because the distribution is
periodic, sinusoidal with a period of about 400 MLY. The periodicity is too perfect to be caused by some
other effect, such as tired light.
Roger Rydin
From: Bill Lucas
Sent: Sep 18, 2013 10:47 PM
To: HARRY RICKER
Subject: Re: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
Harry,
That is fine. I was just trying to be helpful.
Bill
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:41 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
Bill,
I have read this and I think that this is not the topic I want to discuss. My reason is that this does not
address what redshift is, but deals with an entirely different topic. I suggest that you propose discussing
this topic, once we have discussed and understood what the various interpretations of redshift are. In
other words, I want to talk about the phenomenon of redshift physically before discussing issues of the
spatial distribution of redshift versus distance and implications for cosmological models.
Harry
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; HARRY
RICKER <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop
<[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; Stephen Crothers
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volk
<[email protected]>; David de Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma
<[email protected]>; Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu
<[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]>; "Ian
Cowan ([email protected])" <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:58 AM
Subject: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
I am not the leader for the next Monday's conference call, but I am attaching an excerpt from my book
regarding the quantization of gravity and redshifts as a conversation point of reference for the topic of
the cosmic microwave background radiation and the structure of the universe.
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
Cc: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; don
<[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]>; glennbaxterpe
<[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>; palasija <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Sep 22, 2013 9:04 am
Subject: Re: Gravitational Redshift
It is best to have a physical explanation of the red shift. The MS excludes a physical explanation by
insisting on using idealizations such as the point particle idealization for the electron requiring it to orbit
the nucleus in the atom.
In my electrodynamic approach I use a finite size electron in the shape of a toroidal ring that is able to
physically predict the experimentally measured mass, charge, magnetic moment, and spin of the electron
plus the emission and absorption spectra of the atom with the electron not orbiting the nucleus. The
empirical laws of electrodynamics do not allow the electron to orbit the nucleus without continuously
radiating away energy due to the acceleration involved.
In this approach relativistic effects in electrodynamics physically result
from electrical feedback on finite size structures due to motion.
In this approach gravity is due to the forces between vibrating neutral electric dipoles consisting primarily
of atomic electrons and nuclear protons. Since the protons are much more massive than the electrons
and they are also bound to the heavy nucleus, the electron is essentially the vibrating charge. This
vibration of the electron which is nearly stationary in its shell position and not orbiting the nucleus, affects
the frequency of the light that can be emitted or absorbed by its toroidal ring acting as an antenna. In the
P-R experiment, the greater the gravitational potential or force, the greater is the vibration of the electron
and the higher the energy that the electron toroidal ring antenna will absorb for a particular atomic state.
This approach is an example of a physical explanation of the red shift that does not employ external
theories such as relativity theory or time dilation. According to Newton all theories in science should be
based on empirical force laws, not on abstract hypotheses based on idealizations.
Bill
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick,
There seem to be at least three possibilities regarding gravitational redshift, which we agree exists: (1)
The experiments are rigged to produce redshift results corresponding to the GM/Rc^2 formula, and we
have no idea what the real redshift formula is, (2) The formula is valid, and it has some yet undefined
logical derivation from the physical process effects of gravitational potential on the frequency at which
atoms emit and receive light, and (3) the gravitational potential effects on how atoms emit and receive
frequencies is due to a broad dilation of time itself due to gravitational potential. Number (1) should only
be a last resort after giving up on alternative (2) or (3), I am inclined to prefer (2), and I do not understand
(3).
You could doubtless help me understand (3). Without judging time dilation, I would just like to
understand what it might mean.
In the P-R experiment, I assume that we both agree that the experiment is explained by the change in the
frequency that the atoms emit and absorb light as a result of gravitational potential. I believe we agree
that light travels at the same velocity, wavelength, and frequency at the top and bottom of the tube. If
there were no time dilation, time would be is measured by the same clock at the top and bottom of the
tube. The experiment would be explained without time dilation.
Now let's modify this scenario by assuming time dilation. Clocks at the tube top run faster than clocks at
the bottom. I assume that the faster clocks at the top cannot be used to measure events at the
bottom. Time dilation affects all processes at that level of dilation. Therefore time dilation slows
the bottom atoms emit/receive frequency, but the slower clocks at the bottom see the slower
bottom atoms emit and receive frequency at the same rate as without time dilation. I assume
that time dilation also slows light velocity and frequency at the bottom, and the slower bottom
clocks see the slower light velocity and frequency unchanged from the scenario without time
dilation. So with time dilation, as measured by bottom clocks, there is no apparent change in
light velocity, light frequency, or atom emit/receive frequency. Therefore, the clocks at the
bottom do not see the P-R effect that is claimed by the MS and that we believe actually
happens.
As you can see, I am totally confused about the meaning of time dilation, if it exists. If you can give me a
clue about where I am going wrong, I would appreciate it. Unless you see a clear solution to my
confusion, don't bother devoting much time to it. I will continue to think about it.
Al
From: Al McDowell
Sent: Sep 21, 2013 4:42 PM
To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , HARRY RICKER , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
, "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
Subject: Atomic Clock Redshift
Nick,
In my previous email below, I observed that the concept of time dilation due to gravitational potential
should apply equally to all clocks. The only clocks precise enough to measure the effect of time dilation
are atomic clocks, and I am aware of five types of atomic clocks based on different regulating atoms, one
of which is of course cesium. I found some data for clocks based on aluminum ions. I have no conclusion
about its meaning, but it is interesting and I will briefly summarize it here. The article is at
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905055.
Both gravitational and velocity redshift was measured with aluminum ion atomic clocks. First, gravitational
potential:
The gravitational redshift was measured for a height difference of only 33 cm. In another NIST article, the
redshift for this height is stated as 90 x 10^-9 seconds in 79 years. I calculate this to be a redshift of 3.6 x
10^-17. My calculations of redshift using the GM/Rc^2 formula also produce a redshift of 3.6 x 10^-17. In
comparison, the experimentally derived redshift was 4.1 x 10-17, 14% higher than the formula prediction.
This isn't much of a difference, but it is a difference. One might argue that the difference implies that
aluminum and cesium atomic clocks have slightly different responses to gravitational potential, casting
doubt on the universality of the time dilation concept. On the other hand, one might argue that a 14 %
error is close enough to confirm the redshift formula theory. This would still leave the question whether
the redshift formula works because of time dilation or because of a physical process in atomic clocks that
follows the GM/Rc^2 formula.
This experiment measures redshift due to velocity by vibrating the aluminum ion back and forth at 59 MHz
to create the velocity. The motions of the aluminum ion in both directions are treated equally as velocity
causes of time dilation. In their words, "In the language of the twin paradox, the moving Al+ ion is the
traveling twin, and its harmonic motion amounts to many round trips." The traveling twin gets younger on
every trip in both directions, and the time lag accumulates for both directions. I don't feel prepared to
accept this measure of time dilation based on velocity, but like GR and GPS, I don't fully understand it
either.
Al
From: Al McDowell
Sent: Sep 20, 2013 1:50 PM
To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , HARRY RICKER , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
, "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Nick,
We agree on the following:
1. We agree that there is a lot of data demonstrating that atomic clocks run slower when closer to Earth
and that the P-R data demonstrates that atoms emit and receive light at lower frequencies closer to Earth.
2. We agree that the same formula is used to calculate both atomic clock run rates and P-R frequency
redshifts as a function of distance from Earth.
3. We agree that the MS views the frequency redshift as a direct manifestation of GR time dilation due to
gravitational potential.
3. I am uncertain about the validity of the formula, although I would insist that redshift does exist. The
formula is independent of the type of atoms used in the P-R experiment or the type of atoms used in
atomic clocks.
Departing from the above agreements, I would not be surprised to find that atomic clocks based on atoms
other than cesium would demonstrate different levels of redshift for any given gravitational potential. If so,
this would cast doubt on the time dilation concept. It would seem that time dilation should not be different
for aluminum, strontium, ytterbium, or rubidium atomic clocks. These other types of clocks exist, but I
have not found whether their time dilation effects are the same as cesium clocks. We can be sure that the
MS assumes all of these clocks will have the same time dilation effects, and any discrepancies from this
expectation will be met with MS doubt. Other clocks will be considered inaccurate until they produce the
same results as cesium clocks.. Eventually, the truth should out, whatever it is.
Al
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]>
Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell
<[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan
([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula - atomic clocks are really quartz crystal clocks
Please note that a crystal is a collection of atoms. The atoms can vibrate and rotate in many ways and do
other things than just emit light. The physical structure of the atom must be used to investigate these
things. Since the MS approach to the atom has it made of ideal point particles, it can not describe the
vibrations and rotations of these finite size structures. Accelerator scattering experiments have measured
both the finite size of electrons, protons, and neutrons plus the number of their interior substructures.
Despite the fact that scientists like Hofstadter have received Nobel Prizes for measuring these things, the
MS ignores the data.
Bill
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote:
An interesting tid-bit is that an atomic clock does not directly rely upon the atomic transitions. It uses them
in a resonance feedback loop, but what an atomic clock is counting is still the vibrations of a 5Mhz quartz
crystal. It is only using the atomic part to determine when to re-energize the crystal so it keeps running
consistently.
xxxx
From the wiki article:
"The actual time-reference of an atomic clock consists of an electronic oscillator operating at microwave
frequency. The oscillator is arranged so that its frequency-determining components include an element
that can be controlled by a feedback signal. The feedback signal keeps the oscillator tuned in resonance
with the frequency of the electronic transition of caesium or rubidium."
The "electronic oscillator" is the quartz crystal. This video explains it.
http://www.howtogeek.com/116440/how-atomic-clocks-work-video/
I am not 100% sure, but it would seem that any change in the microwave resonance would have little
effect on the actual clock rate as measured by the quartz crystal since it appears to only rely on the
regularity and feedback loop rather than the actual transition rate. So this may have some applicability to
Al's assertion that the P-R effect is similar to an atomic clock which apparently doens't direclty rely on
atomic transitions.
In any case, it would be a good exercise to understand how atomic clocks really work before making
assumptions on how thiey work.
-Franklin
From: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>
Cc: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
<[email protected]>; "Ian Cowan ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Harry,
Analyzing redshift requires very careful thought. Analyzing time dilation and other aspects of SR
requires even more careful thought. Trying to analyze both subjects at the same time requires
more careful thought than I prefer to undertake if the two subjects can be analyzed one at a
time.
For me, the MMMSTRIKE experiments and the many logic arguments against SR by Nick, you,
and others free me from having to analyze SR any further, unless I chose to try to understand
the warped thinking of the MS, which seems hopeless, because MS minds have shown
themselves to be entirely illogical.
So my preferred way to analyze redshift is with assumed universally invariant time, length, and
mass. Once we understand redshift in these relatively simple terms, we could consider dilating
time, rubber yardsticks, etc. with the benefit of a basic logical foundation without these
complexities.
Regarding the P-R experiment, I would add another assumption to the analysis for the purpose
of minimizing confusion. That assumption is that we only look at the experiment in terms of a
single frame of reference, the "lab" frame of the 70 Ft tube. In that single frame, light velocity is
the same at both ends of the tube. Our principle of the conservation of light frequency in transit
makes light frequency the same at both ends of the tube. Constant velocity and frequency make
light wavelength the same at both ends of the tube.
My interpretation of the P-R experiment, and the only logical interpretation I know, is that the
cobalt atoms that emit and receive gamma photons at the top or bottom of the tube do so a
lower frequency at the bottom than at the top. When the emitter moves vertically, its velocity
modifies the emitted gamma photon frequency and wavelength via Doppler effect, without
modifying the velocity of light in the frame of the tube. This is the same Doppler effect that
causes redshift in the light of a distant galaxy moving away from Earth.
Even more interesting is the fact atomic clock run rates are governed by the frequency at which cesium
atoms emit and receive microwaves. This is the same phenomenon found in the P-R experiment, and
the same redshift formula, GM/Rc^2, is used to predict the P-R redshift and the atomic clock retardation
on Earth as opposed to in satellites. Perhaps this is the right formula, but I do not understand why. My
prejudice is to believe that the P-R cobalt atom and atomic clock cesium atom frequency shifts with
gravitational potential are due to a physical process in the way atoms emit and receive light. I am sure
that no one has developed a formula for this process. The experimental data may be valid, but the
correct redshift formula remains unknown in my belief system. Consequently, I am somewhat skeptical
about GR Schwarzschild and all gravitational redshift formulas.
Al
-----Original Message----From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Sep 20, 2013 9:00 AM
To: Al McDowell , Bill Lucas , Pal Asija
Cc: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , Don Mitchell , Franklin Hu , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , "Ian Cowan
([email protected])"
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Al,
This is the topic that I have wanted to discuss, and I hope to discuss. However, you jump into the details
and assume conclusions.
As I see it, the issue needs a careful analysis. The first assumption is that the laws of physics are the
same at the emitter or transmitter site and at the receiver site. This follows from the idea that the laws
of physics are universal.
Now we do a measurement and we find that the spectral lines ( frequency or wavelength) of the
transmitter do not match the receiver. We also can use a clock, which is a device that counts the wave
cycles at the location of an oscillator. The clock measures time by counting wave cycles. So clock time is
directly related to frequency. That is if frequency is increased time runs faster and the clock counts time
as fast. If the frequency is decreased, the clock time is slow. Now in order to make a time measurement
we must assume something about intrinsic time. The usual assumption is that intrinsic time is invariant
with respect to the clocks, however, in relativity this assumption is dispensed with and that adds an
unnecessary complication because it violates the first assumption, regarding the laws of physics being
the same, since that assumes intrinsic time is invariant along with intrinsic space.
So now we do a measurement of two frequencies or clocks and we find that they are different, what is
the conclusion? The conclusion is that, since the laws of physics are the same for the two different
devices, then the difference is external to the measurement devices. However, this is not the case for
relativity, which says the difference could be due to differences in intrinsic time or space for the tow
different devices. Do you agree?
So now we have a difference, we assume this is due to some external physical difference in the physical
conditions of the devices used to make the measurement. So now we have to ask, how do we identify
this external difference? Lets take a particular case, the cosmological redshift. There is here a measured
difference in spectral lines, and it is attributed to a relative velocity of the transmitter and receiver. But
this conclusion leads us to a conclusion that the universe is expanding, but that this expansion has no
center or point of reference for the expansion. Indeed we are told that, just like in special relativity, each
and every possible location of a measuring device is the same as every other location and that at each of
these points in space the universe is expanding with that point being the center of the expansion, or in
math terms each point is the reference for a dilation geometry. So if the space is dilating at the
transmitter location, then it is also dilating at the receiver location and the two opposite dilations must
cancel and the result should be no dilation at all. But we are told that the opposite is exactly what is the
truth. This sounds uncomfortably like the absurdity of special relativity, where all clocks see all of the
other clocks dilated in time, because of the symmetry of the laws of physics.
Now to discuss your argument. Your claim seems to be that frequency is invariant. I think this is
completely incorrect. That is because of the following. There are three things needed to define the
wave, they are velocity, frequency and wavelength. These imply that one needs a standard of measure
of two things, time and space, from which one measures the velocity. So your argument really boils
down to something that says that time is invariant and not space. This doesn't seem correct to me.
In the case of the P-R experiment, we measure a difference in the spectral lines which can be made null
by moving the receiver or transmitter at a constant velocity away from each other. So the most natural
conclusion is that the velocity of light is different at the two different locations. Otherwise we have to
assume that intrinsic time and space changed. Your argument opts for a third conclusion, which is that
the laws of physics are different at the two different locations.
Harry
From: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>
Cc: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
<[email protected]>; "Ian Cowan ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Harry,
The Origin of the Confusion section means the following to me:
The derivative of Energy with respect to wavelength (lambda) is truly = zero in transit. As we
have discussed, photon energy is proportional to frequency, which cannot change in transit.
Wavelength and velocity can change in transit, but frequency is unaffected by wavelength and
velocity changes in transit. Since energy and frequency are constant in transit, their derivatives
with respect to changes in wavelength and velocity are zero in transit.
The situations for emitters and receivers of light are different. Under SR rules, an observer
moving toward a light source will find velocity in his frame of reference unaffected by his
velocity, but he will find frequency increased by his velocity, making his perceived wavelength
smaller. Without SR, the observer will find velocity increased, frequency increased, and
wavelength remaining the same.
For the emitter, the situation is the same with and without SR. If the emitter is moving away from
the direction of the light, velocity remains constant, wavelength increases, and frequency
decreases.
The Hubble redshift of galactic light, like all redshift, is related to frequency, not wavelength.
Therefore, with or without SR, the emitter velocity away from the light direction increases
redshift, and with or without SR, observer velocity away from the light source reduces redshift.
Without getting into details, I would say that light energy does not change in transit, and I would
say that light has no momentum in the sense of mechanical force in the longitudinal direction. At
this level of detail, I would say that light has no mass and that the concept of light momentum is
meaningless.
However, beneath this level of detail there is more that should be said regarding light mass,
momentum, and energy. I will say what I think here, but these are mostly my own thoughts, and
you may want to ignore them unless you have an exceptional degree of interest in these
questions. First, my view is that light travels in an invisible gaseous medium with mass.
A photon is a wave in the mass of the medium, moving the medium as it passes, but leaving no
energy or motion behind it. The photon gets the energy to make these waves from the
deceleration of the electron that produced the photon. The electron that receives the photon is
accelerated by the photon waves pushing the electron all the way around its orbit. This requires
that the waves be in phase and synced with the orbit of the electron.
There is evidence in things like the Compton effect that photons do have some longitudinal
momentum in the standard mechanical sense. If this is true, my current suspicion is that this
longitudinal momentum originates with a mechanical push on the emitting electron that triggers
the release of the photon. Any such longitudinal momentum would be far smaller than the
energy of the photon wave itself. The remarkable characteristic of a photon is that it can
preserve this originating push momentum and its wave energy without significant loss over huge
distances.
Finally, there is more to say about photon energy. I believe strongly that each orbit of the
emitting electron produces one wavelength of light, which in turn coincides with one revolution
of the receiving electron about its nucleus. Therefore the frequency of the photon relates to the
orbital frequencies of its emitting and receiving electrons. This electron orbit frequency defines
the photon energy, equal to Planck's constant times frequency.
In transit, , if a photon were to lose some of its wave energy, this would only occur as a
reduction in amplitude of the waves in the photon, not as frequency. This lose of amplitude in
transit would mean that the emitting electron sent more energy in the wave than the receiving
electron needs to reach its next higher stable orbit level. My current belief is that once a photon
accelerates its receiving electron about two-thirds of the way to its next higher orbit, the
receiving electron can complete the transition drawing on the same local energy forces that
retain the electron in its prescribed orbit.
In my book on pp. 290-93, or pp, 288-91 in older versions, I describe how I believe the MachZehnder experiment works. This is one of the most complicated subjects in the book. My
analysis of this experiment is the source of my suggestion that a photon only needs about twothirds of its energy to be received. I believe that the Mach-Zehnder experiment can only be
described by assuming that a beam splitter separates the amplitude energy of a photon into two
pieces in proportion to its polarization angle at the splitter.
So I feel that a photon has various different energies, including the wave energy inserted by the
emitting electron, the triggering longitudinal energy, its possibly declining energy due to
amplitude reduction in transit, the energy it imparts to its receiving electron, and of course its
nominal energy defined by E = h f.
The further you read into this email, the less you need to read, but sometimes its nice to get an
email that doesn's have to be read.
Al
-----Original Message----From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Sep 19, 2013 11:44 AM
To: Al McDowell , Bill Lucas , Pal Asija
Cc: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , Don Mitchell , Franklin Hu , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , "Ian Cowan
([email protected])"
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
All,
Please read this and tell me what it is about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Redshift_quantization#Origin_of_the_Confusion
Harry
From: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
To: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>
Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>;
NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>;
Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; "Ian
Cowan ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Bill,
Your observation that "gravitational redshift is always measured with respect to some atomic
emission spectra" explains the real nature of redshift, which I believe is caused by gravity or
gravitational potential modifying the way outer electrons in atoms emit light. Redshift occurs in
the light emitting process, not in transit.
The mainstream explanation of the Pound-Rebka experiment as though light absorbed or lost
energy in transit is not physically true. However, they have a simple formula for how light would
absorb energy in transit and no formula for how redshift occurs in the emitting atoms. The fact
that their simple formula is not physically true does not bother them.
Al
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lucas
Sent: Sep 18, 2013 10:54 PM
To: Pal Asija
Cc: Al McDowell , HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , Don Mitchell , Franklin Hu , "P.E. Glenn A.
Baxter" , "Ian Cowan ([email protected])"
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Please note that the gravitational redshift is always measured with respect to some atomic emission
spectra, because that is the only source we can produce with precision. That fact also leaves the door
open for the origin of gravitational redshift to be entirely within the atom independent of relativity
theory.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Pal Asija <[email protected]> wrote:
I think Infinite Frequency means instant death.
With best regards from Your [email protected]
From: Al McDowell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 7:47 PM
To: HARRY RICKER; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Nick,
Of course, the MS does not apply their redshift formula to metal balls, but only to light. Note that by their formula,
light arriving from space into a tunnel to the center of the earth would have infinite frequency when it arrived at
the center of Earth.
Wow!
Al
-----Original Message----From: Al McDowell
Sent: Sep 18, 2013 10:30 AM
To: HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Redshift Data & Formula
Nick,
In trying to discover any meaning in the GR / P-R / H-K / GPS formula for gravitational redshift (a phenomenon that
we agree exists empirically), consider astronauts taking a one-pound metal ball into space halfway to the moon
where it no longer has any gravitational potential relative to Earth. We can calculate the ball "redshift" exactly the
way the MS calculates light redshift.
The spacecraft expends energy to lift the ball against gravity from its position on Earth with significant negative
gravitational potential to space where it has no measurable gravitational potential. The energy expended is the
integral of gravity force with respect to distance from Earth, which is the integral of (G M m / r^2) dr, which is G M
m / R, where G is the gravitational constant, M is Earth mass, m is ball mass, r is distance from Earth, and R is Earth
radius. To get redshift, this energy expended to overcome negative gravitational potential has to be divided by the
initial ball energy, which we do just like the light redshift formula. Since energy = m c^2, GM m / R becomes G M /
R c^2, identical to the light redshift formula.
In this process of moving the ball out of gravitational potential, the MS would say that the ball has lost energy
equal to G M m / R, which can be converted to mass by E = m c^2 to reduce the ball mass by
G M m / R c^2, which computes to 0.7 x 10^-9 pounds. Applying the gravitational redshift logic to the metal ball,
we deduce that the ball lost a little mass on its trip into space. If the ball had started from near the Earth center, its
loss of mass would approach infinity as it approached the Earth center.
I cannot imagine any viable meaning to mass declining as it moves into space, nor any viable meaning for mass
increasing as it moves toward Earth, or into a hole in the Earth where the mass grows huge as it approaches Earth
center. My point is that gravitational redshift physically exists, but the formula used to compute it is fiction, and
we do not know the correct formula. Thus, the GR, Schwarzschild, P-R, H-K, and GPS atomic clock formula for
gravitational redshift should probably go to the landfill to be replaced only by the experimental data until we
derive a better formula.
Al
-----Original Message----From: Al McDowell
Sent: Sep 17, 2013 9:07 AM
To: HARRY RICKER , NICHOLAS PERCIVAL , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"
Subject: Redshift Data & Formula
Nick,
Our discussions slowly shift my assessment of the issues. As you point out, there is a lot of consistent data
regarding a "gravitational redshift" phenomenon in which the frequency that atoms emit and receive light is
shifted by gravitational potential. Some of the consistency in the data may result in part from researchers knowing
in advance the redshift quantities that are predicted by their redshift formula, G M / R c^2. I am not concerned
about the fore-knowledge of the expected results, and I am totally convinced that redshift is a true physical
process in some magnitude.
My hangup is that the only way I can see the redshift formula being derived is by assuming that the E = m c^2
equivalent mass of a photon loses or gains energy and frequency as it moves into lower or higher gravitational
potential. To me, a theory based on a formula that is derived from a fictional physical process is questionable. This
makes the theory behind the P-R, H-K. GPS clock. GR. and Schwarzschild Metric calculations questionable, even
though redshift does in fact exist for reasons unrelated to the redshift formula.
Regarding the GPS, it is interesting that the MS does not mention the single greatest challenge to computing the
time for signals to go to and from the satellites. Since the MS assumes SR, they believe that the 370 km/s
movement of the Earth through the universe has no effect on EM signal velocities. However, those of us who
regard SR false have to accept the implications that GPS signals are constantly influenced by this "CMB" velocity,
which might be on the order of 300 km/s at the GPS satellite altitude. Depending on whether a satellite is on the
side of Earth toward or away from Leo, signals will transmit to and from Earth at velocities 300 km/s slower or
faster. This 0.1% velocity increment will add or subtract substantially to the signal velocity at satellite altitude. The
MM data show that this velocity increment reduces to 8 km/s on the Earth surface. If the average velocity
increment between Earth and a satellite were 0.01%, then the these velocity increments would change estimated
distances to earth by up to a mile, far outside of the known GPS precision.
To me, the GPS works as an elaborate interpolation system, allowing your Garmin to interpolate its position from
the known positions of four nearby ground stations. This is a 2-step process. Your Garmin, which has no atomic
clock, is able to interpolate its position from four satellites with synchronized atomic clocks and known locations in
space. In order for the satellites to know their locations, each one interpolates its position from four ground
stations with synchronized atomic clocks and known locations. Your Garmin does not need an atomic clock to learn
its position from the four satellites with synchronized atomic clocks , and each satellite does not need its atomic
clock to learn its position from four ground stations with synchronized atomic clocks. I assume that it may be
better, but not essential, to keep the satellite clocks roughly synchronized with the ground station clocks.
Out of all this, my conclusion is that, while gravitational redshift exists, and while the empirical redshift
measurements may be rather valid, the MS theory from which they calculate P-R, H-K, GPS redshift predictions is
based on fiction. If the P-R or H-K empirical results were different from the formula predictions, I would believe the
data and not the formula predictions. More fundamentally, the MS redshift formula fiction is so fundamental to
the Schwarzschild metric theory that I judge it theoretically useless.
Sorry to go for the throat, but I don't like theories built on grossly faulty logic.
Al
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
[email protected]
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
Cc: rarydin <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt
<[email protected]>; malcolmd3111 <[email protected]>; David Tombe
<[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield
<[email protected]>; Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>; Greg
Volk <[email protected]>; David de Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma
<[email protected]>; Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>; odomann
<[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell
<[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye
<[email protected]>; Ian Cowan ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; jarybczyk
<[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; baugher.3 <[email protected]>; smalik
<[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; pnoble <[email protected]>;
HatchRonald <[email protected]>; PeterKohut <[email protected]>; altsci1
<[email protected]>; Institute <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
Also the quasars bound to older galaxies do not have the same redshift suggesting that there are
additional origins of redshifts in addition to velocity Doppler effects.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:08 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger,
If it is indeed correct that the measured redshift is due to a velocity of expansion, then the implication
must be that the earth is at the center of or near to the universe center of expansion. However, I am not
sure I accept the velocity interpretation of redshift because it can not be corroborated by any other
evidence.
Harry
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
Cc: P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; David Tombe
<[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield
<[email protected]>; Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Greg Volk <[email protected]>; David de Hilster
<[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma <[email protected]>; Florentin
Smarandache <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 .
<[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu
<[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]>; "Ian
Cowan ([email protected])" <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
For Harry;
From my analysis of galaxy distributions, redshift is real and a measure of Doppler effect, except perhaps
for Quasars where there may be a bias. I do not subscribe to quantization, because the distribution is
periodic, sinusoidal with a period of about 400 MLY. The periodicity is too perfect to be caused by some
other effect, such as tired light.
Roger Rydin
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lucas
Sent: Sep 18, 2013 10:47 PM
To: HARRY RICKER
Cc: "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , Ivor Catt , "[email protected]" , David Tombe , Forrest Bishop ,
Anthony Wakefield , Stephen Crothers , "[email protected]" , Greg Volk , David de Hilster , Rati Ram
Sharma , Florentin Smarandache , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "Patriot293 ." , Al
McDowell , Pal Asija , Don Mitchell , Franklin Hu , "Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye" , "Ian Cowan
([email protected])" , Roger Rydin , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , Brian Cole , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]"
Subject: Re: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
Harry,
That is fine. I was just trying to be helpful.
Bill
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:41 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
Bill,
I have read this and I think that this is not the topic I want to discuss. My reason is that this does not
address what redshift is, but deals with an entirely different topic. I suggest that you propose discussing
this topic, once we have discussed and understood what the various interpretations of redshift are. In
other words, I want to talk about the phenomenon of redshift physically before discussing issues of the
spatial distribution of redshift versus distance and implications for cosmological models.
Harry
From: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
To: P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; HARRY
RICKER <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop
<[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; Stephen Crothers
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volk
<[email protected]>; David de Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma
<[email protected]>; Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu
<[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]>; "Ian
Cowan ([email protected])" <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:58 AM
Subject: Background Material for Next Monday's Conference Call
I am not the leader for the next Monday's conference call, but I am attaching an excerpt from my book
regarding the quantization of gravity and redshifts as a conversation point of reference for the topic of
the cosmic microwave background radiation and the structure of the universe.