pantheory

The propagation speed of a wave within the aether is at the speed of light, which accordingly varies to some extent based upon the aether density and its motions. The quark model was proposed in 1964. Before that time there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep-inelastic-scattering results from experiments at the Stanford Accelerator in the late 1960's. The quark model seemed to be a convenient and successful analog that could make predictions at the quantum level. Because of the way that photons scattered they came to conclusions concerning the sub-structure of protons. Using those same results I came to different conclusions but see no fault with the mathematical system of quarks presently being used since I presently have nothing better to offer, as I do for some other aspects of physics. I think one of the biggest areas of doubt concerning the existence of quarks and gluons should be the contention that quarks and gluons can never be observed independently. //

In this model de Broglie waves can be explained mathematically the same way as in the standard model. The description of them however, is very different in that they are accordingly physical aether waves like EM radiation, but generally with much less intensity and a simpler structure. In this model the majority of what we call matter is aether. I will not explain too much in depth so as not to get off subject, but this entire model is a three dimensional string theory (plus time is 4). Both protons and electrons are accordingly made of a single strand of particulates, maybe millions of these particles in a single strand. There are no quarks in this model. As the particle loop spins within the aether field it creates an aether vortex inside and surrounding it. This accordingly is the bulk of the substance which we call matter. Slower moving particles will interact with this vortex. Known neutrinos will not interact unless they actually come very close to the spinning loop of the particle itself, otherwise as we known they readily pass through most matter, because of their energy, as if it were invisible. The same string like structures accordingly make up the aether, but most have much smaller lengths. In this model there is only one elementary particle that has only one single internal mechanical characteristic. Everything in reality consists of just this one particle. There are no priori forces or pure energy in this model. When the vector forces from the surrounding aether move relative to matter it pushes it in the direction of the net vector of the aether. This accordingly is gravity. If you wish to ask any in-depth questions I can also bring up past speculation threads of mine as needed, to discuss any particulars of anything in cosmology or theoretical physics that you wish to discuss since one subject often is related to another and can often lead to peripheral questions. //

At the center of the Earth much heat is accordingly produced because of the pushing forces of gravity and the resultant friction between matter. This heat progressively increases while compressing downward. It also conducts upward to the surface where it is radiated away as EM radiation, close to or at the surface (infra-red). This heat is also enhanced by the sun's heat directly or indirectly. De Broglie believed "his waves" were physical waves and so they are according to this model -- physical aether waves. EM radiation is also accordingly physical aether waves, with an additional transverse character to it because of the particle's oscillation/ temperature which creates the radiation. http://en.wikipedia....ouis_de_Broglie //

The prime mover of radiating aether particulates away from larger matter is accordingly EM radiation but at the atomic level de Broglie waves accordingly are also a major player concerning radiating the aether outward from the nuclei. yes, it interacts with matter. Accordingly individual aether particulates are more interactive with matter than classical neutrinos because most do not possess great velocities. Accordingly the field pressure of the aether upon matter is defined by the universal gravitational constant G: 6.673 X 10-11 m3 / kg / sec 2 . In the aether models of 150 years ago aether was thought to be the carrier of light waves. This was called the luminiferous aether. In this model the aether is both a luminiferous aether as the carrier of light waves, and it is also the cause of gravity via pushing currents of aether. The reason for aether flow accordingly is to equalize field pressure.

No, this is an entire theory of gravity. I am saying that dark matter accordingly can be explained as a physical aether with pushing forces having vortex and fluid mechanics/ dynamics. This aether is accordingly the carrier of light primarily as a wave, but it also interacts with all of reality, being the cause of gravity. The model proposes that the aether density is generally constant throughout the observable universe excepting within and surrounding matter where the density becomes less. Surrounding galaxies there are vortex currents of aether that move into the galaxy since it has a lower field pressure. In this model the effect of these aether currents we currently call the effects of dark matter. Instead the aether particulates could be called the dark matter even though they are vastly smaller than present ideas of dark matter, and the push rather than pull. The aether and its energy can be observed in the lab as the Zero Point Field and in the universe its currents can be observed as the source of gravity. .. In this model de Broglie waves are physical aether waves that radiate away from matter reducing in intensity by the inverse square law, the same as EM radiation except for having less intensity. Their wave energy can be absorbed so accordingly it will increase the temperature of surrounding matter. Just like EM radiation most of this radiation accordingly comes from molecules close to the surface of matter. //

In this model de Broglie waves are accordingly the same as in the standard model but there would be a different explanation as to their cause and character. As to their cause: they accordingly are caused by spinning atomic nuclei that wobble on their axis of rotation every other spin, which produces these outward moving physical waves of aether particulates. Because of the physical spin and the outward moving waves, the aether pressure within and surrounding the atoms/ molecules will accordingly always be less than the surrounding field, causing the backflow of aether which we call gravity. //

I have been a part-time theorist for more than 50 years; see pantheory.org Hubble wrote a paper concerning an apparent correlation between galactic redshifts and their distance based upon their luminosity. He mentioned a Doppler shift as being one possible cause of the observed galactic redshifts. Friedmann, Lemaitre, and others had realized than Einstein's cosmological equations could lead to a number or non-static solutions. Some of these solutions could lead to a contracting universe, other solutions to an expanding universe, and some to a static universe with inclusion of a constant, and still others could lead to a changing expansion and contraction rates or any combination thereof. It was realized that all of these possible solutions could not be valid. Upon hearing of Hubble's observations concerning a correlation between galactic redshifts and distances, Lemaitre hypothesized that if the redshifts were Doppler shifts (recession velocities), then the universe could be expanding and if so then it could have started at a single point. He included the solutions to Einstein's equations that lead to an expanding universe and called this new theory the "fireworks" theory. His published paper suggested that there was a "premordial atom" that started the entire universe via its explosion. Other solutions to the Einstein equations were also published about the same time. Upon analyzing the physics of this fireworks theory a number or theoretical problems were thought to exist so this theory never gained much favor during these times. http://en.wikipedia....Big_Bang_theory Of course this is present-day theory Since I was actively theorizing at the time, I first recall when I read the idea of the expansion of space idea instead of their being recession velocities, about the early 1960's. At the time there were many opposed to the idea and there still are, although now they are great minority. http://arxiv.org/PS_...0/0310214v2.pdf There may be other assertions and so-called evidence or support concerning tests for the expansion of the universe other than galactic redshifts, but I am presently am unaware of any. Nor did I say that he did. He said that space warps surrounding matter which accordingly is the cause of gravity. This is true but if space can warp then it also could seemingly expand. It this idea space was not simply just the distance between matter. This is true because observations of that time seeming to confirm this static condition and was Einstein's reason for adding a "cosmological constant" to his cosmological equations. I think this statement is wrong. This is true. This is true but some Inflation models propose the beginning as being millions of times faster than light. For almost 40 years the rate of expansion of the universe was believed to be constant. It is called the Hubble Constant. Without Einstein's cosmological constant most believed that expansion could go on forever, but some thought that the this rate of expansion could slow down and eventually stop and the contraction could take place, a Big Crunch. With the inclusion of Einstein's cosmological constant to account for what is presently believed to be Dark Energy, the rate of the expansion of the universe is thought to be currently accelerating forever in the future. If this constant is accordingly a variable as some believe, then the rate of expansion could change again. Of course for some cosmological models where there is a different explanation for cosmological redshifts like mine, neither space nor the observable universe is accordingly expanding.

That's the model, no kidding You are correct; gravity also would accordingly effect the speed of light at close rage. So in this way it accordingly could effect the results of the OPERA experiment.

But I think this would also be the case for the predictions of GR wouldn't it? There might be some computational difference between GR and my model at close range but I can't think of any. My equations start to show a differences at stellar boundaries and at galactic scales. The only test for my model of gravity that I have thought of for close range is related to the difference in the speed of light that I discussed in the OP. I will read up on LIGO to see if I can get a clue how there might be a detectable difference of my model and discuss it tomorrow since I'm on the west coast of the U.S. and it is now Miller Time. Thanks for the lead 'Cap' n

No, according to this pushing gravity model matter radiates this physical aether away faster than it inflows. This radiation is both in the form of EM radiation and de Broglie waves that radiate field material away from the source, causing the backflow we call gravity. In this model the aether only penetrates so far down but the vector of its pushing force goes down to the core causing its continuous heating. Atoms are accordingly comprised of both atomic particles and the vortexes of this aether that can only absorb a certain spinning density of these aether particulates. // My guess is that the Earth is not a strong enough gravitational force for today's technology to detect such a small gravitational effect that LIGO was designed to detect, from what I have read of it. My understanding is that LIGO is looking for gravity waves and my model of gravity would not seem to be conducive to production of gravity waves at the scale we are now discussing. // I also, however, conceive gravity waves as waves in an aether, but not as being the primary source of gravity. The way that I conceive of them would concern AGN that have quickly spinning black holes (which accordingly are just a highly compressed form of particulate aether) which can also oscillate producing aether waves moving away from them. These waves could be called gravity waves because the effect of their outward radiation of field material would accordingly result in a stronger backflow of aether which I describe as gravity. Conceivably rapidly spinning stellar black holes or neutron stars that are also oscillating, could produce smaller versions of such waves.

JustinW, The Big Bang Theory (BB) name came from Fred Hoyle based upon his characterization of the original "fireworks" theory invented and named by Lemaître. Some years later this theory was re-explained and theorized by Gamow following the second world war. The physics which Gamow used at the time for this re-invigorated model was accordingly the atomic bomb, hence Big Bang. After a short time proponents of this model started disassociating it with an explosion. Now the original beginning is thought by many mainstream theorists to be only a hypothesis so instead the beginning of the modern BB theory starts with a hot dense field with no explanation of the beginning. This is the way that Wiki explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Although the BB model is really the only discussed mainstream model, maybe a small but increasing number of astronomers and theorists are becoming disenchanted with the model because of some contradicting observations over the years leading to the Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy proposals. There have always been a number of non-mainstream theorists that have never accepted this model. I am one of those. There are many different proposals now concerning the beginning of the universe, before the BB, multiverses, etc. So you can speculate here along with all the other mainstream ideas. You could study other models, and maybe someday you might wish to invent your own, other than just as speculation owl, Let me provide you with some history as an answer for your question, which you probably already know. Based upon the inverse square law of light concerning Luminosity Distance, there is a direct correlation between distances to galaxies and their observed redshifts. So accordingly the greater the redshift of a galaxy or other entity the increased probability of its distance. Next come the assumptions and changing theory. First it was assumed that this increasing of redshifts with distance, is based upon a Doppler Shift implying that galaxies are moving away from us and from each other. The only basis for this assumption that I know of is that a Doppler shift is thought to be the most likely explanation for galactic redshifts, although there are a number of other possible explanations for them and no evidence to support this assumption. Theorist long ago realized that they did not want to imply real motion of galaxies or even the relative motion of them, so they made another choice. Einstein proposed that space was "warped" by matter. They theorized that if space could warp then it also could seemingly expand. So secondly they assumed that space was expanding uniformly everywhere in the observable universe and theorized a cosmological constant to mathematically explain this expansion. Again the basis for this assumption is that it was thought to be the most likely explanation. After some time they realized that a constant rate of the expansion of space could not explain certain cosmological problems such as the so called Horizon, Flatness, and other theoretical problems. To overcome these problems they theorized that a very quick expansion of space in the beginning could solve these problems and thereafter this Inflation of space epoch would end. The number of theories proposed were called Inflation Theories concerning the "superluminous" expansion of space and the universe along with it. Most theorist were satisfied with these explanations for maybe a decade. Then in the 90's it was slowly realized that the present expansion of space did not seem to be constant over time based upon observations of type 1a supernova. But by changing the rate of the expansion of space they could explain what they were observing. So they proposed that the expansion of space and the universe was accelerating. This also did not last very long until they needed to explain even more distant observations of type 1a supernova which seemed to show that the universe via the expanding of space, first appeared to involve the decelerated expansion following Inflation, then afterward it started the accelerated expansion of space era at a redshift of about z = .6, which we accordingly are now in. This new theory they call Dark Energy, which is a variable expansion of space model. //

Yes, but it would but much less than the effect caused by light passing the sun which was predicted better by Einstein's equations. Instead of the curvature of space- time it would simply be the down-travel of the aether which would be the "carrier or light," and as gravity be the source of lights bending. In this model there would also be very little horizontal "aether wind" other than the vertical velocity. The slight horizontal aether wind at the Earth's surface might be equivalent to the terms aether drag, or in GR the equivalent would be called the dragging of space-time. I would expect the best estimate for this effect might accordingly be gleaned from the results of Gravity Probe B if possible. This average horizontal aether velocity would seemingly be no more than a small fraction of the down velocity. The effect would accordingly be caused by the Earth's rotation and in the same direction. //

You are correct, my mistake. I also read that they have checked the GPS system against the U.S nautical location system so I believe the algorithms of the GPS programming give the proper coordinates according to the precision of the receiving unit, at sea level. The problem I believe is when the locations they are examining have an altitude different from sea level. If I am correct and the speed of light is about 40 ppb faster going down than what is programmed, then calculations seemingly would put the locations above sea level a little higher than what it should be and seemingly also off a little on the coordinates. I am only talking about a total error of about 10 meters overestimation of distance over a span of ~450+ miles. That's not much of an error but it can account for half of the possible error of 60 nanoseconds for the OPERA experiment. The other half of the error I propose was in the timing between the sending and receiving end. If there was an error in the GPS calculated distance, it seemingly would equally effect the timing concerning calculations/ coordinated timing. Of course in this scenario an error of distance or timing in any proportion of each, depending on the calculations and programming, seemingly could account for the OPERA results. EVD ~ 1.25 G M E / r2s -- I think the easiest way to write the equation would be this way: The EVD (aether velocity downward) for the Earth would approximately be 1.25 times the universal gravitational constant times the mass of the Earth, divided by the distance from the center of the Earth squared times seconds. The last sec. is divided out since it is squared in the G constant factor since we are only discussing velocity. The 1.25 factor is an estimate based solely on the OPERA results. Before that time my estimate would have been greater than 1 but less than 1.25 with no basis to make a calculation. As far as all gravitational bodies are concerned, I believe the 1.25 factor is a variable function which is inversely proportional to the surrounding aether density. The larger the body the less the aether density accordingly would be close to its surface. The reason for this was explained in my pushing gravity thread, now on page 4 here in the Speculation forum. The aether velocity is accordingly an average velocity of the aether particulates going in random directions which would range in speeds near the speed of light going downward, such a neutrinos, down to speeds close to the speed of light going in the opposite direction, also such as neutrinos. Most aether particulates accordingly might be considered a kind of dark matter but vastly smaller -- some going down to Planck lengths, but instead of pulling they are pushing. In this model the aether (or dark matter) can be described/ observed in the lab as the Zero Point Field. // Thanks for the correction. I may have been thinking there was some kind of transfer station like cell phones.

As you know there is a signal going up requesting calculations of positions, and a signal going down which provides the calculations. Both distances/ speeds seemingly must be used in the calculations. The aether velocity is based upon the acceleration of gravity which is 32 ft/ sec/ sec at the Earth's surface. The theory is that there is a vector difference in applied force up vs. down. Accordingly the aether's pressure at the Earth's surface is less than it is higher up. The force difference is the gravitational constant G. Although the speed of the aether is not very fast there is a constant applied downward vector force greater than G, with a small estimated delay associated with downward acceleration of a body. Based upon the OPERA results this delay appears to reduce the vector force by roughly 25%. This would put the downward vector force at about 1.25 G at the Earth's surface. The aether velocity would fall off in direct proportion to the change in the acceleration rate of gravity. I don't think I understand this statement Normal GPS location measurements accordingly would be correct unless there is a difference in altitude being considered, then the error accordingly would be twofold. First the altitude calculated would be a little off, and secondly the differences in distances will also have error which accordingly would become a problem for relatively long distances such as the OPERA experiment, where high precision accuracy is required. //

This might be a valid calculation/ criticism if the speed difference between up vs. down were constant but you missed this quote of mine: within the range of altitudes on the Earth's surface. The 40 miles per hour is the speed of the aether which falls off by the inverse square law since it is accordingly the cause of gravity as well as being the carrier of light. Most of the distances to the satellites are also canceled out by the up vs. down light signals. The only remaining difference in the distance that light travels to be accordingly considered, is the distance between the surface altitudes being measured. //

I like your perspective but what do you think about these perspectives? I will equate time with change or relative motion. First there must be something to start with that could change, in the beginning. Time devoid of everything else seemingly would be meaningless. A single dimensional entity to start reality could have length but could be expanding in length (becoming relatively longer), hence changing. This accordingly would put the first dimension as being primary and then time as being the second possible dimension. But if time must require relative motion then there must be at least two entities to start with to consider relative motion. In this case time could be the third dimension If the only possible reality requires a Cartesion configuration then time could be considered the fourth dimension. If you like to play with semantics then one could say that before anything else space must pre-exist everything else and be the first required dimension. Space like time can also be considered a required dimension of matter and field (an occupied volume), or as a combined dimension it could be called spacetime. If time and space are considered separately then time could be the 5th required dimension //

Of course the GPS system was designed to do this but my contention is that there are errors in both Special and General Relativity which accordingly results in small errors in the GPS system. These small "errors" accordingly have become big errors in the OPERA experiment. The alleged errors are caused by 1) the speed of light is not constant relative to the surface of the Earth 2) Gravity has different mechanics and maths than those proposed by General Relativity. Both of these factors accordingly produce parts-per-billion errors in the GPS calculations when the altitudes are different between two measured locations. //

Lots of good thoughts here IMO. You might wish to separate your thoughts/ paragraphs since I think it make for easier reading.

In my opening posting I said that the aether travels downward at ~40 miles per hour. This implies that for a luminiferous aether that the velocity of light (EM radiation) going downward is about 40 miles an hour faster than the standard accepted speed of light. The aether accordingly is gravity centered for reasons discussed on the pushing-gravity thread. This is 80 miles per hour faster going down than going up. The speed of light still remains constant relative to the aether. 1,609.344 meters in a mile; times 40 would be 64,373.76 meters per hour velocity; divide this by 3,600 and one gets 17.88 meters per second velocity faster going down; Double this and one gets ~35.76 meters per second faster for the speed of light going down than when it is going up, within the range of altitudes on the Earth's surface. //

"faster than light neutrinos?" Explaining the errors Both the distance and timing coordination were measured based upon the GPS system. I think the GPS system has programming errors within it based upon Special and General Relativity, which accordingly generated the errors. So instead of simply errors, this proposal also involves new physics. The reason for the "errors" I believe is based upon the altitude difference between Cern and Gran Susso, which is about 4/5 of a mile. According to my own model of gravity this would translate to about a 10 meter over-estimation of the overall distance, and roughly a 32 nano-second error was made accordingly in the timing coordination between the sending and receiving timers-- together about a 64 nana-second error. The same error would also be inherent in the newly developing European GPS system. The proof will be when Japan and the US repeat similar neutrino experiments. If there is no altitude difference between the sending and receiving ends, then I predict that they will see no "FTL" neutrinos. If there is an altitude difference then the error should be proportional according to differences in altitudes. I am hoping to set up an experiment to prove what I am proposing. It will probably take at least a year before I could have the equipment (precision timers, etc.) needed and the personal time with others to conduct the experiment. Explaining the numbers and an experiment of proof I propose that the difference in the speed of light down vs. up is about 80 nanoseconds per mile. The aether speed going straight down into the Earth is ~ 40 miles per hour. Down is faster than up. There accordingly would have been no problem if the sending and receiving end were at the same altitude. Based upon my research, such a difference in the speed of light has never been tested. Michelson / Morley's equipment, for instance, was only accurate to 2 parts per thousand and this test for the aether requires accuracy in parts per billion. No matter how accurate MM equipment could have been they never could have found the aether if its motion is only downward via pushing gravity. Their equipment was not designed so that it could look up or down for the aether. Also if the aether is found by this test and confirmed by others, I believe dark matter will soon thereafter be understood as aether mechanics, Special and General relativity will quickly lose favor. Quantum theory will lose favor because hidden variables will have been discovered. The BB model will lose favor because its basis is GR. The carrier of EM radiation and the cause of gravity both will have been discovered. The basis for all this theory can be found at pantheory.org //

Myuncle, In this, I totally agree with you. //

Myuncle, I'm not sure if I am following your meaning here. From a particular perspective one could say that time does not exist in that we invented it to measure changes and explain rates of relative motion mathematically. From a similar perspective we could also say that the 3 Cartesian dimensions also do not exist separate from our minds in that they are just our convenient invention to explain relative positions in space mathematically, and verbally as length, width, and height. Upon re-reading your posting it appears this is the reason why you suggest that time does not exist separate from our ideas of it? I generally agree with your OP in that in my opinion the standard 9 or 11 dimensional string theories have no basis for their consideration but they were trying to make sense of reality as a whole (a many dimensional string theory of Everything ). The problem I believe is that we now have invented many theories in physics that are not mutually compatible. This implies that some or most of them are wrong, in my opinion. I am confident that when they generally figure it all out there will be fewer complicated things to talk about in physics except for the ponderous details. I think we made many wrong theoretical turns in the 20th century that will be corrected in the 21st century. //

One of the biggest problems with the Big Bang model explanation of the microwave background radiation concerns some very large cold spots in it. If the CMBR is the remnant radiation from the BB era why would there be vast cold spots in it? A simple answer to this question is that these cold spots are large voids of galaxies which observations seem to support, where there is much less radiation from surrounding galaxies and therefore these volumes have a lower temperature within inter-galactic space. This explanation would suggest that the microwave background is the intergalactic temperatures of intergalactic space produced by galactic radiation and totally unrelated to any Big Bang beginning. http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot