801

New Theories / Re: What is the true relationship of the electrostatic & magnetic field in a photon?

« on: 15/10/2018 03:47:12 »

Hopefully we can come to an agreement. There is a matter of semantics I wish to first address. It is not true that the photon has no charge. In fact the photon is completely and entirely filled with charge. Just because the sum total quantity is equal to zero does not mean that the photon has no charge which to me implies the absence of charge. The number zero in this case means a balance. We should agree that it just means that the photon is neutral and it does possess charge.

With this in mind your second example using the implication of no charge and neutrality are both negated. The photon is a moving charge that has an associated a magnetic field. The fact that it is neutral does not mean that it has no charge.

In both your examples you mention that the particles are neutral. Therefore, I think that you maybe trying to imply that since the neutron is neutrally charged that it has no charge. I disagree as the neutron is not really a fundamental particle but is in fact composed of 3 quarks. It has 1 up and 2 down quarks. The neutron once again is filled with a balanced amount of charge. Those quarks according to my calculations are moving at about 99% the speed of light. In this case we once again have a moving charge with its associated magnetic field.

You can go through the entire standard model and there is no example that will work as all particles have charge and all particles are moving. In no case that I am aware of does a magnetic field ever manifest itself without and associated moving charge.

Physics now has a bit of a conundrum it has a asymmetry that has not been addressed or explained. Static electrostatic fields exist. They are constant fields, which do not change in intensity or direction over time. Hence, static electric fields have a frequency of 0 Hz. They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.

This topic & this posting are extraordinary. I havent digested all of the comments but they appear to be excellent. Well done to all. I have been googling-reading science for 5 years, but i have been shy of electromagnetic stuff.
I agree that the electro-field & magnetic-field are secondary, & that the charge-field is primary.
The design of a photon is one of physic's key questions.
I agree that a photon has charge, lots of it, but zero nett charge at a distance (if measured over time).
Williamson explains how a confined-photon (eg electron quark etc) shows its positive charge side, or its negative charge side (so too Ranzan).  Allow me to paste here some wordage from one of my postings here the other day..........

Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle? « Reply #276 on: Today at 01:16:39 » Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 09/10/2010 01:41:22  ..................Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory. Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy? ..........

mad aetherist's comment. I havent yet read all of the comments but i mostly agree & here is the way i think about fields & matter & gravity.
 
Electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at c outwards from the helix, & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).

EMC fields are not made of photons, they are made of parts of photons (the photaeno parts).

Gravitational fields are due to the acceleration of aether flowing into mass to replace the aether annihilated in all mass. Gravitational fields are therefore due to the macro bulk flow of aether, whereas all other fields (EMC fields) are due to the micro vibration of aether or due to a vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation). The aether inflow into say Earth might have the same speed as Earth's escape velocity, ie 11.2 kmps. However gravity has a speed of at least 20 billion c (VanFlandern), ie changes in gravity (gravitational pulses) propagate at at least 20 billion c.

The free photon is the primary quantum particle. If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which gives us our elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). All matter (confined photons) has mass, & all free photons have mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no Higgs etc.

A neutrino is not a particle, Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two helical photons sharing the same axis (the fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino must produce a pair of photons.

802

New Theories / Re: Towards measuring the one-way speed of light

« on: 15/10/2018 02:51:44 »

Time, Energy, and the one-way speed of light.
As many of you know, I've been struggling with the idea of measuring the one-way speed of light, and have come to the realization that the measurement has to be done with a single clock, and thus with a mechanically coupled device.  Assuming one can't come up with a better clock not subject to relativity.  I'll endeavor to describe a possible mechanical device to do the measurement.................

DeWitte did a one-way SOL experiment in Belgium in  about 1992. Cahill wrote an article on DeWitte, & another article that included wordage re 1WSOLX's in general. Ranzan included some wordage re possible 1WSOLXs in one of his articles also.

803

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Do photons, neutrinos and dark matter have a structure?

« on: 15/10/2018 02:36:12 »

Light can permeate matter but it is limited as to its capabilities. Neutrinos in all three flavors pass through matter without pause. A 3D environment poises little obstatcle for a neutrino. In a pre-recombination environment of 2D Space/Time, a neutrino's existance was confined. Upon the BB, S/T acquired acceleration, meaning neutrinos acquired acceleration. Their spin is 1/2, their charge is 0, their field is S/T. Being Bosonic and not Fermion their attributes are 2D. The advent of Light upon S/T acted to release neutrinos from the 2D confines. This happened during recombination. As Light altered S/T, neutrino's 1/2 spin formed a weak quantum gravity bond with anti-neutrinos. The ensuing bond allowed neutrinos to escape it's 2D S/T environment by giving it a paired spin integer of 1, the same as a Photon. Carrying a 0 charge and a integer spin of 1 allowed neutrinos to escape 2D S/T confinement by mimicing Photonic Light into a 3D environment. Once free of 2D S/T, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos were separated from their weak 2D quantum gravity bonding structure by the stronger force of 3D gravity which governs 3D physics structural formations. lol

This is what i reckon. A free-neutrino is made of 2 joined free-photons sharing the same helical axis, their out of phase electromagnetic fields cancelling thusly allowing the speed of free-neutrinos to be little affected when passing throo air & water etc, but the speed is probably affected by the nearness of mass (to the same extent as the speed of a free-photon). A free-neutrino is not a particle (& a free-photon is not a particle), but a confined-neutrino & a confined-photon are particles (but very very different)(a confined-neutrino cannot make a proton of some sort nor can it make an atom of some sort).  A confined-neutrino (if it exists) would be a dark particle (giving dark matter)(dark matter here would be similar in some ways to the matter in a neutron star).

804

New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether

« on: 15/10/2018 02:09:32 »

Been exploring the concept in my head.  Seems to me, many of us argue (within ourselves) about the need for a medium of space.  Like myself, many suspect there must be a medium for light and/or gravity waves to propagate through space, but we cannot see it.  We can neither prove, nor disprove such quality, it has no tangible quality, other than taking/making up space. The Michaleson Morely experiment (MME) is the most prominent example of the search for a definitive answer.  But the experiment was limited to being performed at the surface of the earth. I postulate atomic structure (mass) displace aether. If that postulation is correct, I conclude that solid mass displace most aether, followed by liquids then gas.  From the core of the earth to the outer most reaches of the atmosphere, it would be something of a sliding scale. I’ve been struggling to contrive a method to detect it, but I’m coming up blank.
Even if there is such a quality, can we assume it doesn’t interact with mass/matter? Best I’ve got:  Its everywhere there isn’t atoms, there is aether.  If there is aether around the sun and we’re orbiting the sun within it…  It stands to reason the aether would flow in a similar path around the sun, as the Earth. That’s explains to me, why MME and others fail to detect any aether quality of space.

JoeBrown. I got interested in aether 5 yrs ago. There is tons of stuff on google. It is fun searching & finding & printing & reading (& foruming). I have downloaded over 1000 of the better articles & have printed over 100 of the best.
My heroes are Ranzan, Cahill, Crothers, Demjanov, Michelson, Miller, Ives, Arp, VanFlandern, Munera, Shnoll, Allais, Wallace, Williamson, Builder, Lorentz, Sagnac, Catt, Dingle, Esclangon & a dozen others.
Enjoy the ride.

Oh by the way -- its not the luminiferous aether anymore -- its the gravitational & luminiferous & electromagnetic aether, because it is the one & only & most primary basis for everything we see & feel. There are no other sorts of aethers acting alongside. In a way u could say that this aether unites gravity & electromagnetism -- however gravity & electromagnetism are very different things, & there is no interaction, except that the presence of mass (possibly) affects c (however this is not due to gravity, it is due to mass)(i can explain).

805

New Theories / Re: Alternative discussion - why is the speed of light independent of inertial frames of reference?

« on: 15/10/2018 01:40:36 »

Please note the tactic that Mr. Duffield just used here, as he does in so many places: quotation mining, also known as cherry-picking a quotation...

This guy is a stalker and a troll. I don't quote-mine, I educate. For example, see this Wikipedia article:
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]"

JohnDuffield -- dont be too concerned about the attacks by the Einsteinian mafia -- SR & GR are krapp. Einsteinians are too stupid to read & understand that the MMXs were not null -- there are lots of articles etc on google.  Michelson's 1887 MMX showed an aetherwind of 8 kmps, less than the expected 30 kmps, thusly he said null in relation to proving all of his postulates re a fixed aether, which Einsteinians say means 00 kmps (liars).
We now know that Michelson's calibration of fringeshift=kmps was out by a factor of 40 (Cahill), plus Munera showed that Michelson's averaging of fringeshifts lost a few more kmps. The background aetherwind blows at 500 kmps south to north at 20 deg to Earth's spin-axis.

Crothers shows that SR is nonsense -- SR is based on a non-general choice of clock co-ordinates (Engelhardt was the first to reveal this in the modern era)(however it was already known in the oldendays). And Einstein knew that it was fake, he knew that he had to choose a privileged observer (what a plagiarizing lieing bastard).

The best expose of GR (equivalence) that i have seen happens to be my own (my annihilation of Einstein's elevator thought experiment) -- i might start a new thread re that one day.

Keep up the good work. Einsteinism will soon be a dead duck, this Einsteinian dark age will soon end, aether will return (it never left).

806

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Do photons, neutrinos and dark matter have a structure?

« on: 15/10/2018 00:25:14 »

Could neutrinos form black holes?

No, because neutrinos don't "clump", and you need a very dense clump of matter to produce a black hole.
Comment. I reckon that free-neutrinos might be able to form confined-neutrinos, ie dark matter, ie a neutrino-blackhole is not needed.
In contrast, matter clumps easily to form stars, and the fact that matter can radiate energy as electromagnetic waves allows the matter to cool down and condense. When a large star exhausts all it's fuel to produce an iron core, it can no longer itself against its own gravity, and it collapses beyond a neutron star to form a black hole. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova#Core_collapse
Comment. I reckon that matter can radiate energy as (1) photons (including neutrinos)(neutrinos are 2 joined photons)(the 2 sets of fields negate), & as (2) photinos (a photino is a part of a photon, it emanates from the central helical body of a photon)(photinos give us electromagnetic fields & charge fields), & as (3) gravitational pulses (but gravitational waves do not exist).

We know a black hole oscillates

Please tell us how you know this. I have seen merging black holes oscillate for perhaps 1ms after merging, but then it stops. I have seen oscillations in X-Ray emissions from the accretion disk around a black hole (like water swirling into a drainpipe), but this is swirling matter outside the event horizon, nothing to do with the black hole itself.

We know neutrinos oscillate... We know that neutrinos can travel at the speed of light.

These two statements are mutually exclusive.
 - If neutrinos travelled at the speed of light, they would not oscillate.
- Neutrinos do oscillate, therefore they do not travel at the speed of light.
- Although they do travel very close to the speed of light.
- Physicists would love to know just how much slower than c neutrinos travel.
Comment. I reckon that free-photons & free-neutrinos both go at c (potentially). I reckon that free-photons are slowed in plasma & gas & liquid but neutrinos are not slowed. I reckon that free-photons & free-neutrinos might both be slowed near mass, equally (if such slowing exists). If so then free-photons (light) are generally slower than free-neutrinos (dark light)(needs a better name).
- that would give some clues to their mass, a number which is poorly constrained at present. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
Comment. Handy hint, a free-photon has half the mass of a free-neutrino – however the mass of a photon & neutrino might depend on frequency -- & at that micro-level mass might not be exactly equivalent to macro-mass (ie the mass of an object, or large particles), in which case we might say that free-photons & free-neutrinos have mass-equivalence (in fact i reckon that equivalence tween inertial mass & gravitational mass doesn’t exist at micro-levels, but that is another story)(this inertia~gravity equivalence is not to be confused with the aforementioned mass-equivalence)(they are different things)(its a pity that both equivalences appear in the same paragraph)(sorry if any confusion).

So is it  beyond plausibility that black holes are comprised of neutrinos?

Yes.
Comment. If massive enough i don’t see why neutrino-dark-matter shouldn’t ultimately form blackholes (ie where free-photons cannot escape)(but free-neutrinos might escape).

The only impediment is whether the gravitational force of a black hole is powerful enough to capture and contain neutrinos that are within its proximity and traveling at the speed of light.

By definition, the escape velocity of a black hole exceeds the speed of light. The speed of a neutrino is less than the speed of light, so a neutrino inside a black hole will be contained in there.
Comment. As i said above, it’s the other way round, a free-neutrino is faster than a free-photon.
My definition of a blackhole is that light cannot escape (or very little). I reckon that a blackhole need not be supermassive – it merely needs an atmosphere where c"/n is less than the escape velocity – c being reduced to c' by the nearness of mass, & c' being reduced to c" by the atmosphere.
If a silly Einsteinian blackhole had enough mass to reduce the speed of approaching & departing light (c') to  0.00003733c, then that would equal Earth's escape velocity (11.2 kmps)(silly)(something stinx) -- & if that blackhole was made of water then light wouldn’t be able to escape if the escape velocity was as little as c " (where c"=c'/n=0.00003733c/1.35=0.00002765c= 8.3 kmps).
Neutrinos don't clump, so they can't form a black hole. But if normal matter has already clumped to form a black hole, a neutrino that intersects with the event horizon will be captured by the black hole, and will add to the mass of the black hole.
Comment. There is no reason why ordinary matter (confined-photons) should not gravitationally clump with dark matter (confined-neutrinos), to form greyholes (just jesting), which if eventually massive enough would become blackholes.
And as i said above a blackhole need not have an escape velocity of c, the escape velocity will be c', or if the blackhole is made of water or has an atmosphere the escape velocity will be c".

807

New Theories / Re: Does the thread break?

« on: 14/10/2018 22:42:24 »

I will digest all of that later & after some more replies give my own ideas.
I think that anyone can impose any extra conditions they like, but it might get very complicated.
I am happy to assume that the string & spaceships are massless & that there is no nearby mass etc in that part of the cosmos (ie true zero gravity) -- i prefer to imagine X & Y to be in line horizontally, both facing to left, with X ahead (both going rt to left), & with O sitting on the centerline of the picture (at least initially) & well below X & Y.

808

New Theories / Re: What if an aether existed?

« on: 14/10/2018 13:55:30 »

What would be the implications if new proof became  available that an aether did in fact exist?  What exactly would be the implications and repercussions for established physics.  Of course the old concept of a stationary, extremely stiff aether such as is described in the luminiferous aether theories, has been disproved beyond any reasonable doubt by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which also led to new proof of the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, similarly aetherosphere theories, wherein the aether exists in a small pocket around the earth are also unrealistic and defunct.  Yet the possibility of a dynamic type of aether is a stronger possibility today than it was in the 1920's when the idea of an aether was abandoned and Einstein's relativity theories came to the fore....................

No gas-mode MMX has ever given a null result. Michelson's main problem was that he totally messed up the calibration factor relating fringeshift to kmps (for the aetherwind). Miller likewise to a lesser extent.

The best MMX was the twin media MMX by Demjanov in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 -- this 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive as the original 2nd order MMXs. It showed that the horizontal projection of the aetherwind varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during a day. The background aetherwind blowing throo the solar system is 500 kmps south to north 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis.

Electro-magneto-charge fields are not carried by photons, they are carried by (what i call) photinos which are (tornadic tentacles if u like) emanating from the main (helical probably) body of a photon, probably propagating at c. Photinos probably involve a vibration or spin or swirl of the aether (perhaps tornado-like). The main (helical) body probably involves the annihilation of aether  -- hencely giving aether inflow to replace lost aether, the acceleration of the inflow giving the photon mass & gravity -- the helical main body propagating at c.

Aether is subquantum, it has no mass or energy etc of the ordinary kind -- but we can see-feel any acceleration or turbulence or vibration or swirl etc of the aether -- & annihilation of aether gives us gravity & in a different way gives us free-photons (eg light) -- free-photons being the primary quantum particle (or quasi-particle if u like) -- free-photons can become confined-photons which are our elementary particles (electrons quarks etc).

809

New Theories / Does the thread break?

« on: 14/10/2018 09:31:17 »

Some relativity question(s). I am especially interested in what Einstein would say, but there are other theories.

Spaceship X is connected to spaceship Y (line ahead) by a tight elastic thread & spaceship O is nearby.
X & Y & O are stationary. Do observers on X & Y & O see the thread stretch or slacken or stay the same when.....
(A1) X & Y accelerate at the same rate & there is no observer on O which is stationary.
(A2) X & Y accelerate at the same rate & there is an observer on O which is stationary.
(A3) X & Y accelerate at the same rate & there is an observer on O which accelerates likewise.

O is stationary & X & Y are going past at hi speed connected by the tight thread.
Do observers on X & Y & O see the thread stretch or slacken or stay the same when.....
(B1) X & Y decelerate & there is no observer on O which is stationary.
(B2) X & Y decelerate & there is an observer on O which is stationary.
(B3) X & Y decelerate & there is an observer on O which accelerates at the same rate in the opposite direction.

810

New Theories / Re: Gravity and Inertia are two sides of same phenomena

« on: 14/10/2018 03:57:57 »

Gravitational mass and inertial mass, have been found quantitatively same in experiments, but they are still considered two different concepts/phenomena in all physics literature. This article puts forth the idea that they are physically one and same. Therefore they are also always found to be quantitatively same. Which is not a coincidence; It is proposed that gravity and inertia are indeed one and same phenomena. This concept of gravity and inertia being fundamentally identical phenomenon is presented to readers for proving or disproving if someone wants to..................

Yes. Gravitational mass & inertial mass are the same thing. This is due to the way they are measured. Both are inertial.
At a micro level (eg photons, eg electrons, eg quarks) they are not the same thing -- here gravitational mass & force, & inertial mass & force, have different micro-causes & different micro-effects.
At a macro level this difference is nearnuff zero.

However i dont believe in space-time -- & i dont understand Einsteinian inertia within SR & GR & space-time.

811

New Theories / Re: Is there an aether theory suitable as an alternative to BBT/inflation?

« on: 14/10/2018 03:43:45 »

I am surprised that no-one has mentioned Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe website.
And Reg Cahill's process physics articles (& Reg is on youtube).
The aetheric cause of gravity gets a good mention (Cahill calls it dynamic space). Aether is annihilated inside mass & aether flows in to replace lost aether, the 3D acceleration of the inflow giving us what we call gravity, & it has a 1/rr relationship.

812

New Theories / Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

« on: 14/10/2018 01:16:39 »

..................Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory. Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy? ..........

I havent yet read all of the comments but i mostly agree & here is the way i think about fields & matter & gravity.
 
Electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at c outwards from the helix, & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).

EMC fields are not made of photons, they are made of parts of photons (the photaeno parts).

Gravitational fields are due to the acceleration of aether flowing into mass to replace the aether annihilated in all mass. Gravitational fields are therefore due to the macro bulk flow of aether, whereas all other fields (EMC fields) are due to the micro vibration of aether or due to a vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation). The aether inflow into say Earth might have the same speed as Earth's escape velocity, ie 11.2 kmps. However gravity has a speed of at least 20 billion c (VanFlandern), ie changes in gravity (gravitational pulses) propagate at at least 20 billion c.

The free photon is the primary quantum particle. If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which gives us our elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). All matter (confined photons) has mass, & all free photons have mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no Higgs etc.

A neutrino is not a particle, Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two helical photons sharing the same axis (the fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino must produce a pair of photons

813

New Theories / Re: Re: Relativity bending of light wrong example?

« on: 14/10/2018 00:45:38 »

If an MMX with air in it can detect the aether, why has no one won the Nobel Prize with one? There must be plenty of people who've had a go, and if all their results agreed, the issue would be resolved - surely anyone who builds an MMX with a vacuum in the arms would also test it without the vacuum. Lorentz Ether Theory also provides no mechanism for an MMX with the beams moving through air to provide anything other than a null result unless you're doing such things as introducing heat differences and air currents to produce errors.

Michelson won a Nobel (albeit not for MMX). If Einstein's SR & GR thought experiments showed that aether was superfluous, why didnt he win the Nobel Prize for it?

The aether issue is resolved, however the science-mafia (Einsteinians) have control & exert strict censorship.
No gas-mode MMX ever had a null result.
Lorentz length contraction limits the observed MMX fringeshifts to small 2nd order results. However Demjanov's twin media MMX gave 1st order fringeshifts, 1000 times as sensitive as the 2nd order MMX's.

Shankland's hit-job (1955) where he said that Miller's non-null MMX results were due to temp is a lie.
Roberts hit-job (2006) where he said that Miller's non-null MMX results had a giant error bar is a lie.

814

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Do photons, neutrinos and dark matter have a structure?

« on: 14/10/2018 00:25:45 »

.................So is it  beyond plausibility that black holes are comprised of neutrinos?
Neutrinos fit the needed attributes associated with the parameters a black hole existence.
The only impediment is whether the gravitational force of a black hole is powerful enough to capture and contain neutrinos that are within its proximity and traveling at the speed of light.
The counter is that normal gravity found in a typical solar system has no effect on neutrinos.
So, if black holes are comprised of neutrinos, and they are capable of emitting plasma energy and they oscillate, they have some characteristics of a star. The fact that Stars are a producer of neutrinos merely completes a cycle. Stars emits neutrinos, neutrinos are captured and contained in black holes. Neutrinos are spewed out of black holes via Birkeland currents. The spewed neutrinos are recycled into Universe and eventually new galaxy. The approximate lifetime of a neutrino is 10 to the 40th power, almost qualifies as an eternity. lol

The free-photon is the primary quantum particle. If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which is an elementary particle (eg electron quark etc). All matter (confined-photons) has mass, & all light (free-photons) has mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no gluons, no pions, no Higgs etc.
Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two (possibly helical i think) photons sharing the same axis (the EMC fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino produces a pair of photons.

If free-neutrinos can form a loop & become confined-neutrinos then these might give us dark elementary particles (ie dark electrons & dark quarks etc). Dark elementary particles however would not form an dark atom (ie a dark nucleus with orbiting dark electrons), they would immediately form something similar to the matter found in super-dense neutron stars, & thusly give us dark matter. Dark matter might form dark dust, dark asteroids, dark planets, dark stars. If massive enough a dark star might also be a blackhole, ie where free-photons cannot escape --  &, if supermassive, where neutrinos cannot escape.

815

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the proof of relativity via gravitational lensing false?

« on: 13/10/2018 22:51:41 »

The gravitational bending-deflexion-lensing of starlight is a worry for us anti-Einsteinians. The bending of starlight due to gradual refraction in the plasma of the Sun's corona is well known & can be identified by the associated rainbowing (this bending-refraction-rainbowing falls to nearnuff zero at about 3 deg off the Sun).

That doesn't mean that its large enough to be measurable whereas the actual bending of light by the suns gravitational field is exactly the amount predicted by GR. Yet general rela

My wording is clumsy.  Yes Einstein predicted the modern figure of 1.750 arcsec. And this 1.750 arcsec is rainbow-free. Aetherists come up with 0.87 arcsec, ie half the true value -- & getting this up to 1.75 arcsec requires one or two non-simple additional postulates re the aether. All of that would need a new thread.

816

New Theories / Re: Re: Relativity bending of light wrong example?

« on: 13/10/2018 22:11:58 »

No -- according to aether theory there are well-known tests that can measure the aetherwind speed & direction & tell u whether the elevator is moving (if the tests are accurate enough).

There is no experiment that has ever been done which has ever detected an ether. Many were made but not one of them showed any evidence of an ether.

Every MMX has detected the aether (aetherwind). No MMX has been null. U can google all of that stuff. I recommend Reg Cahill's articles -- & Conrad Ranzan's DSSU stuff. Nearly forgot -- Demjanonv's twin media MMX done at Obninsk  on 22 June 1970 is the best -- it showed that the horizontal projection of the aetherwind varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during a day. The background aetherwind blowing throo our solar system blows at say 500 kmps at say 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis.

Cahill 2002 & Demjanov 1968 showed that an MMX in vacuum (every modern Einsteinian MMX has been in vacuum) must give a null result (ie they are not MMX's). The good side of that is that these null results are all evidence that supports Lorentzian length contraction (or FitzGerald-Voigt-Lorentz-Larmor-Poincare length contraction if u like)(but cannot support Einsteinian length contraction because this is not a real effect).

817

New Theories / Re: Re: Relativity bending of light wrong example?

« on: 13/10/2018 21:58:58 »

  No i don’t agree – an accelerating source & a non-accelerating source must both give changing-swinging bent beams of some sort – as already explained above. 

The type of "swinging" beam you are talking about here is the equivalent of looking down on a spinning sprinkler head.  A frozen snap shot will give the appearance that the water is following a curve as it travels outward from the sprinkler.  But that is because you are looking at a number of different droplets at once.  If you were to trace the path of any one droplet, you will find that it travels in a straight line.  In the same way, looking at the whole of the light beam at once for the accelerating source gives the impression of a bent path, but it you were to trace the path of each single photon, you would measure them as traveling in a straight line path.   With an accelerating elevator, the individual photons follow curved paths.

Yes i agree 100% with all of this. Re that there single photon, i think i will start a new thread where i show that Einstein's elevator equivalence thoughtX is baloney, leading to an ugly bending of light passing the Sun.

818

New Theories / Re: Relativity bending of light wrong example?

« on: 13/10/2018 09:24:30 »

JANUS said………………………………………………..
If the light source is stationary to the elevator [& at ht of hole], then the light will hit the opposite side of the wall at the same height as the light [hole] as long as the motion of the elevator is a constant velocity.  Yes i agree.

With such an arrangement, there is no way to tell if the elevator is moving or stationary.
 No -- according to aether theory there are well-known tests that can measure the aetherwind speed & direction & tell u whether the elevator is moving (if the tests are accurate enough). In addition there are other aetheric tests (measurements) of a more difficult kind that could in theory be carried out on the light beam itself that would give sufficient info to tell whether the elevator is moving (if the tests are accurate enough).
In fact it is possible to tell by using Einsteinian SR & GR theory. If the elevator is on Earth then a changing (g) in the elevator will tell u if the elevator is moving, & whether up or down, & how fast – in which case u can also calculate whether the source is moving up or down & how fast (if u know the horiz distance to source).

If the light is emitted by a source with a relative motion [up or down] with respect to the elevator, and the light passes through a hole in the wall, the light will strike the opposite wall at some other height. 
Yes --  except when the light is emitted at the instant that the source is at the same ht as the hole, in which case the light would hit the wall at the same ht as the hole. And that "some other height" of course is not one fixed ht it is a continuously varying ht which will mostly include the ceiling or floor.
This effect is called the aberration of light. OK mightbe.

However, it will not tell you whether it is the elevator or source that is moving, as the result is the same either way.
No --  as i said above,  in theory there are (1) aetheric tests (non-Einsteinian) & (2) Einsteinian tests,  that can tell whether source or whether elevator.

It can only tell you the relative velocity difference between light source and elevator.  No, see above.

If the elevator is accelerating, the path of the light will curve relative to the elevator if the source is stationary relative to the elevator………….
Yes, the beam will have a bend -- Einstein's classic thought experiment.

………….or moving relative to it and shining through the hole.
Yes – the beam will have a bend, a bend that is continuously moving-swinging- changing – partly depending on the nature of the relative movement tween source & elevator (eg velocity constant or not constant)(a constant velocity will give a bent beam)(& a non-constant velocity will give a bent beam)(& these bends might partly negate the classic Einstein bend, or might add).

In the case the light shining through the hole, you can tell if its the source or elevator that is accelerating.
Yes for 2 reasons. Firstly because as i said above u can always tell. Secondly u can tell by comparing the bending to the classic Einsteinian bending (source fixed), the classic bending being non-changing.  Not important, but if the source is a very distant star then the bending will of course be virtually zero.

Like I said above, if the elevator is accelerating the light path will curve, however if it is the source that is accelerating, it will not.
Not exactly – see above.

The best way to envision this is to imagine a short flash of light leaving the source, passing through the hole, passing through a series of glass plates and then hitting the opposite wall.  You can note where the pulse passes through each plate to trace its path from hole to opposite wall.  Accelerating elevator will show the pulse following a curved path relative to the elevator.
Yes – or if u like imagine that the air in the elevator is full of smoke or dust.  Interestingly re that there pulse, i can use a pulse analogy to show that Einstein's elevator (equivalence) thought experiment is complete baloney (i might explain later).

Accelerating source will show the pulse following a straight line relative to the elevator, the angle of this straight line will be determined by the relative velocity between elevator and source at the moment of emission from the source.
No i don’t agree – an accelerating source & a non-accelerating source must both give changing-swinging bent beams of some sort – as already explained above. 

819

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the proof of relativity via gravitational lensing false?

« on: 13/10/2018 02:54:53 »

The gravitational bending-deflexion-lensing of starlight is a worry for us anti-Einsteinians. The bending of starlight due to gradual refraction in the plasma of the Sun's corona is well known & can be identified by the associated rainbowing (this bending-refraction-rainbowing falls to nearnuff zero at about 3 deg off the Sun).

However the gravitational bending found inside of & outside of 3 deg doesn't suffer any associated rainbowing. Einstein's GR doesn't predict rainbowing, in fact it might be ok to say that it predicts zero rainbowing. This is a worry for us aetherists, however aetheric explanations for gravitational bending too do not result in rainbowing. Our problem then being that the simplest aetheric explanation yields only 0.87 arcsec of bending, ie only a half of the measured Einsteinian 1.750 arcsec.  The aetheric 0.87 arcsec happens to be equal to the ballistic explanation-calculation carried out by Soldner in about 1804.

The Einstein's equations etc for bending are based on his General Relativity idea that light is slowed near mass due to gravitational potential. Einstein's GR explanation is silly & wrong, it has no micro foundation, his explanation is merely a macro math-trick to help to maintain his Special Relativity assumption that c appears to be constant.

He says that gravity changes clock rate (ticking)(called time dilation)(TD), & that gravity also changes lengths (called length contraction)(LC) in the radial directions from the object. Thusly he says that TD slows the speed of light in every direction at any point, & LC slows the speed of light in the 2 radial directions at that point (ie both the inwards c & the outwards c). Each effect (TD & LC) contributes 0.87 arcsec of bending, adding to 1.75 arcsec.

Einstein uses the Huygens bending equation (which is based on the slowing of light in media, giving bending)(ie refraction) to calculate an equivalent bending-refraction based on the slowing of light (in vacuum) near mass.  Bending in media we know gives rainbowing, but Einstein's bending near mass we know (radio wave VLBI measurements) doesn't give rainbowing.

Slowing near mass might indeed be true, but Einstein's silly SR & GR theory re the cause of such slowing cannot be true (in fact Einstein does not mention a real possible cause)(his psuedo-cause is merely a clever math-trick to make apparent c = c). The answer as to what causes slowing (ie a real slowing)(not just an apparent slowing) will have an aetheric explanation (if indeed such slowing exists). Still thinking.

820

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Relativity bending of light wrong example?

« on: 13/10/2018 01:11:48 »

This is the best question i have seen for a long time. We have horizontal starlight from a distant star entering a hole in the sidewall of the elevator (which is rising at constant speed), & the starlight hits the opposite wall a little below the level of the hole, a cloud of flourdust shows that the beam is straight (not curved). Einsteinians i think would say that the beam must be horizontal & must hit the opposite wall at the same elevation. Perhaps they might wriggle out of their problem by saying that the distant star is not rising with the elevator.

If a light source is close to the elevator & is at the same elevation as the hole & is moving up with the elevator then the beam seen in the elevator will be horizontal & straight (ie hits the opposite wall at the same elevation-height as the hole).  Einsteinians might agree.

If that close light source is not moving up but is fixed then the beam seen in the rising elevator will have a downwards curve hitting the opposite wall above the level of the hole, but that curved beam will gradually swing upwards, & the spot of light on the opposite wall will gradually move upwards (that upwards swinging & movement will be accelerating).
If the light source is (briefly) above the hole then the spot of light on the opposite wall might be lower than the hole (briefly).