NOT "faster than light neutrinos.”

[pantheory]

"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

//

Edited October 27, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

On what scale (in meters per second) is the variation in the velocity of the speed of light that your model predicts for light traveling straight up or down?

[pantheory]

On what scale (in meters per second) is the variation in the velocity of the speed of light that your model predicts for light traveling straight up or down?

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.

//

Edited October 27, 2011 by pantheory

[insane_alien]

why does nobody seem to accept that GPS can locate places in 3 dimensions? GPS provides latitude, longitude and altitude (height above average sealevel.)

[pantheory]

why does nobody seem to accept that GPS can locate places in 3 dimensions? GPS provides latitude, longitude and altitude (height above average sea level.)

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.

//

Edited October 27, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I propose that the difference in the speed of light down vs. up is about 80 nanoseconds per mile.

 

This is a difference in position of roughly 80 feet over a mile. Taking half that (to get just the difference from "true" of light traveling down), we find that a GPS signal transmitted from a satellite would indicate we are 95 miles higher in altitude than the correct value.

 

It seems like this is easily detectable.

[pantheory]

This is a difference in position of roughly 80 feet over a mile. Taking half that (to get just the difference from "true" of light traveling down), we find that a GPS signal transmitted from a satellite would indicate we are 95 miles higher in altitude than the correct value.

 

It seems like this is easily detectable.

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.

//

Edited October 27, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's no up signal in GPS, only a down signal, so there's nothing to cancel out.

 

Do you have an equation for aether velocity at a given point? It would be trivial to determine the effective average velocity of light from a GPS satellite and determine the predicted error of normal GPS location measurements in your theory.

[pantheory]

There's no up signal in GPS, only a down signal, so there's nothing to cancel out.

 

Do you have an equation for aether velocity at a given point? It would be trivial to determine the effective average velocity of light from a GPS satellite and determine the predicted error of normal GPS location measurements in your theory.

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.

 

Do you have an equation for aether velocity at a given point?

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.

 

It would be trivial to determine the effective average velocity of light from a GPS satellite and determine the predicted error of normal GPS location measurements in your theory.

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.

//

Edited October 27, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

No, there is not. GPS receivers do not transmit signals to GPS satellites. There's merely a signal going down which receivers passively detect and make computations based on.

 

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.

Yes. Do you have an equation for the aether velocity at a given point? One which gives a numerical result, combining the factors you describe here?

[insane_alien]

No, there is not. GPS receivers do not transmit signals to GPS satellites. There's merely a signal going down which receivers passively detect and make computations based on.

 

to expand, the receiving device collects the signals from at least 3 (prefferably more for increased precision) satellites and using the difference in timings to triangulate the position.

 

no signals emanating from the receiver are necessary.

 

In fact, aside from not having the capability of transmitting, you'd need a big floppy antenna on you phone to transmit to multiple satellites.

 

If you are going to use GPS to argue something, please read up on how GPS works.

[pantheory]

No, there is not. GPS receivers do not transmit signals to GPS satellites. There's merely a signal going down which receivers passively detect and make computations based on.

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.

 

Yes. Do you have an equation for the aether velocity at a given point? One which gives a numerical result, combining the factors you describe here?

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.

//

 

to expand, the receiving device collects the signals from at least 3 (prefferably more for increased precision) satellites and using the difference in timings to triangulate the position.

 

no signals emanating from the receiver are necessary.

 

In fact, aside from not having the capability of transmitting, you'd need a big floppy antenna on you phone to transmit to multiple satellites.

 

If you are going to use GPS to argue something, please read up on how GPS works.

 

Thanks for the correction. I may have been thinking there was some kind of transfer station like cell phones.

Edited October 28, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wouldn't the velocity of the aether wind cause horizontal light beams to curve slightly?

[pantheory]

Wouldn't the velocity of the aether wind cause horizontal light beams to curve slightly?

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.

//

Edited October 28, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Would the down-travel of the aether be detectable in the travel of light waves along great distances in sensitive equipment, such as in LIGO?

[DrRocket]

In my opening posting I said that the aether travels downward at ~40 miles per hour.//

 

Would this not imply that there is rather a lot of this stuff accumulating at the center of the Earth ?

[pantheory]

Would this not imply that there is rather a lot of this stuff accumulating at the center of the Earth ?

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.

//

Would the down-travel of the aether be detectable in the travel of light waves along great distances in sensitive equipment, such as in LIGO?

 

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.

Edited October 29, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

That's not my point. If the aether drags light downwards, then a light beam traveling a long distance would have a slight downward curve. This would be detected in a setup like LIGO's, where light travels through a long path and is detected by exquisitely sensitive instruments at the other end. (Well, at the same end -- the light bounces back and forth quite a few times.)

[pantheory]

That's not my point. If the aether drags light downwards, then a light beam traveling a long distance would have a slight downward curve. This would be detected in a setup like LIGO's, where light travels through a long path and is detected by exquisitely sensitive instruments at the other end. (Well, at the same end -- the light bounces back and forth quite a few times.)

 

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

Edited October 29, 2011 by pantheory

[insane_alien]

My equations start to show a differences at stellar boundaries and at galactic scales.

 

then how can it explain the LHC results?

[DrRocket]

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.

//

 

 

 

You have got to be kidding.

[pantheory]

You have got to be kidding.

 

That's the model, no kidding

 

then how can it explain the LHC results?

 

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.

Edited October 30, 2011 by pantheory

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's the model, no kidding

What are "de Broglie waves" in this model? They seem different from how one would use them ordinarily in physics.

[Realitycheck]

So let me get this straight. Pushing gravity is actually just gravity as applied to dark matter. Regular matter amasses the way it does, but non-baryonic matter,or ether?, doesn't interact with light nor does it interact with regular matter either, but their effects on gravity do affect each other, causing regular matter to flow one way, to gravitate towards the planets, systems, etc., and the dark matter to flow, well towards the halos?

Edited October 30, 2011 by Realitycheck

[pantheory]

What are "de Broglie waves" in this model? They seem different from how one would use them ordinarily in physics.

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.

//

Edited October 30, 2011 by pantheory