Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: nilak on 26/12/2016 20:30:05

Title: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 26/12/2016 20:30:05
        The starting point for the concept is the idea that what we use as clocks don't measure the true time. Based on this idea, we can the define time as absolute and think that clocks don't measure the absolute time but they have a tick rate that depends on the speed relative to the flat absolute space. The idea is what I think is a natural interpretation of what happens in the very popular thought experiment of Einstein relativistic train. If the light beam is a light clock, it becomes clear that the trajectory of the light beam is the only thing that makes the tick rate change. The idea is that the same thing happens with all the clocks we use. Following this idea we can construct a whole theory closely following the empirical evidence we already have. This model suggests that space doesn't have a variable geometry, instead complex particles inner geometry changes what we call time and space.
This concept is only intended to be a starting point for a proper theory of space. It only contains few principles that are intended to give a better and more natural explanation how the universe works. 

There is also a particle model that can be extremely useful in making prediction.
Another interesting thing that this model predicts is that all "matter" (EM waves) is two dimensional. Only free space is 3d. This means that the universe can be reduced to a 2d world as a single EM wave orbiting around an imaginary centre. The total charge of the universe is conserved but if presumably is neutral then we can have a circle of light.

These ideas have been proposed before, as an example, I've found this thread:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=6576.0 This proves I'm not the discoverer of this concept after all.
 I' ll simply try promoting it because I like the idea and to me it offers much more credible predictions and it helps for a deeper understanding of the universe.

Recent experimental evidence can be found here:
http://www.nature.com/news/ligo-black-hole-echoes-hint-at-general-relativity-breakdown-1.21135
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/7
http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-found-a-way-to-slow-light-down-by-twisting-it

Breit–Wheeler process:http://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html
I like this one:
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-physicists.html

The concept can be found here:


Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0239v2.pdf

About QM:
We are confusing QM mathematical models with reality itself. The reality is in the classical electromagnetic wave. The fact we don't have a clear classical picture of what is going on and QM can explain it doesn't mean QM is the reality. Particles don't exists as objects but as waves:
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 26/12/2016 22:55:29
Quote
  The starting point for the concept is the idea that what we use as clocks don't measure the true time. Based on this idea, we can the define time as absolute and think that clocks don't measure the absolute time but they have a tick rate that depends on the speed relative to the flat absolute space.

Yes there must be a frame with the least amount of dilation. You can call it the alpha frame. Now how can you relate that to any other frame? You cannot. So when science says there are no fixed frames there are none that can be used as a standard. This is only half the truth though. c is a fixed frame of potential. Maximum motion of a particle so in a sense this value is fixed. But even then we cannot know what percentage of c we are using. When we are using more of c our tick rate slows in comparison to using less. So we can only determine relative tick rates between frames. The alpha frame contains no anchor to your relative use of c. Once again we have to conclude there is no fixed frame to measure against. I have been where you are.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 26/12/2016 23:35:55
It doesn't matter that much that we can't determine the absolute frame. What it matters is if we know it exists, we can make better predictions.

If the universe was a black hole (more precisely what I think a BH is - orbiting EM waves that can carry OAM as well) because of the symmetry with beginning of the universe (centre of energy/mass doesn't move), the centre of the BH would be precisely motionless in the absolute frame.
 Our galaxy is probably moving at roughly few hundred kilometers per second (units measured on earth: earth second and earth meter)  in absolute space.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 27/12/2016 01:51:15
Quote
), the centre of the BH would be precisely motionless in the absolute frame.

Its unlikely that there is any motion in a Black Hole. There would be no motion, no energy and no time inside of a BH. The speed of light attraction at the surface of a sun in GR is the minimum amount of mass needed to create a BH. Energy can no longer keep atoms apart so they combine to create a single unit.  Basically from a marble to a football field into a football field of marbles. Its not that light cannot escape but light can only bend around a black Hole never reach it. Relativity does not work in a BH. The dilation of energy is intense around a BH and from the surface of the BH the inverse square of gravity starts up once again. Unlike planets where the point source of gravity is the center of the planet the entire surface of a BH acts as the center. Yes this would be a fixed frame inside of a BH, But once again fixed to what?
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 27/12/2016 04:37:07
If you don't accept the BH interpretation then imagine the universe as a spinning
ring of matter. The centre of it should be motionless.

Anyway singularity is extremely unlikely in my opinion. Stopping light is impossible, that is why there is no singularity.

This concept is confirmed by experimental evidence.
The BH are spinning hence the magnetic field:
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-magnetic-field-just-outside-our-black-hole-has-been-studied-for-the-first-time
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130301-black-hole-speed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 27/12/2016 15:05:54
Quote
The BH are spinning hence the magnetic field:

Of course they are spinning. They are the ultimate kinetic energy objects. They are twisting the energy fabric c and could cause a cone shaped twister of space energy if spinning fast enough. BH's do not follow all of the laws of relativity.

 
Quote
Stopping light is impossible, that is why there is no singularity.

Light is just a type of radiation and can be absorbed as heat in mass.

Quote
If you don't accept the BH interpretation then imagine the universe as a spinning
ring of matter. The centre of it should be motionless.

If the Universe is a super galaxy the center should  remain in place. If we determine our universe as only the amount we can observe that could be a mistake. There is a distance in space where the spin would equal the speed of light compared to your observed position. At that point detail would become impossible. So it would appear as a potential BB with us in the center. When it is realized us being in the exact center is unlikely we would have to exist on a surface of a balloon universe. So everyone is in the center of the universe.

How much of the standard model are you willing to swallow and allow logic to reign?
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 28/12/2016 15:27:14
Quote
If the Universe is a super galaxy the center should  remain in place. If we determine our universe as only the amount we can observe that could be a mistake. There is a distance in space where the spin would equal the speed of light compared to your observed position. At that point detail would become impossible. So it would appear as a potential BB with us in the center. When it is realized us being in the exact center is unlikely we would have to exist on a surface of a balloon universe. So everyone is in the center of the universe.
My idea holds if we assume that our universe started to expand symmetrically from a single point. However, it is hard to tell where we are now.
Quote
How much of the standard model are you willing to swallow and allow logic to reign?

The model is quite close to reality, but it is using particle as abstract objects. QM uses even virtual objects. In a popular example, you can consider cows as spheres for perfectly describing certain aspects like distributions on a grass field. By doing that, it is clear that if you want to expand the theory, it will always lead to nonsensicals and paradoxes. The same thing we are doing with the standard model, but at the lowest level, everything is excitations in the EM field, including cows :)
The model doesn't say what is every particle made of, but it offers useful information about the interactions.

Unfortunately QFT is based on a theory (GR) that started with the same assumptions for cows as spheres, namely clocks that travel through space in a ship.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 28/12/2016 16:13:51
       It is interesting that, to slow down light using OAM beams, you can only get discrete values for the wavefront speed beam, corresponding to OAM spin number. This can be used to explain certain aspects of QM, classically and it works very well with the present  DGWT concept and can be very useful for further development of the theory.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/12/2016 11:05:21
The fixed reference point for this hypothetical background must be at the event horizon of every black hole since these are at a known universal value. However Einstein has blown your house down since all of these black holes will be moving with respect to each other and cannot be considered fixed at all. I have been down this road and discounted it as a viable possibility.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 29/12/2016 11:34:26
The fixed reference point for this hypothetical background must be at the event horizon of every black hole since these are at a known universal value. However Einstein has blown your house down since all of these black holes will be moving with respect to each other and cannot be considered fixed at all. I have been down this road and discounted it as a viable possibility.
           In a world where you consider cows as spheres and particles as balls (even if they have a wavefunction of a deBoglie frequency), I agree, it is definitely never going to work. SR doesn’t event treat them as having associated waves at all and GR is based on the same idea about space and time. But if everything is waves, my idea is possible and it is the only solution. The first clue that everything is waves is the deBroglie wavelength, the next one is the interference. Particle behaviour is an illusion a manifestation of the wave.

Waves exhibit a crucial behaviour. If you superimpose two waves (even mechanical waves) with opposite amplitude vectors, even if they cancel each other amplitudes, they don’t cease to exist and still travel at the same speed. That is the ultimate kinetic energy conservation.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 29/12/2016 15:50:35
There is another thing about charge. If you create an EM wave so that the trajectory is a loop, it automatically creates a charge( that is probably  compensated by the magnetic field the loop is producing.)
I 've found something about this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281322004_The_electron_is_a_helically-circulating_spin-12_charged_photon_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 30/12/2016 14:05:15
Quote
The fixed reference point for this hypothetical background must be at the event horizon
of every black hole since these are at a known universal value

Jeffery, it is possible there is no event horizon in the classic understanding of light not being able to
escape. There is a possibility where the acute dilation of a BH will curve light completely around the
 BH and not penetrate the dilation at all. Assumptions can make understanding fail logic.

Quote
Waves exhibit a crucial behaviour. If you superimpose two waves (even mechanical waves)
with opposite amplitude vectors, even if they cancel each other amplitudes, they don’t cease
 to exist and still travel at the same speed. That is the ultimate kinetic energy conservation.

Waves remain in the spectrum c and mass remains in the kinetic realm. Positron, negatron spontaneous
pair production is just a wave representation of the two particles and not the physical particles themselves.
When we think we shoot electrons we are actually shooting the wave representation of the electron. The
double slit experiments assume it is a particle and get confused with the result. Rather than follow logic
main stream follows their model. So they get what they get with confusion.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 30/12/2016 14:58:45
I've found the answer and posted on the Black energy thread also:
A constant permittivity/permeability perfectly explains the relativistic experimental data. However it is possible that these properties are not constant, but there is no evidence of speed of light higher or slower in vacuum.
About the waves, the secret is you can't cancel two waves travelling in the same direction. That would be equivalent to no EM emission at all. It is possible to cancel the electric field amplitudes (excitations) of two opposite beams. However in this case, the magnetic field amplitudes add up and energy is conserved. I think that in that portion of space where the waves E field cancel, the wave might become undetectable.
Now it is perfectly clear how kinetic energy is conserved.

This could be the classical mechanism of creating a charge:
If the Electric fields cancel you have a negative charge , like the electron.
If the Magnetic fields cancel you have the positron.
Add a spiral motion of the wave and there you have it.
When combining an e+ and an e-, the energies add up, obviously and energy is conserved.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 30/12/2016 17:22:09
Quote
A constant permittivity/permeability perfectly explains the relativistic experimental data.

That is like saying the speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same. No different from the relativity postulate.
Your not answering why its the same or why the electron and photon are confounded.

Quote
However in this case, the magnetic field amplitudes add up and energy is conserved.

In what way is a wave packet a magnetic field? That is like saying a visible wavelength is a radio wavelength.

Quote
I think that in that portion of space where the waves E field cancel, the wave might become undetectable.

Of course there is no kinetic portion to a photon wave packet.

Quote
Now it is perfectly clear how kinetic energy is conserved.

Kinetic energy is never conserved because mass has entropy back to the energy spectrum.

You are heading out on a branch of the tree of knowledge. The trunk is relativity. You have a good mind
The material viscosity of light is interesting but only a distraction from relativity mechanics.

Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 30/12/2016 22:03:47
Quote
A constant permittivity/permeability perfectly explains the relativistic experimental data.

That is like saying the speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same. No different from the relativity postulate.
Your not answering why its the same or why the electron and photon are confounded.
It is not quite the same thing because that means that one way speed of light gives c-v which is exactly what the only experiment done to test this, says.
I've found something that explains charge generation mechanisms like I was expecting:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chip_Akins/publication/273446763_The_Electron_as_a_Confined_Photon/links/55019ff80cf2d60c0e5f889d.pdf
They also say that the relativistic  mechanism occurs naturally but they are not sure if the theory of relativity is correct or not.
The basic approach presented here implies also that there are at least localized preferred rest frames in spacetime, and that there may be a larger preferred rest frame for spacetime. If localized rest frames are a valid part of spacetime, it is assumed that mass contributes to frame dragging creating these localized preferred rest frames."
I would say there is a preffered frame and that is the Absolute Frame  and if there is a medium (the vacuum) is at rest in that frame. Hence there is probably a medium.

"Understanding the electron in a causal, topological manner, allows us to understand the foundations upon which QM is built. It can help us to improve and refine QM so that we understand the constraints. We can remove the ambiguities, infinities, and singularities from our theories when we have a basis upon which to build."
They also say about the mass generation that can be explained without the Higgs boson.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 30/12/2016 23:16:01
Quote
It is not quite the same thing because that means that one way speed of light gives c-v
 which is exactly what the only experiment done to test this, says.
I've found something that explains charge generation mechanisms like I was expecting:

You do realize the c-v pertains to objects moving away or towards the photon. This has nothing to do
with changing the speed of light being c.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 31/12/2016 08:26:07
No, It doesn’t change the speed of light. However, Relativity says that no matter how you move you always measure the speed of light constant. Even if it is going towards you.
If the concept I'am promoting is correct, you don't need to apply relativistic formulas to electro-magnetism. Also Quantum Field Theory should not be based on relativistic equations because the relativistic effects occur naturally.
That's because the electromagnetic field medium is the preferred frame of reference.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 01/01/2017 15:38:12
Quote
No, It doesn’t change the speed of light. However, Relativity says that no matter how you move you always
 measure the speed of light constant. Even if it is going towards you.

Yes with every inertial speed the light moving away then returning averages the differences in lengths. This is
different from the one way distance for light with inertial speed. This has everything to do with light being
 independent of the source. One of relativity's postulates. Geometry shows every angle of a light clock ticks at
the same rate. This realization gave me a sure footing for understanding relativity.

Quote
If the concept I'am promoting is correct, you don't need to apply relativistic formulas to electro-magnetism.

Using any other math will not follow observed effects.

Quote
Also Quantum Field Theory should not be based on relativistic equations because the relativistic effects
 occur naturally.

Quantum mechanics cause relativity and the equations follow observation. No observation using the spectrum is in
real time. We never view the present, that is the key to relativity.

Quote
That's because the electromagnetic field medium is the preferred frame of reference

There is no preferred frame if you understand relativity properly.
 
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 02/01/2017 22:12:56
GoC
Yout explanation are based on Relativity but my own opinion is that SR and GR are not quite the correct way to explain our universe, but simple useful theories for various purposes.

I describe the universe as made of  EM waves: two identical fields E and H that are triggered at a critical angle of 90 degrees in the direction of the arrow of time.
This angle enables the arrow of time and also enables energy conservation in the time direction . This is because it is not possible to cancel two electromagnetic waves orginated from different sources in space. If they come from the same source and cancel it is not a true cancellation but it means no emission at all.
Also these waves will not attract each other gravitationally, which also means it is impossible to cancel them. If it was a single field, the waves interferences would've cancelled the energies much quicker.


Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 05/01/2017 17:02:02
New version release:
http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 05/01/2017 20:45:28
Addressing the Gravitational time dilation:
According to GR, which I think is not quite correct, gravity affects time, but it is not he intensity of the field that makes clocks tick at different rates, but the gravitational potential difference. You can look at some Minkowski  diagram to clarify that. The explanation is not very simple. It is equivalent to having a ship under constant proper acceleration, then you place a clock on top and one at the rear. The clock at the rear will tick slower. If gravity and acceleration are equivalent you get the same results for  a uniform gravitational field.


According to this paper, photons usually  travel as waves  straight. But not always (see OAM photons). All other particles are made of waves that follow certain trajectories. You can think of an electron as an EM wave travelling in a helical trajectory, in terms of geometry (if you ignore the charge).
When you accelerate the electron the helix gets elongated (the pitch increases). The distance between the coils gives the clock tick rate, hence, obviously increasing speed will result in a slower tick rate.

The sophisticated solution using Gravitational potential used by General Relativity, now becomes very easy using my concept.
If the electron has a pitch of p1 at a distance d1 from earth, if it goes down to a distance d0 from earth, it will accelerate during the descent and acquire a higher pitch p0, hence a slower tick rate.

For a better analogy with the reality, you can think of this electron as orbiting around a centre. During the descent, the orbiting speed will increase generating the same result as a simple free falling electron.

Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: GoC on 05/01/2017 21:48:18
The distance between the coils gives the clock tick rate, hence, obviously increasing speed will result in a slower tick rate.

You are looking at it exactly backwards. Why the speed up of c? Mechanical and light clocks both follow the same tick rates of a frame. If you think long enough your speed difference is not observed a would work differently at different c speed for the coil and the distance.

Red shift and blue shift are both c.
Title: Re: Dynamic Geometry Waves Theory Foundation
Post by: nilak on 05/01/2017 22:26:06
I didn't mention anything about the deBroglie wavelength.
As the electron descends, the pitch of the helix increases but the deBroglie wavelength increases.
That is why you probably saw it the other way round.
 Now it should be more clear.

New version release. http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239
Summary:
Revised concepts about mass and energy and corrected equations.
Some ideas about the photoelectric effect in a classical context.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 22/01/2017 20:19:33
New version release,

- provides a better explanation of the concept.
- explains what happens to a particle that  acquires energy either by gravity or by acceleration and suggests there is a connection between the helix pitch and clock rates.
- if OAM m>1 photons can be created by interference then all particles and all forces including gravity are consequences of fields interference and not fundamental elements.
http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239.

Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: McQueen on 23/01/2017 09:20:00
Quote
The idea is what I think is a natural interpretation of what happens in the very popular thought experiment of Einstein relativistic train. If the light beam is a light clock, it becomes clear that the trajectory of the light beam is the only thing that makes the tick rate change.
Granted that time is relative , especially when applied to mental concepts, standing in a queue takes ( or seems to take) much longer than when doing something more interesting, reading a  book, watching a movie and so on.

Einstein's mirror clock using light beams is probably one of the most absurd proofs of relativity that it is possible to imagine, the amazing thing is not that the concept is  amazing but that so many people were psyched into believing it for such a long time. Even Brian Cox uses this example to illustrate relativity. He calls it the fundamental proof of special relativity. The concept is very simple. Imagine a railway carriage in which both the floor and the roof are made of flat mirrors that face  each other. Thus  two mirrors facing each other  and  separated  by a certain distance,  a light bounces  from one mirror to the other the time taken to cover a distance of 299, 792,458 m  ( 299,792,458 / distance between mirrors)  is taken as one second.  Nothing wrong with this, in fact it would probably make quite an accurate clock.  Now imagine that the train is moving and that a man is standing on the platform watching the moving train.  To the light bouncing up and down in the carriage, everything seems to take place as if the train were not moving at all, the light travels from the floor of the carriage up to the roof and back again in a perfectly vertical line. However, to the man on the platform the light does not go straight up and down, it leaves the floor at some angle, hits the roof at another angle and then, if the velocity of the train is uniform descends to the floor of the train at the same angle as it ascended but in an opposite direction. Thus the path of the light  resembles a triangle.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediafire.com%2Fconvkey%2F536d%2Fo3uu0c8odlogj4f4g.jpg&hash=4f4077c000c9318255f50210ba07a6f1) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/o3uu0c8odlogj4f/lightclock.jpg)
The absurdity lies in thinking that the light in the railway carriage has not travelled! Of course it has travelled, and  in definite increments dependent on the velocity of the train, so that the light on the train also travels the same distance as seen by the observer on the platform, but because the light in the train has acquired the same velocity as the train itself it is not aware that it is moving.. So there is absolutely no difference between the time taken ( or the path followed) by the light on the train and the same light as seen from the platform.  Nothing incredible here.

Take GPS the earth is orbiting the sun at 30 km/sec, then obviously if suitable corrections were not made there would be a huge discrepancy of 30m even in a variation of one thousandth of a second and so on. Then the speed of the earth's rotation would also have to be taken into account Einstien's equation :  f6029009f299d4b3840e8c4d5d267a55.gif is as good as any equation to remedy this discrepancy.

How can anyone hearing about this experiment ever imagine that the light in the carriage stays still !
The only way this could possibly make sense is if the speed of light is taken as constant and to manifest in this fashion it would have to move faster than c. (i.e., speed of light + speed of train >c!
If however light travelled through a medium then none of this controversy need exist.
 
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 23/01/2017 13:16:35
Thank you, but I'm affraid your explanation is not acceptable. The diagram you have posted here is the classical example for explaining the theory. Hovever, when you measure the speed of light in the carriage , you send the beams parallel to the direction of travel, not at an angle(they usually don't say how the speed of light is measured when using that basic example), but you still get the same value for the two way speed of light. This means that either time itself dilates or as I said, clocks tick rates slow down. According to my personal research, it is the later one that happens.
For measuring the speed of light in the carriage we need a clock. If we use a light beam that goes perpendicular to the direction of travel (it works at any angle in fact provided that you don't change it)  like in your diagram and say it does 1ns from low to bottom and we also take an atomic clock to count nanoseconds, no matter how fast the carriage moves the clocks will show the same time and therefore we will measure the same speed of light regardless of the clocks we use. Hence, I have concluded that atoms that compose the atomic clock will oscillate at a lower frequency for the same reason-modified trajectories of c velocity waves propagation, thus elongated helixes.
The best example are the OAM helical mode m>1 photons that have a geomety predicted by this concept. The helix pitch length is proportional to clocks tick rates. This also perfectly explains rest mass meaning.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: McQueen on 24/01/2017 01:50:38
Quote
Thank you, but I'm affraid your explanation is not acceptable. The diagram you have posted here is the classical example for explaining the theory. Hovever, when you measure the speed of light in the carriage , you send the beams parallel to the direction of travel, not at an angle(they usually don't say how the speed of light is measured when using that basic example), but you still get the same value for the two way speed of light. This means that either time itself dilates or as I said, clocks tick rates slow down. According to my personal research, it is the later one that happens.


I don't seems to understand what you are saying when you state that the beam of light is sent perpendicular to the direction of travel, surely the beam of light would only be perpendicular  if the railway carriage were stationary, if  the carriage were moving, then surely the beam of light would have to form an angle to the floor in order that it can reflect of the mirror on the ceiling and bounce back to the same point on the floor ? Could you explain this point in a little more detail. Why do you state that the beam of light in the moving carriage is always perpendicular  to the floor ? To complicate things further ( or simplify them) IF the beam of light in the carriage is also moving, then it is covering exactly the same distance that the stationary observer on the platform sees in the same amount of time. Therefore time must dilate to exactly the same amount on  both clocks, the moving clock on the train and the stationary clock on the platform, in order to fulfill the postulate that the speed of light always remains constant in a vacuum.
 
 
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 24/01/2017 14:31:30
To ilustrate the distances a light beam makes, the light source is pointed perpendicular but when the carriage is in motion, the source moves also and makes the light beam should leave at an angle when from a stationary observer, just like throwing a rock. The observer in the carriage should see the beam perfectly vertical. They stationary observer sees the beam longer and unlike relativity which says it is a length contraction,  I think the carriage becomes longer. This can be tested experimentaly .
The moving observer sees the light beam shorter than the stationary one ( the same length as before setting intoltion) but since his clock runs slower now, it measures the same speed.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: GoC on 24/01/2017 15:12:32
Nilak and McQueen

  Very interesting exchange. Each of you understand relativity in a different way and think it is invalid. McQueen is correct that there is no perpendicular view when motion is involved. He is incorrect in his understanding of the measurement of light in a vacuum. This is a big, big, big distinction.in relativity where many fail to understand. While you are in motion at any speed you will measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be the same speed of light. This is measuring the relative ratio of the speed of light  to be the same. Your tick rate slows to allow the photon to go further in distance for the measurement. The measurement is confounded with the tick rate at every speed causing the measurement of the same ratio. Your measurement cancels out for your clock and light distance to measure the same ratio in every frame. This is the main hurdle in understanding relativity. I can show you why using 7th grade geometry of the angle created by motion in the clock and vacuum being measured.

Nilak you are confusing contraction of view with contraction of mass with distance. This is your hurdle. Once again if you can follow 7th grade geometry of motion this could become clear. You need to understand independent of the source causes a perpendicular view to be impossible with speed.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 24/01/2017 18:53:49
Perhaps I wasn't very clear but here is what I understand. The laser pointer is placed vertically on a table inside the carriage and will point to a spot x0 marked on the ceiling. While accelerating towards a vocity v, the light beam should bend and point towards a point x1=x0+Δx (Δx is proportional to acceleration).

When the train reaches a speed v, the carriage  stops accelerating.

What position is the laser  going to point ? I understand it should point back to x0.

At this speed v, the outside observer at rest  will now see the light beam at an angle while the observer in the carriage will see the beam straight up (Δx=0).
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: GoC on 24/01/2017 19:39:59
It is velocity and not change in velocity for light being independent of the source. Lets consider you believe you are lining up perpendicular a laser on an x. The laser will always remain on the x as you approach c. But the x will not remain in the perpendicular position of view.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 24/01/2017 21:59:16
It is velocity and not change in velocity for light being independent of the source. Lets consider you believe you are lining up perpendicular a laser on an x. The laser will always remain on the x as you approach c. But the x will not remain in the perpendicular position of view.
Ok, then what do you think it happens with the laser point on the ceiling during acceleration, at constant velocity and at rest ?

After a photon was released it continues independent of the source. Although the laser is perfectly vertical it seems that the photons leave the laser at an angle when the train is in motion. This is a bit strange but it is what the experiments show if I'm not wrong.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: McQueen on 25/01/2017 01:33:01
Quote
GoC: It is velocity and not change in velocity for light being independent of the source. Lets consider you believe you are lining up perpendicular a laser on an x. The laser will always remain on the x as you approach c. But the x will not remain in the perpendicular position of view.


If the x does not remain in the perpendicular  position ( and the velocity is constant) the light from the laser  will form a saw tooth wave pattern, both to the observer on the platform and in terms of experience of the observer on the train.   The only bone of contention here is that light cannot (according to the theory of special relativity) possess the same velocity as the train plus its own velocity, because nothing can move faster than light.

This can best be explained  in classical terms as follows:-

Say you are sitting in a bus and you throw a ball up vertically towards the roof. This is basically Newton's first law of motion, or inertia as it is also called. The horizontal part of the ball's velocity remains the same unless changed by an external force. Since everything inside the bus (if the bus is moving with a constant velocity) moves along with bus, there is little to no air resistance in the horizontal component of the ball's movement. Thus it keeps moving with same speed that the bus had when it was thrown vertically into the air , the ball moves both upwards and forwards. If the bus turns, brakes or accelerates the ball would no longer fall straight back down.

According to special relativity because the speed of light is constant,  (i.e., nothing can move faster than light) it is not possible  for light to move with its own speed + the speed of the train , as that would violate the principle of special relativity that  nothing in the Universe can travel faster than light.  To enable such a process to take place, it is obvious ( say proponents of special relativity) that one of two things can happen (a) the time taken for the action can be longer OR (b) the distance traveled can be shorter. In both of these cases, the constancy of the speed of light is maintained but at the cost of objectivity.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: GoC on 25/01/2017 05:25:15
Let's say an observer is sitting on the moon. the observer can watch light travel through the air. A Light event travels from NY to SF. SF is moving towards the light event started from NY. The light event position is moving away from the light. Now that light is reflected back to the event position that is still moving away from the reflected light. We can clearly observe the light from NY to SF was a shorter path than the returned light from SF to NY. So the events were c-v and c+v for the same distance. The two way speed of light in any direction is always c. Orient a light clock in any direction and it will tick at the same rate. The atomic clock experiment showed relativity to be correct and the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Same with a train, light will move with the vector direction of the train and against the vector direction of the train as two different distances while the light speed c is independent of the train.

Relativity is alive and well. 
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: McQueen on 25/01/2017 08:36:58
Quote
GoC:  It has been proven that atomic clocks measure the same travel distance as the light distance. So we can interchange atomic clocks and measure the distance light travels as a function of time.
A very perceptive and insightful statement! I think that this whole fiasco with special relativity is because of a lack of communication, not  lack of communication as it exists today and which is excellent but a lack of communication as it existed more than a hundred years ago when special  relativity was first conceived.  Information in those days moved extremely slowly and more often than not the gist of what was said was lost in transit.  Firstly the Lorentz transformations as they were conceived by Henri Lorentz  were meant to prove the existence of an aether ! They were not meant to prove the non-existence of an aether.
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6f63/g98bg78cels4giz4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/g98bg78cels4giz/michmor.gif)
As you can see from a diagram of the Michelson Morley experimental apparatus, both beams of light travel the same distance.  Scientists could not accept the fact that the much sought after aether was non-existent, if it had been present it should have manifested itself through the beam of light moving against it (i.e., the aether) should move slower than the beam of light moving  with it. To account for this Fitzgerald, an Irish physicist, suggested half in jest, that maybe the aether was not detected because the length of the beam in the apparatus that was pointing in the  direction of the aether was shortened! Henri Lorentz picked up on this idea and found that according to the equations the time over which light traveled could also vary. What Einstein did was to dismiss the notion of an aether and the raise the constancy of the speed of light to a postulate. Lorentz often lamented that what he had theorized Einstein had postulated and won recognition for.
Without this historical perspective special relativity does not make sense. 
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: GoC on 25/01/2017 13:27:20
Quote
GoC:  It has been proven that atomic clocks measure the same travel distance as the light distance. So we can interchange atomic clocks and measure the distance light travels as a function of time.
A very perceptive and insightful statement! I think that this whole fiasco with special relativity is because of a lack of communication, not  lack of communication as it exists today and which is excellent but a lack of communication as it existed more than a hundred years ago when special  relativity was first conceived.  Information in those days moved extremely slowly and more often than not the gist of what was said was lost in transit.  Firstly the Lorentz transformations as they were conceived by Henri Lorentz  were meant to prove the existence of an aether ! They were not meant to prove the non-existence of an aether.
Unfortunately communication is a two way street. Miscommunication runs rampant.  Henri Lorentz was as bright as Einstein I suspect. There has to be a medium for motion period. Einstein understood correctly that vector motion of an aether type would invalidate relativity. But a stationary type of aether was disproven by the MMX. He did not reason his way out of that dilemma. He capitulated in his 1920 papers that there must be a medium. Most of the science community was against any type of medium to this day. One medium they never considered is a spin medium at c. The stationary particles actually  spinning. This would give rise to why electrons move in the first place. I have a grid structure that would move all matter in any direction and momentum of matter would be in space and not mass. Mass would be a conduit for c energy. The statement space tells mass how to move and mass tells space how to bend would never be so true. Electros have no entropy and are the very definition of perpetual motion. Kinetic energy has entropy while fundamental spectrum energy of c does not have entropy we can determine. Spin energy could be slowing down but we could not perceive the change as mass is produced in suns from fundamental energy.
Quote
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6f63/g98bg78cels4giz4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/g98bg78cels4giz/michmor.gif)
As you can see from a diagram of the Michelson Morley experimental apparatus, both beams of light travel the same distance.
True but the one way distance  is different from the two way distance.
Quote

Scientists could not accept the fact that the much sought after aether was non-existent, if it had been present it should have manifested itself through the beam of light moving against it (i.e., the aether) should move slower than the beam of light moving  with it. To account for this Fitzgerald, an Irish physicist, suggested half in jest, that maybe the aether was not detected because the length of the beam in the apparatus that was pointing in the  direction of the aether was shortened! Henri Lorentz picked up on this idea and found that according to the equations the time over which light traveled could also vary.
This is true but they could not imagine why
Quote
What Einstein did was to dismiss the notion of an aether and the raise the constancy of the speed of light to a postulate. Lorentz often lamented that what he had theorized Einstein had postulated and won recognition for.
Not the first time Einstein took credit for the work of others.
Quote
Without this historical perspective special relativity does not make sense. 
Special and General relativity follow every test with the correct observation. But Lorentz was correct there is a medium or c would not be constant.

Einstein could not explain the cause of general relativity's equivalence to Special relativity. It is actually very simple using a medium of c. The space between energy particles (dark mass) expands. This causes light produced by c to be red shifted. The electron travels further, the light travels further so they become confounded in every frame. The light produced in more dilated space changes the angle of the light being produced. Using the tenser style wavelength change is more of a two dimensional solution to a three dimensional problem. The density of energy particles (dark mass) is reduced as a function of increased mass while the spin rate (dark energy) remains the same. Relativity equivalence. The geometry of dilation and vector speed is nothing short of amazing.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: McQueen on 26/01/2017 01:34:12
Quote
GoC: True but the one way distance  is different from the two way distance.


The above statement seems to be at the core of the misunderstanding in this thread. Let me repeat both distances the light travels are exactly the  same!  There is no question of there being a difference between the one way distance and the two way distance ( whatever that may mean) unless you understand it to mean that one of the beams of light traveled twice the distance of the other and both beams of light still arrived at the same time. Not true!

The reasoning behind the Michelson Morley experiment was as follows:

 In the nineteenth Century when the experiment was conducted,  the aether occupied a very important place, something like what the Higgs boson occupies today, everyone was looking for it.  The idea behind the Michelson Morley experiment was to determine the motion of the earth through the aether sea, which was thought to be stationary (i.e., Provide a fixed point of reference.) If the earth is moving and the aether sea is at rest, then the movement of the earth through the aether, should result in an aether 'breeze".  Therefore a beam of light travelling against the aether breeze should have a slower result than a breeze of light sent across the aether breeze.  This is the essence of the Michelson Morley experiment.

To put it in simple terms most people are aware that a plane journey against a headwind takes longer than a plane journey that is moving across the wind. Therefore a beam of light sent against the aether wind and back again with it should take longer than a beam of light sent across the aether wind.
To establish and determine this difference in velocity , Michelson and Morley created a device called an interferometer. It was designed to determine the interference pattern created by the two beams of light as they returned to a common starting point.

A light source emits a beam of light towards a half silvered mirror . The original beam of light is split by the half silvered mirror into two segments each of which travels an equal distance, but at right angles to each other, and then back again. The two beams of light are re-united by means of the same half silvered mirror. Observation of the interference pattern created by these two converging beams of light in the measuring device, gives the difference in the velocity of the two beams of light.

The Michelson Morley experiment did not find any difference in the velocity of the two beams of light, it was a null result. The Michelson  Morley experiment is often called the biggest failed experiment of all time. The result of the experiment was said to prove the non-existence of the aether.

Pretty mundane isn't it ?  If you would like to see or are interested in a new aether theory that the Michelson Morley experiment would have been powerless to detect click here! (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66694.msg487402#msg487402)
 
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 26/01/2017 07:10:27
McQueen, you were right about the speed measurment direction. In the carriage it doesn't matter what direction you measure the speed of light.
In the carriage reference frame the distances perpendicular and parallel are the same since the observer inside will not notice the real path. (Δx=0 at constant speed).
However the perpendicular beam will be seen at an angle from outside, and the distance will apear longer for the outside observer. The observer at rest measures the speed of light taking its own references and coordinates, it doesn't matter how it sees the light.
My concept diverges here, because it says the clock rate( not time itself) is slowed down inside the carriage. Also, I got that the carriage length will increase (unlike relativity, there is a length dilation which  is shown my paper) by Lorentz factor therefore, the distance travelled by light will be the same, either perpendicular or parallel to the direction of travel and light pulses arive at the same time.

The one way vs. Two way speed of light is a different matter. I have proposed that it should be a  speed difference between the beam going to the mirror and speed when returning back to the source. This is not ilustrates in the M-M experiment but the speeds areassumed to be the same.

There are no experiments accepted ny mainstream that demonstrates we can measure the one way speed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
An observer at rest will see the speed difference but relativity explais this using reference frames.

In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote: "We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A".  One can reasonably read Einstein's "by definition" as "by convention".

According to my concept, there seems to be a difference.
Here is an experiment that claims to have measured different speeds.
http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-approach-of-indoor-and-outdoor-localization-systems/gps-and-the-one-way-speed-of-light

My concept agrees both Michelson–Morley experiment and One way speed of light experiment although the latter hasn't been accepted yet by mainstream.

GoC:
You still didn't answer what happens to the laser point on the ceiling of the carriage at rest, when accelerating and at constant speed.
I say it Δx=0 at constant speed and at rest and Δx>0 during acceleration.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 27/01/2017 00:06:30
 the one way distance and the two way distance: Includes that A and B are not moving at the same speed, that nothing is static. Each individual reference has motion of their own, and this motion is not restricted to follow A to B conditions of the experiment and apply them for B to A results.
  The experiment cannot be done, for the light speed is codependent of the medium C.
 The speed of light may be constant from A to B, although once the speed itself is dependent of the field it for witch it travels, the speed will remain constant in both experiments, although the measurements are sure to be different.

 The divergence in between the opposite points here, seem to be:
 One is considering the beam of light as in possession of a speed of it's own.
 The other is considering that the beam of light has it's speed gave to it by the medium/field (C).

 I also agree about that there was no point into not considering the results of the experiment.
 There was a controlled environment, no one of both sides would be able to "proof" why the results were both equal.
 Although both sides, now a days, would agree that it should have being equal.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FUHJhRmF&hash=b3cfd869200cd1699863782733a697d2)


Both beams A and B final measurement (the two way distance) is equal.
 Both beams A and B half measurement (the one way distance) was not equal.


This will be incorrect if one is to establish that light does not travel in function of a medium at C, doing so is to assume that the one way speed of light is not affected by the deflector at the center.
 This will become correct if one is to establish that light does travels in function of a medium for C, doing so is to assume that the one way speed of light is affected by the deflector at the center.


 No matter the format of the experiment, nor the number of independent mirrors and deflectors, as long as half of the experiment is a reflection of the other half, the final result will always be equal.
 The format of this experiment in the only way to produce a different one way distance that results into a equal two way distance at the end of the experiment.


 It was the perfect experiment with light, the only aspect wrong with it, is that it was used with the wrong expectation. They were not able to understand that it also proves a medium for C.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 27/01/2017 07:02:47
Even if this experiment example could be wrong, my concept predicts the speed of light anisotropy.
There are other results, including deductions using current knowledge.
http://www.espenhaug.com/OneWaySpeedOfLight.html
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: McQueen on 28/01/2017 01:05:26
Quote
[/color]Alex Dullius Siqueira : The speed of light may be constant from A to B, although once the speed itself is dependent of the field it for witch it travels, the speed will remain constant in both experiments, although the measurements are sure to be different.


Quote
Nilak: Even if this experiment example could be wrong, my concept predicts the speed of light anisotropy. There are other results, including deductions using current knowledge.


Would I be right in making the following deduction from your statements? The average distance from the earth to the moon is 384,403 km. the speed of light is 299,784 km/s , therefore it should take a radio transmission exactly 1.28223099 seconds to cover this distance and this is the time that a radio transmission does take.  According to special relativity, this is illusion; in reality it takes the radio transmission 2.56446 etc., seconds for the radio transmission to reach the moon, but because of time dilation it registers on the clock as 1.28223 etc., seconds for the radio transmission to reach the moon.  Isn't this highly convoluted, after all in terms of today's time measurements where it is possible to measure time intervals of 10-15 s. a difference of 1.2822 seconds is huge? On the other hand if a medium such as a universal field or an aether, hitherto undetected, does exist then it would serve as a Universal frame of reference and also account for the speed of light being constant. In your post you have postulated a different medium for each frame of reference so that, these are separate entities in each of which light travels at a constant speed.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: GoC on 28/01/2017 15:01:11
McQueen

You are correct but so is Nilac. You suggest the medium is static in distance. This does not follow relativity. Dilation of the medium is observed so the energy particle distances are affected by the amount of mass for clock tick rate. Our measurements and tick rate are always confounded, that is the confusion. Each of you are arguing a different violation of relativity.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 28/01/2017 18:28:21
Quote
[/color]Alex Dullius Siqueira : The speed of light may be constant from A to B, although once the speed itself is dependent of the field it for witch it travels, the speed will remain constant in both experiments, although the measurements are sure to be different.


Quote
Nilak: Even if this experiment example could be wrong, my concept predicts the speed of light anisotropy. There are other results, including deductions using current knowledge.


Would I be right in making the following deduction from your statements? The average distance from the earth to the moon is 384,403 km. the speed of light is 299,784 km/s , therefore it should take a radio transmission exactly 1.28223099 seconds to cover this distance and this is the time that a radio transmission does take.  According to special relativity, this is illusion; in reality it takes the radio transmission 2.56446 etc., seconds for the radio transmission to reach the moon, but because of time dilation it registers on the clock as 1.28223 etc., seconds for the radio transmission to reach the moon.  Isn't this highly convoluted, after all in terms of today's time measurements where it is possible to measure time intervals of 10-15 s. a difference of 1.2822 seconds is huge? On the other hand if a medium such as a universal field or an aether, hitherto undetected, does exist then it would serve as a Universal frame of reference and also account for the speed of light being constant. In your post you have postulated a different medium for each frame of reference so that, these are separate entities in each of which light travels at a constant speed.

 I agree with the idea of a medium for C.
 But I only sugested that if you place another moon, with the exact shape, rotation, atoms, at the ecxact opposit side of our planet and take meassurements.
  The speed of "the frame of light" is sure to remain proportional/constant in function of the medium C.
 That this does not guarrantee that the two measurements, of the two laser beams for each individual moon will be equal. The medium is and never will be static.
 It's the way it is accounting for each particle existing because of it, many factors may have change the one way and the two way distance in between the two experiments.
 I used that statement for the experiment was done when inside a fairly controlled environment, there the two way distance measurement is sure to be equal.

 The one way distance can be equal if the two beams are following parallel to each other into a straight line, that I can agree. But if the medium is not static, the very "existence" of anything causing dilation of disturbing the path is causing a different scenario than the one that travel into a straight line...
  The only way that experiment, both beans have traveled a same one way distance is if the medium was static.
  Light C is always proportional to the medium C.
 I'll away mention the speed of light as being proportional to it's source.
 The state of the medium for C is fairly constant, it rarely gives itself a minus, without adding a plus ahead, light experience that...
If we are to establish what is this medium, we need to accept what we think we know and ask ourselves why until we learn that we are wrong.
For the moment the speed of light is still constant.

If the defector 45° towards the mirror while the other beam didn't is not cheating, then I suggest we could start to conserve light into a mirror box...
  That experiment was ignoring the very conditions of the medium of C... This on the one way distance issue..
  About the two way distance and final results it was completely pointless if the expectation is to proof anything more then both sides being correct.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 28/01/2017 20:33:14
Quote
[/color]Alex Dullius Siqueira : The speed of light may be constant from A to B, although once the speed itself is dependent of the field it for witch it travels, the speed will remain constant in both experiments, although the measurements are sure to be different.


Quote
Nilak: Even if this experiment example could be wrong, my concept predicts the speed of light anisotropy. There are other results, including deductions using current knowledge.


Would I be right in making the following deduction from your statements? The average distance from the earth to the moon is 384,403 km. the speed of light is 299,784 km/s , therefore it should take a radio transmission exactly 1.28223099 seconds to cover this distance and this is the time that a radio transmission does take.  According to special relativity, this is illusion; in reality it takes the radio transmission 2.56446 etc., seconds for the radio transmission to reach the moon, but because of time dilation it registers on the clock as 1.28223 etc., seconds for the radio transmission to reach the moon.  Isn't this highly convoluted, after all in terms of today's time measurements where it is possible to measure time intervals of 10-15 s. a difference of 1.2822 seconds is huge? On the other hand if a medium such as a universal field or an aether, hitherto undetected, does exist then it would serve as a Universal frame of reference and also account for the speed of light being constant. In your post you have postulated a different medium for each frame of reference so that, these are separate entities in each of which light travels at a constant speed.
I don't understand something. 2.56 = 2*1.28 hence the 2.56. Where does this factor come from and why is it exactly 2.?
Also, what is the meaning of "in reality"?
I didn't postulate a different medium for which frame.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: GoC on 28/01/2017 23:49:22
If you measure the time it takes for a laser to reach the earth from the moons perspective and then measure the same path with a clock on the earths perspective the moons clock will show more time elapsed because the moons clock ticks faster than the earths clock. The moons measuring stick is shorter than the earths measuring stick. They do not measure the same distance for the same physical distance the light traveled. The distance and clock tick rate are always confounded.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: McQueen on 29/01/2017 01:45:51
Quote
Nilak:I don't understand something. 2.56 = 2*1.28 hence the 2.56. Where does this factor come from and why is it exactly 2.? Also, what is the meaning of "in reality"? I didn't postulate a different medium for which frame.

This is from your comments that there is no accepted experiment to determine the one way speed of light. It was Einstein who had stated that in the Michelson Morley experiment the two way speed measured up and down the cross beam would be averaged out but that the speed going one way up the cross beam would be twice the two way speed to maintain the speed of light as constant.  The second comment refers to a comment  made by Alex and not by yourself. Apologies.
Quote
Alex Dullius Siqueira :  I agree with the idea of a medium for C.
  But I only sugested that if you place another moon, with the exact shape, rotation, atoms, at the ecxact opposit side of our planet and take meassurements.
   The speed of "the frame of light" is sure to remain proportional/constant in function of the medium C.
  That this does not guarrantee that the two measurements, of the two laser beams for each individual moon will be equal. The medium is and never will be static.
  It's the way it is accounting for each particle existing because of it, many factors may have change the one way and the two way distance in between the two experiments.
This is very interesting, for the following reason. All of the statements that you have made so far assume that the medium is independent of the energy. In the Neo-Classical model this is not so. But first let us examine the concept of fields. This is remarkable because no origins are attributed to fields. They just seem to exist, which is not an acceptable scenario. It is always possible to fall back on Maxwell and Faraday and to state that the origin of the field is the point charge! But again is this really acceptable? Further according to Feynman, at one time more than four hundred particles and associated fields were postulated, presumably these were pared down to a more manageable number. According to Neo-Classical physics there are no fields, there exists only the universal field or aether. If you think about it from the view point that the whole vast Universe is made up of only a hundred different elements or so, this makes sense. Further, and this is a positive point in favour of Neo-Classical physics, an explanation is offered for how the existence of the Universal field or aether , came about.

If you look at your mobile phone, you will find that it is processing data at the rate of several gigabits per second.  The key word here is processing. Yet in an atom which involves interactions covering (comparatively) infinitesimal distances, QM states that often the process involves reflection of electromagnetic waves, thus it is an ambiguous situation with sometimes waves being reflected and sometimes photons being emitted and absorbed.  Neo-Classical Physics states that this is a false position and that all instances of interaction of electrons and EMR takes place through absorption and emission of photons. 

Examining the above point it follows that using this new axiom namely that 'all instances of the electrons  interaction with EMR take place via emission and absorption of photons', gives the term frequency of a photon a whole new meaning, it is taken out of the abstract and put on a solid practical physical footing.  This means that when we speak of a frequency of 600 THz it means that the electron is actually oscillating at 6 x 1014 times per second and emitting 6 x 1014 photons per second! (n.b., Neo-Classical physics offers another explanation for the formation and propagation of radio waves, which are considered to be 'composite waves' and not firectly emitted or absorbed by the electron. )

Now consider the Big Bang, since frequency is the rate at which photons are emitted , the question is what happened to those photons ? It would mean that for each particle of matter like the electron there were something like 1014 photons formed per second. What happened to this light. To say that it passed over the edges of the Universe is nonsensical, nothing exists outside the Universe, therefore what happened to the light? One possible explanation is that photons filled the whole of the Universe forming a vast network of  photons that were linked together as they spread out their energy dissipated to such an extent that eventually they possessed such low energies that they were able to evade the Laws of energy conservation and acquired life times of an order similar to that of the proton or the electron!   

This the 'virtual photon' field permeates the whole of the Universe ( much as there is a consensus that the neutrino field might be as extensive as CMB, the difference is that the neutrino 'field' according to Neo-Classical physics is just a manifestation of aligned virtual photons of the aether).

It is now possible to see how a photon propagates. The photon itself does not move, only the energy is transported (intact) along lines of aligned 'virtual photons' of the aether.  Think about it, this is exactly the same way in which a classical wave disperses its energy! Classical waves follow the inverse square law. 

Further it is now possible to see that  this is the  reason for the speed of light being constant. It cannot go any faster!
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 29/01/2017 06:28:35
It is now possible to see how a photon propagates. The photon itself does not move, only the energy is transported (intact) along lines of aligned 'virtual photons' of the aether.  Think about it, this is exactly the same way in which a classical wave disperses its energy! Classical waves follow the inverse square law. 

Energy is the background of this blackground.
 If the kinetic void out here is a illusion, gravity should be the face of the mask.
 Photons are not real, nor virtual, is the medium that on it's whole as the energy and along with C the ability to photon itself in the presence of spinning C interference.
  Aether, fine I can go along with that as long it's not a static one, only static inside of the helix itself(pure energy)
 Along lines of aligned 'virtual photons"
 Spinning C pattern with no reference adopts it's source, C of gravity, and by doing so the spinning C pattern of the photons is now being carried by C, photons are happening on space at any given instant, chasing the electron that for it's turn will always be ahead of them. The photons created on light will never be able to reach the electron. Also the "line" is being twisted and along with it is the electron. the photons it's producing are constantly rotating along with it on the chase. Two horizons one in the vertical the other on the horizontal.
  it's the same configuration and mechanics electron/photon had on mater, the only relevant difference is the absence of the atom, without it's reference electron will adopt gravity as the reference(the field itself).
 The riding photons are orbiting the electron as they where on matter, only that the marriage of spinning C + twisting lines of gravity C are resulting on a spiral C.
  Light is polarized because the electron is spinning and rotating on a 2D orientation, like a drill.

 Other possibility is that the electron emerges from the combination of the pass by of the two photons on the intersection A, creating a electron that is immediately "jumped" to B, the photon would follow but the electron that should be at intersection B will not came to be as long as the pair of photons do not reach the intersection B.
  It's a matter of know who makes who spins, and or exists. This is also very attractive for it suggests that interacting photons are the responsible for the existing electron, on this case the electron would not jump from A to B, but instead created on each intersection by the traveling photons, each electron on each intersection would emit a new pair of photons, those photons would feel a brief command to find the electron on the next intersection, at this point the electron is no longer there, but the photons will reach the intersection anyway...

My source of energy is the "primordial energy" that filled(was) the space before the kinetic void took place, and that spinning C produces a helix that set the interior of each particle away from experience of time, allowing it to pure energy "re-emerge" from inside out the particle configuration, or perhaps even inner cores of massive bodies.
 That anything able to slow down away from C slow down closes to the present(reality).
 The field than respond by trying to leak inside out that helix to outside in the kinetic void, while energy contracts towards the particle, on the other side C expands away from it...

When i think about universe, despise my lack of knowledge. When observing all those patterns that "universe" is as ordinary as a galaxy is, that universe is but a expanding field that is expanding only by being conserving the momentum of an hyper nova explosion, nothing more than that...
 Space is infinite, although universe is also certain to be finite, and surely outside universe elements as we know could not exist...

 One thing, by:
The photon itself does not move, only the energy is transported (intact) along lines of aligned 'virtual photons' of the aether.
 you're considering on rudimentary terms of my own that the frame of light moves constantly at C for C is the speed of gravity(aether)? Therefor is impossible to the frame of light to slow down or speed up, for when it does is not the fame but C of gravity that was delay away from C and eventually back to C? Adapting the speed of the frame of light it was caring, on the process....
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 07/02/2017 14:40:09
New version release:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0239v6.pdf

This version clarifies the relationship between the frequency of a clock and absolute velocity.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 20/02/2017 20:01:34
Further study on the concept:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0239v7.pdf
What's new:
A chapter on a theorized classical photon.
Equations of the helical path. I wasn't able to confirm if these equations result in  the exact gamma factor from SR, although, they look similar. These equations only show what happens in reality, not what we measure.

This paper is still a draft.
Title: Re: Dynamic Wave Geometry Concept
Post by: nilak on 25/02/2017 20:59:20
I have corrected an important problem related to energy by using the electromagnetic wave equation by making an assumption that experimental evidence shows. The assumption is that the energy of a photon increases as it goes down a gravity well and the wavelength is reduced. My previous wrong assumption was generated by the equation E=hf, that classically made me think the amplitude of a classical wave should remain constant. Apparently this assumption was wrong.
A new version of the draft is available.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0239v8.pdf