[mmfiore (OP)]

Thanks Colin2B,

This study of physics has been a hobby for many years since I was 9 and then it turned more serious when I became older. I do not like to write but I am forcing myself to do so because this story is not going to write itself. LOL I may at some point post a brief foundational question as I did here and then have everyone put their ideas out for discussion. That will be fun to do.  I will not post info about the details of my model until the entire set of ideas has been documented. It looks like it will take about 400 + pages or so to completely describe the Model its components and ramifications some of which may be patentable. It is a lot of fun exchanging ideas in an open friendly format like you have here at this site. You guys have definitely answered my question and now I have a better understanding of how traditional science views this problem. Thank you.

[JohnDuffield]

There is nothing in your reply that goes deep enough to answer the question to a complete understanding mechanically speaking.

A complete understanding is available in continuum mechanics.

Your next statement:″ if the wave propagates to a place where the medium is different" What we are discussing and what I am digging for is the mechanical means or method of the particle motion process. Your theory does not supply this detailed information.

It isn't my theory. The speed of light is related to the permittivity and permeability of space via the expression:



See Wikipedia. There's a somewhat similar expression for shear wave velocity in mechanics:



Again see Wikipedia. G is the shear modulus of rigidity and ρ is the density. When these vary, the wave speed varies. It's similar for light. Note that there's a shear-stress term in the stress-energy-momentum tensor:

 

Now back to what you are saying. I agree with you that the speed of light depends on the medium but this is not what mainstream physics really thinks any more.

Relativists do. See for example Don Koks saying it here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

But their voice is drowned out by popscience quacks and misinformation from particle physicists who have never read the Einstein digital papers. People who would censor the Einstein digital papers because they contradict what they've told you.

You and I both somewhat agree on the ether concept. Simply imagining that this concept is behind everything is not enough to convince the world at large.

See this  and this. It is difficult to convince people who thinks the popscience woo they believe in is mainstream science, and that anything else is some new theory.

Yet strangely as the photon leaves the diminishing gravitational field the photon increases speed.

The photon has an E=hf wave nature. There is nothing strange about a wave changing speed when the medium changes. What's strange is that nobody has read the Einstein digital papers. 

[mmfiore (OP)]

Thanks John,
I'll check out your links especially the Einstein digital papers. Maybe there is something in those papers I have not seen before.

[JohnDuffield]

When you actually read them, and then read Kip "time travel" Thorne saying "Einstein said x" when actually he said the opposite, it comes as quite a surprise. Also see the Shapiro delay: "Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path..." And professor Ned Wright's deflection and delay article: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light."

[jeffreyH]

The wikipedia article on the Shapiro delay states the following important points.

"Throughout this article discussing the time delay, Shapiro uses c as the speed of light and calculated the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equations."

The coordinate speed of light along a path depends upon the position of the observer. If we placed observers all along this path at regular intervals none of them would record the speed of light as anything other than c in vacuum. Wouldn't you agree John? For the sake of clarity.

[JohnDuffield]

That's correct Jeffrey. Because of the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. Each observer defines his second and his metre using the local motion of light. Then they use them to measure the local motion of light, so they all say the speed is 299,792,458 m/s. Only their seconds are not the same, so the speeds are not the same. Their metres are the same because where light moves slower the second is bigger, and these cancel each other out when defining the metre.

[PhysBang]

That's correct Jeffrey. Because of the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. Each observer defines his second and his metre using the local motion of light. Then they use them to measure the local motion of light, so they all say the speed is 299,792,458 m/s. Only their seconds are not the same, so the speeds are not the same. Their metres are the same because where light moves slower the second is bigger, and these cancel each other out when defining the metre.

Note that this is not actually what is said by the authors of the paper Mr. Duffield cites. The main point of their paper is that there is a way around this apparent tautology and explain what it means to have a different speed of light. It is a somewhat complicated paper and a somewhat advanced look at relativistic physics. Nonetheless, the authors write about what it means for the speed of light to change between cosmological eras (or locations) even though it seems like a tautology given a superficial examination of physics and constants.

[jeffreyH]

That's correct Jeffrey. Because of the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. Each observer defines his second and his metre using the local motion of light. Then they use them to measure the local motion of light, so they all say the speed is 299,792,458 m/s. Only their seconds are not the same, so the speeds are not the same. Their metres are the same because where light moves slower the second is bigger, and these cancel each other out when defining the metre.

Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms. You do know that Einstein used Lorentz transformations don't you? You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.

[JohnDuffield]

Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms.

What? Lorentz transformations are nothing to do with it. Instead see the definition of the second:

"It is quantitatively defined in terms of exactly 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom: a so-called atomic clock"

You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.

What? I'm not flatly contradicting Einstein. I'm referring to the guy:

"As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".

At a lower elevation where the light moves slower, the 9,192,631,770 periods of caesium radiation yields a longer duration. We call it time dilation.

[jeffreyH]

You said "the metres are the same" implying that any frame will measure any other frame's metre to be exactly the same as their own regardless of coordinate position. A subtle distortion in meaning. Hence alluding to a fixed spatial background reference that does not exist in relativity. You are implying that only time and not space is affected by gravitational potential. Maybe you simply have no understanding of the mathematics.

[jeffreyH]

There are valid reasons why both proper and coordinate measures are used in relativity.

[PhysBang]

Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms.

What? Lorentz transformations are nothing to do with it. Instead see the definition of the second:

"It is quantitatively defined in terms of exactly 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom: a so-called atomic clock"

As Magueijo and Moffat point out in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 , the Lorentz transformations have everything to do with it, as they form the basis of relating fundamental constants to each other so that we can use physical processes as workable definitions for units.

You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.

What? I'm not flatly contradicting Einstein. I'm referring to the guy:

"As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".

The ability to cherry-pick sentences out of Einstein's work (and occasionally pick out things that might be relevant) does not make anyone an expert on relativity theory. Einstein was known to make mistakes about relativity theory, some that he corrected himself.

At a lower elevation where the light moves slower, the 9,192,631,770 periods of caesium radiation yields a longer duration. We call it time dilation.

According to relativity theory, time dilation causes all physical processes to be slower in one area than another, not the other way around.

[mmfiore (OP)]

I have been enjoying the discussion and I will attempt to submit what I think may be a simple solution that answers my question tomorrow.

[jerrygg38]

This is good information Collin2B I like to hear about what physicists agree upon. Thanks for that. There is really so little information about this topic of photon motion as it is in the perpetual state. As jeffreyH said this has to be taken down to the level of the very small and looked at. I am a bit surprised about how this fundamental assumption of physics today would have such a deep logical flaw in its model of photon motion. I am surprised no one has noticed it. Let us take the example you gave concerning the pendulum and Newton's law. In order for this model to be correct the photon would have to be placed in motion by some external force just as a pendulum has to have an initial starting force to start it swinging. Then the photon would then move through friction less space unimpeded forever.
There are several problems with this model.
1. Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?
2. How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?
3. If this motion was governed by Newton's law then the photon would be slowed down if the photon encountered an external force that opposes its motion. This has never happened that I know of. For example when photons collide with other particles they continue to move at the speed of light after the collision.
4. Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.

The only reasonable mechanical explanation that can explain every instance above is that photons are moving by their own accord completely independent of all other moving objects or external forces. For this to be possible then the photon must be moving through a medium that it is consubstantial with. It appears to me that mankind made a big mistake in 1905. I mean no disrespect to anyone but these facts of nature trouble me. They need to be explained. I do not believe that photons are being ejected from electrons like a pitcher throws a hardball.

Since this is now in the New Theories section I will provide my answers to your questions.
1. There are electrical energy and mechanical energy forms. Photons are balanced blends of electrical energy.Photonic energy takes two basic forms. there are spherical waves containing the energy of huge amounts of photons and individual photons. the individual photon is a self propelled electrical motor. Thus when released it moves automatically at the speed of light C.
2. The speed of light C is really the jump speed as the photon jumps between gravitational field lines. This is similar to the speed of a synchronous motor.
3. the jump speed is constant yet the speed is slightly higher than the C we measure. It takes time between jumps.
4. The light speed is the average speed of jump speed and the delay time between jumps. Thus within a strong gravitational field, there are many more field lines to jump. In pure outer space the amount of jumps per unit distance is less and the speed is the ideal speed of light which is slightly faster than here. In a black hole the jump speed is the same but the density of the field lines brings the light speed (average) to zero.

[mmfiore (OP)]

JerryGG38

Thanks for the ideas. Actually there are a few similarities to my concept. However there are major differences as well. My question to you would be provide more detail on what it means when you say "self propelled electric motor." I agree with you on the self propelled part but I disagree on the mechanical electrical motor explanation. You are so close though. Very good. I like the thought process.

I am also wondering about the mechanics that lies beneath the phrase "the jump speed of the photons between gravitational lines." No mechanics provided on how and why it jumps between gravitational lines. Problem 2. There are not really gravitational lines in space.
You also mention a density of field lines this too is similar in concept to what I am about to say.

I am still working on my explanation should be ready later today.

Also I have another problem concerning this website. Neither of my browsers Chrome or Edge are displaying the editing controls properly. Does anyone know how to fix this problem. I cannot do any of the fancy stuff like mark quotes, underline and bold. It works every once and a while but then it stops. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[mmfiore (OP)]

Please keep an open mind while you read this as it is radical. I am aware of this but there is supporting these ideas, a reasonable chain of reasoning.

The photon extricates itself from all other frames of reference because it is self propagating object that moves at a constant rate of speed relative to an absolute stationary back ground. I know, I know there is no such thing. Maybe we are wrong about that. I'll get back to that later on. The constant rate at which light travels is in part determined by permittivity and permeability. I believe the modification of permeability and permittivity can be done by modifying spatial tension and density.

Wow, what does all that mean? I believe the velocity of light is caused by the idea that photons are in actuality pressure waves which are moving through a medium. I call this mechanical process the Slip Wave. I am deliberately leaving out the details of this process because it is a patentable idea and it is very detailed and lengthy.

So the differences in speed that we see when light goes through various mediums can be attributed to coordinate transformations of the medium as caused by massive objects that make up the medium, for example gas, water or glass. What transformation am I talking about? It a new transformation that may be derivable using Einstein's gravitational field equation. The transformation occurs as a result of modifications of space caused by different densities of matter within different mediums. The denser the matter the stronger the gravitational field within that medium. We already know that gravity slows down light just like other mediums. The big question is why? In all cases I believe that there is a coordinate transformation in which the density of the medium increases in a gravitational field. Space itself is real physical object that is an elastic solid and can be condensed. The stronger the gravitational field the slower light will move when we observe light from outside the gravitational field. This is because we are using clocks that run faster and distances that are physically shorter. The transformed coordinate system within the gravitational field contains more space per meter of length and a clock that runs slower. This then enables us to measure the speed of light from within the altered frame of reference to also be the correct speed of light. The speed of light remains constant in all frames of reference.

Let us imagine that we have a truly rigid measuring rod and we measure space outside of a gravitational field in a completely flat Cartesian space. We measure the length of this space to be 1 meter long with a specific content value. Now lets move the rod to a gravitational field. The rod is truly rigid and does not shrink or compress in this field. We place the rod in the gravitational field with the rod parallel to the surface of the earth's surface. The rod still has a length of 1 meter but the density of space along the length of the measuring rod is now slightly increased. In other words in a gravitational field space not only bends toward the gravitational source, it also condenses in the direction toward the gravitational source and becomes a gradient field. This conforms to the acceleration equivalence. A gradient field of increasing density exists in the direction toward the gravitational source. This mechanical apparatus also explains the tidal effect.

Why should this slow down light? Simple D=r*t Now solve for time t=d/r.
If the speed of light remains constant which I believe it does then the time it takes light to traverse the meter inside the gravitational field will be slightly longer when we observe from outside the gravitational field. Why is it longer? It is longer because the actual physical distance of space has increased across the length of the rigid measuring rod. The rod which measures a meters worth of distance to us but in actuality the distance of physical space is greater in the gravitational field. There is more support for this idea. The frequency of light also compresses when it enters a gravitational field. The change of density perfectly explains both the frequency compression and the apparent slowing of the speed of light. It also explains the equivalence of acceleration to gravity. Light does not really slow down in a gravitational field it has to travel farther and so to us it appears to be slowing down. Inside the gravitational field it still measures as traveling at proper light speed.

There is one very important anomaly that is rarely if ever discussed. That anomaly is that light itself resides in a frame of reference that is not subject to the Lorentz Transformations. One should be asking why is light misbehaving in this way. The answer is shown below.

The final break through for me was the realization that balanced charges are immune to inertial effects when they move through space. Inertia being directly related to gravity. My system can also be used to explain inertia. The photon is a neutral or balanced charge moving at a constant rate of speed.

Postulate: The central cause of mass is directly rated to the motion of unbalanced charges accelerating through space. These type of particles move in a curved fashion which is a absolute form of motion. By definition absolute motion is accelerated motion. Accelerated motion causes inertia and inertia becomes gravity. I am deliberately leaving out the mechanical process for the details of inertia. On the other hand balanced charges such as the photon do not move in an accelerated fashion they move at a constant rate and therefore do not generate inertia and correspondingly do not generate mass and are not subject to the Lorentz transformations.

Gentlemen what I have just explained is the completion of Einstein's Unified Field theory. If this is ever proven to be correct electromagnetism will be united to gravity.

So you must be thinking at this point how does one prove this? Repeat the Michelson Interferometer experiment BUT DO NOT USE PHOTONS. We must use a Proton beam or and electron beam. The particle must possess mass. The experiment using this test will reveal an ether wind. My suggestion is to review the maintenance logs of the beam speed of at Cern accelerator. I am willing to bet big money that the beam speed has to be adjusted every year during the December / January time frame. If anyone knows somebody who does this type of work at Cern ask them if every year they have to re-calibrate the accelerator in the December/January time frame and then change it back in June / July time frame. In particular the speed will change most in the tunnels traveling East and West.

So for fun lets say this some how this is proven correct. That would be something. What would it mean. It would mean that Einstein and Lorentz were right after all. QM is incomplete and the ether does exist. It means a whole lot more but that is another story.

[jerrygg38]

JerryGG38

Thanks for the ideas. Actually there are a few similarities to my concept. However there are major differences as well. My question to you would be provide more detail on what it means when you say "self propelled electric motor." I agree with you on the self propelled part but I disagree on the mechanical electrical motor explanation. You are so close though. Very good. I like the thought process.

I am also wondering about the mechanics that lies beneath the phrase "the jump speed of the photons between gravitational lines." No mechanics provided on how and why it jumps between gravitational lines. Problem 2. There are not really gravitational lines in space.
You also mention a density of field lines this too is similar in concept to what I am about to say.

I am still working on my explanation should be ready later today.

The photon
Thanks for the ideas. Actually there are a few similarities to my concept. However there are major differences as well. My question to you would be provide more detail on what it means when you say "self-propelled electric motor." I agree with you on the self-propelled part but I disagree on the mechanical electrical motor explanation. You are so close though. Very good. I like the thought process.
   I have two different models of the photon. In my Dot-wave theory there are three different forms of energy in the universe, spherical, linear, and orbital. In addition there are three fundamental structures of this energy negative dot waves, positive dot-waves, and bipolar dot-waves.
  The photons are bipolar dot-waves. Bipolar dot-waves form structures which when spherical they produce mass. When linear and orbital they form photons.  The positive and negative dot-waves exist within positive and negative fields. They tend to attract each other but they cannot because they make up separate dimensions within space. Space has no dimensions as such but within space are fields which are separated from each other.  Thus a photon is something that tries to become one with each other but cannot. You cannot put a plus dot-wave into a minus dot-wave and get zero. They always attempt to destroy each other but they cannot.
  The photon model is a form of linear and orbital dot-wave energy that contains the energy which would destroy itself if it could but takes the form of an electrical motor. Positive dot-waves and negative dot-waves revolving around a straight line tend to align themselves so that the magnetic field in the front of motion is zero. The magnetic field is the interaction of the photon with the plus and minus dot-waves of space. They tend to attract the opposite dot-waves within the photon and repel the same dot-waves within the photon. Thus you get a magnetic field which responds to the magnetic field in the photon. It becomes a bipolar magnetic field. However one field will lead and the other lag.
   The net result is that the photon threads itself through space as it moves on a straight line.

I am also wondering about the mechanics that lies beneath the phrase "the jump speed of the photons between gravitational lines." No mechanics provided on how and why it jumps between gravitational lines.
My dot-wave theory in my “Doppler Space Time Book” only had a motor model. After my surgery last December I decided to rewrite my book as “The Gravitational Wave and the Dot-wave Theory”.  At that time I realized that the Michelson/Morley experiment was invalid because every strong gravitational field is its own reference platform.  Thus the Earth is a reference platform and the sun is a reference platform. Photons from the sun become part of the earths platform as soon as they start to reach the zero balance point between the sun’s field and the earths field. Since spherical energy converts into linear and orbital energy, it is possible that photons constantly change from a spherical field to an individual field. Thus looking at the photon as converting between these forms what happens when they change reference. The jump concept is for the wave. The wave will jump between gravitational field lines.
   Is this a good concept? It is only six months old and my bipolar brain acts as a devils advocate against the concepts proposed by my inner brain to my outer brain. Right now I am attacking the concept and looking for an alternate explanation.
   It is possible that the photon remains as the electrical motor model suggests. It threads itself through the sun’s gravitational field and then reaches the balance of gravity point. Then it reaches the dot-wave structure of the Earth’s field.  There is a transition as the photon encounters the differential velocity due to the Sun/Earth relative motion. This may very well cause a transfer of dot-wave energy between the sun’s photon and the Earths field. Thus as the photon adjusts to the Earths field it turns red or blue depending upon the relative motion. For this case there is no jump but a smooth change in the amount of dot-wave entering or leaving the photon as it adjusts to the different fields.
   In either case the MM experiment is invalid and Einstein’s special relativity is incorrect although his equations are excellent because in my opinion we have a Doppler Universe and not an Einsteinian universe. Yet the geometric mean of Doppler equals Einstein so his equations are excellent.
   I like to see your ideas concerning the photon. I am still looking at several different models. Another one is a Doppler model.
 
2. Since everything radiates dot-waves space is filled with dot-waves which produce both the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field. Thus these dot-waves produce gravitational field lines.

[mmfiore (OP)]

JerryGG

Your theory like my own is something that comes primarily from the imagination. There is a lot of conceptual items in your theory that I cannot visualize because there is not a detailed mechanical explanation. Without that I am having trouble visualizing what you are saying. Heck, I have to work real hard to visualize what I imagine and then link the imagery to known observations of factual science. Making you own theory takes time and a lot of reading so that you can work the logic into a sensible theory. My recommendation for you is to give it time and keep questioning your ideas as well as others. Try and make a model that explains how things work.

As far as getting a breakdown of the concepts you have you should rely on people with an educational background in math and physics to analyze what you hypothesize. That is what I do. I respect the opinions and ideas of the people who have the training in the fields of math and physics. I may not always agree with them but I appreciate and respect their opinions and knowledge.

I will comment on one thing you brought up and that is the M&M Experiment. I believe that the execution of the experiment was perfect. Michelson did not make any technical errors and the data is valid. My problem with the experiment is that the design of the experiment was flawed. Using a particle that always moves at constant rate and whose motion is completely independent of all other frames of motion could never, ever detect an ether wind. People in that time really did not know that light would behave like that. This is why I suggest redoing the experiment with something that is subject to the laws of inertia. Use any particle other than a photon or neutrino. Anything else should reveal an ether wind and detect the earth's motion relative to the stationary ether.