[General] Relativity

Tue Oct 31 08:49:11 PDT 2017

Chip, Grahame, and other colleagues:

     I am attaching a paper on how to measure the absolute velocity of  a star sitting with a precision spectrometer on a variable speed satellite, while nulling the Doppler Shift on the spectrometer. Specifically, see slide #10.
     Understanding the physical processes behind the emergence of Doppler Effect also makes it clear that the dominant component of the Cosmological Redshift simply cannot be a Doppler Effect. See the second attachment.
     When I accept the space as a stationary Complex Tension Filed (CTF), I find the concept could be capable of bringing about Einstein’s dream of a unified field theory. It is, at least, one possible path.
     See Ch.11 of my book (“Causal Physics”, Taylor & Francis, 2014) for more detailed resolutions of various prevailing contradictions and how stable particles have to be self-looped self-resonant (in-phase) oscillations of the same CTF. This was published in a journal in 2012 (the third attachment); Earlier publications, along with Fresnel Drag experiment, was published in SPIE Conference proceedings.

Our Cosmic Space (CTF) is the universal inertial reference frame.

Sincerely,
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:46 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] Relativity

Hi Grahame (and Andre)

A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically self-consistent.

Regarding logical self-consistent issues…

In order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.

While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in all details.

So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the development of a composite view of the causes for “relativity”.

Sound waves travel through a medium.  Sound waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the velocity of the object emitting the waves.

Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.

So there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.

Einstein stated that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because the velocity c in empty space has no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something.

Einstein also stated that, “Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means.” Which is indicated by experiment as well.  So no problem here.
And he then followed with the assertion that “This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.” (Paraphrased)
This second conclusion is not fully logically supported by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with the assertion that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”.  There are alternate interpretations of this evidence which are more causal and logical than this.

First, our inability to measure something does not necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad examples we can give of things which we cannot directly measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect evidence which stipulates their existence.

We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is causal, and yields results which match observation.

For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made of confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have exactly this set of circumstances.  We would not be able to detect our motion through space by using an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment.  Note: This approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact be quite important.

But if “the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.” Then how do we explain “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source” and the resultant Doppler Effect when a moving object emits light?

While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they somehow could propagate through an empty space at a fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically because it does not present physical cause.  This consideration, and the Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not being able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a “fixed” frame.

Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of light a matter.  These transformations are required under the circumstances where light and matter are made of the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a fixed frame of space.  This all occurs in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.

So there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed by SR.

When we run the math describing the situation where space is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly.  This is a logically consistent basis, and one which shows cause.  In contrast to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same starting information, but does not show cause, and does not appear to be as logically consistent.

Are there ways to present this and related information which better illustrates the case from a logical basis?
Thoughts?

Chip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171031/f4c54e3f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2015.3_Space Inrtl.Ref.Frme._SPIE.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 835200 bytes
Desc: 2015.3_Space Inrtl.Ref.Frme._SPIE.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171031/f4c54e3f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2013.5_Trbit.-Caulfield.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 785654 bytes
Desc: 2013.5_Trbit.-Caulfield.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171031/f4c54e3f/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 453139 bytes
Desc: 2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171031/f4c54e3f/attachment-0002.pdf>