Jerry Jensen's ATM idea

[Jerry]

Read the log again, Hamlet:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sig-...cfm?newsID=680

"The higher duty cycle implies a greater atmospheric density than expected."

"Implies" means this is an unconstrained assumption. If it is atmospheric, the ion and neutral and mass spectrometer (INMS) onboard Cassini should nail this down. In the prior close passes, the INMS recorded too few molecules - by a factor of at least two, to account for the 'drag' force experienced.

It may take days or weeks or even months to get an answer: If Cassini scientists report "The INMS results confirm that the the atmosphere on the 950km pass was thicker than we expected", you are correct. But that is not going to happen.

[Hamlet]

Read the log again, Hamlet:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sig-...cfm?newsID=680

"The higher duty cycle implies a greater atmospheric density than expected."

Perhaps you should read the log again. They are talking about higher drag and the need for the ACS to compensate for it during closest approach. A greater than expected gravity would not show up as 'drag'. It would be seen as a change in the probes trajectory.

"Implies" means this is an unconstrained assumption.

No it doesn't. It's a reasonable conclusion, not an assumption, based on what the ACS does.

If it is atmospheric, the ion and neutral and mass spectrometer (INMS) onboard Cassini should nail this down. In the prior close passes, the INMS recorded too few molecules - by a factor of at least two, to account for the 'drag' force experienced.

Prior passes were never this low. So the INMS has never sampled this part of the atmosphere before.

It may take days or weeks or even months to get an answer: If Cassini scientists report "The INMS results confirm that the the atmosphere on the 950km pass was thicker than we expected", you are correct.

The results should be interesting.

But that is not going to happen.

Such certainty from so little actual data!

[Jerry]

For completeness, I guess I should also ask about volume and mass - to what extent are either of these dependent upon the object's distance from the Sun?

My working hypothesis is that the Pauli exclusion principle is not exclusive; the medium Maxwell hypothesized as the 'ether' does exist, and the gravitational field is indeed electromagnetic. However, the 'ether' is a function of mass, the more local mass, the slower the path through space through this medium, and that includes the pathlength for both baryons and leptons. The 'GR' lensing effects of the sun are exactly the same as the tensors that cause lensing in solid but transparent objects.

The 'gravitational' electromagnetic field exists, but it is virtually nonpolar. This is because the basic unit - for simplicity, assume this is the soliton we call a neutron. A neutron is wired like a golf ball is wound: the charges within this unit viberate at such a high frequency, that there is no measurable pole. And just as a high frequency coil can attract a neutral grain of dust, a neutron has a weak electromagnetic attraction to all particles - gravity.

What I think is happening in the centers of galaxies, is that when the central mass reaches a critical density, it is not a black hole that forms, but a perforation: neutrons, and the roots of all baryonic matter viberate slower and slower - a powerful polarity emerges, and as more and more atomic centers align, the 'gravitational' field becomes polar: atoms sucked into this environment are robbed of their individual identity, and stripped down to primal units. as protons are created, they are quickly accelerated and ejected in gaseous bubbles or hypersonic plasma jets.


A galaxy as a whole, is dominated by the 'gravimetric' force near the center of the cluster, and this polarized electromagnetic field with increasing distance from the center. The very core is the opposite of a black hole: It is hollow!

Confusing? Think about the earth: There is a critical depth where the force of gravity is greatest, after which, there is a diminishing gravitational compression. In the gravitational center, there is no net gravitational force. Now think of atoms being condensed in the center of a neutron star: The immense gravitational pressure has combined all electrons and protons into one big neutron sea, but once again, the net gravitational force drops near the center. Remember, as the net mass increases, so does the 'texture of space', even inside an object like a neutron star. As the vibrational modes of the neutrons are slowed down by the increasing texture, polarities reemerge from the 'internal' surface of this neutron sphere.

Since the neutron star is rapidly spinning, an inevitable electromagnetic field remerges - electrons recreated in the heart of the star are accelerate into gamma rays that burst forth from one pole of a neutron star. The larger protons, spin off in the opposite direction, backflow to fill the charge inbalance, and the process starts all over again. This is why pulsers pulse, and pulse so fast: it is a central, rather than a surface phenomenon.

A similar process happens in galaxies, but on such giant dimensions that a hole may be spun open for eons on both ends, and contains both ions and this is what we see: Unbelievable plasmic jet flows that span light years. Sometimes these flows end almost as quick as they start - the galaxy core closes, and the flow condenses as the heart of a new galaxy burped out of an old one: A quasar.

What I don't know, is if this is also happening in the sun! There are indications that it may, and also indications that it may not. First, there is the magnetic field of the sun, second the copious amounts of hydrogen. A star like the sun would still age, but since much of the energy released by the core is re-absorbed, the aging process would be much slower. The problem with these assumptions is that it wreaks havoc with star aging theory, but then so does getting rid of gravity.

All of this is, of course, highly speculative. But if leptons are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, the first place to look for this is in the orbits of the planets. This is what I did, and this is why I predicted that Newtonian masses are wrong. I cannot quash this hypothesis with the evidence that is out there. Amazing.

[Ari Jokimaki]

What I think is happening in the centers of galaxies, is that when the central mass reaches a critical density, it is not a black hole that forms, but a perforation: neutrons, and the roots of all baryonic matter viberate slower and slower - a powerful polarity emerges, and as more and more atomic centers align, the 'gravitational' field becomes polar: atoms sucked into this environment are robbed of their individual identity, and stripped down to primal units. as protons are created, they are quickly accelerated and ejected in gaseous bubbles or hypersonic plasma jets.

What happens to these ejected particles after that? Do they form objects near the ejecting galaxies? And as I'm following Arp's work very closely, I have to ask that are there intrinsic redshifts involved in your scenario? And if there is, what causes them?

Ah, I see that you already answered to these at least partly:

A similar process happens in galaxies, but on such giant dimensions that a hole may be spun open for eons on both ends, and contains both ions and this is what we see: Unbelievable plasmic jet flows that span light years. Sometimes these flows end almost as quick as they start - the galaxy core closes, and the flow condenses as the heart of a new galaxy burped out of an old one: A quasar.

You seem to be quite close to what Arp, Hoyle et al. are suggesting, but what happens if the flow doesn't end so quickly, what then is the resulting object?

What about companion galaxies, how do they form in your hypothesis? And what about spiral arms?

Do you have an explanation to pair alignments of quasars across galaxies? (I'm not saying that you have to have an explanation for that, as the evidence on pair alignments is not conclusive, but I'm just curious how closely your hypothesis resembles Arp's hypothesis. Also, as I have studied pair alignments, it's a subject I'm particularly interested in.)

Ok, I could throw you dozens of questions regarding your hypothesis' take on intrinsic redshift related matters, but I'll stop here.

[Jerry]

What happens to these ejected particles after that? Do they form objects near the ejecting galaxies? And as I'm following Arp's work very closely, I have to ask that are there intrinsic redshifts involved in your scenario? And if there is, what causes them?

Absolutely - if you have followed the Arp thread closely Degruss & Co. have established a great case for intrinsic redshifts in quasars. Since quasars have the same redshift as the galaxies they are often identified with, the intrinsic function has to be either an extended gas shell, or gravitational. Or both.

You seem to be quite close to what Arp, Hoyle et al. are suggesting, but what happens if the flow doesn't end so quickly, what then is the resulting object?

There are a few jets out their that just go on forever, and in any case, many galaxies are blowing hydrogen bubbles. The type of mass ejected seems to vary. The key is that in ultra-dense enviroments, neutrons spin slower and become powerful dipoles, rather than very weak monopoles, and the gravimetric compression cycle is terminated by extreme polar ejections.

What about companion galaxies, how do they form in your hypothesis? And what about spiral arms?

Well, yes. Whether a companion galaxy is an aged quasar, or the result of a larger ejection - I don't think there are tight limits on the size of these events.

Do you have an explanation two pair alignments of quasars across galaxies?

Yes: when the core of a galaxy reaches a critical mass, it will usually breach at both poles, launching primal plasma in both directions.

Ok, I could throw you dozens of questions regarding your hypothesis' take on intrinsic redshift related matters, but I'll stop here.

I have spent hundreds of hours trying to settle in on redshift mechanisms. The cosmic redshift is a natural consequence of the fact leptons are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle: Light does get tired.

[papageno]

The 'GR' lensing effects of the sun are exactly the same as the tensors that cause lensing in solid but transparent objects.

Refraction in transparent materials is the result of the interaction between matter and electromagentic waves (not tensors: that's just the mathematical tool to calculate it). The resulting refractive index depends on the frequency, which yields chromatic aberration in lenses (as astronomers know).

How come that this "ether", which gives the gravitational lensing, shows no sign of such dispersion?

The 'gravitational' electromagnetic field exists, but it is virtually nonpolar. This is because the basic unit - for simplicity, assume this is the soliton we call a neutron. A neutron is wired like a golf ball is wound: the charges within this unit viberate at such a high frequency, that there is no measurable pole. And just as a high frequency coil can attract a neutral grain of dust, a neutron has a weak electromagnetic attraction to all particles - gravity.

How do you explain th magnetic moment and the observed (electric) quadrupole moment?


EDIT to add: I withdraw the quadrupole moment of the neutron. That'll teach me to go with faint memories, instead of checking beforehand.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Absolutely - if you have followed the Arp thread closely Degruss & Co. have established a great case for intrinsic redshifts in quasars. Since quasars have the same redshift as the galaxies they are often identified with, the intrinsic function has to be either an extended gas shell, or gravitational. Or both.

Yes, I have followed Arp thread, even made a couple (of hundred) posts there . Based on your answer it seems that intrinsic redshifts are not required by your current hypothesis, they are just something you can live with, right? If so, then there's really no need to discuss them further here. Well, except the "extended gas shell", I don't understand that redshift mechanism, could you elaborate?

... The type of mass ejected seems to vary.
...I don't think there are tight limits on the size of these events.

So ejections can have many forms. What about the direction of ejections in your hypothesis, is it always (roughly) along the minor axis of the galaxy? I think Arp has suggested ejections also to the direction of the accretion disk.

[Jerry]

[QUOTE=papageno]
How come that this "ether", which gives the gravitational lensing, shows no sign of such dispersion?
[quote]Very good question.
The same question can be ask about a 1/r component in the calculation of the orbits of the planets (why are they so close to 1/r^2 predictions), and the answer to both questions is the same:
When an object, or a photon for that matter, approaches the sun, it is slowed by the increase in path length, but the energy is returned as the path length again 'stretches out', this is a virtual spring constant. In the analogy with light passing through a solid, transparent object, if you are studying a starlight that passes near the sun, the density gradient is equal, there is displacement, but it is too small to be measured. (The same is true in the 'bending' of light" whenever there is a change in the density or refractive index: light "bent" one way will be "bent back" at the opposite end of the crystal. Light from a sources very near the sun should be more dispersed, and I think the radio signals we have observed while probes pass near the limb of the sun show this, however it is not seperatable from corona effects at this time.

How do you explain the magnetic moment and the observed (electric) quadrupole moment?

A magnetic moment is consistent with an electronic interior with multiple vibrational modes, this is not news - Likewise, It is my understanding the quadrupole only emerges when neutrons interact, and the 'quarks' are released - remember, this was a simplified conceptual model represented by the neutron at the atomic level.

[Jerry]

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0608087

We illustrate the energy transfer during planetary flybys as a function of time using a number of flight mission examples. The energy transfer process is rather more complicated than a monotonic increase (or decrease) of energy with time. It exhibits temporary maxima and minima with time which then partially moderate before the asymptotic condition is obtained. The energy transfer to angular momentum is exhibited by an approximate Jacobi constant for the system. We demonstrate this with flybys that have shown unexplained behaviors: i) the possible onset of the "Pioneer anomaly" with the gravity assist of Pioneer 11 by Saturn to hyperbolic orbit (as well as the Pioneer 10 hyperbolic gravity assist by Jupiter) and ii) the Earth flyby anomalies of small increases in energy {\it in the geocentric system} (Galileo-I, NEAR, and Rosetta, in additioon discussing the Cassini and Messenger flybys). Perhaps some small, as yet unrecognized effect in the energy-transfer process can shed light on these anomalies.

See, I'm not the only one picking up on this - when these guys get their hands on the Cassini-Titan data, all hell is going to break loose.

1) Notice how the doppler residuals in the Pioneer II flyby of saturn (p6) closely resemble the residuals in the Pioneer 6 flyby of the sun. This graphically represents the concept I have been taughting.

2) The same residual trend is observe in the Pioneer 10 flyby of Jupiter. That is three missions, three spin stabilized probes, three very similar results!

3) These cannot be written of as atmospheric effects. Period.

During the flyby the total energy and angular momentum of the solar system are conserved. Further, independent of the heliocentric energy change of the craft itself, the spacecraft’s total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.

Instead, for Earth flybys by the Galileo, NEAR, and Rosetta spacecraft, the geocentric orbital energy after the closest approach to Earth was noticeably greater than the orbital energy before closest approach. So far, no mechanism, either external or internal to the spacecraft, that could produce these observed net changes in orbital energy has been identified.

It has always puzzled and challenge my theory, that there has been no evidence of a gradient near the Earth - but the devil is always in the details, and this is the first time I have seen them - there they are! Just last week I ALMOST wrote that the residuals would not occur at the earth, because our 'g' constant is the reference model, but that did not make sense, and since there are Boeguer anomalies apparent at Venus that are consistent with this concept, I could not say that their should not be residuals when space probes pass near the earth.

A sincere thank you to Louis VandeLocht for steering me to this preprint. And this is only the beginning!

[Jerry]

Yes, I have followed Arp thread, even made a couple (of hundred) posts there . Based on your answer it seems that intrinsic redshifts are not required by your current hypothesis, they are just something you can live with, right? If so, then there's really no need to discuss them further here. Well, except the "extended gas shell", I don't understand that redshift mechanism, could you elaborate?

Actually, intrinsic redshifts are required, otherwise distribution of 'blue' and 'red' galaxies with increasing redshift distance destroy any model of the universe that does not evolve on a long term scale. (Locally, blue galaxies appear to be 'field' galaxies, but with increasing redshift, they become cluster centered. Therefore, either the universe is evolving, or blue galaxies are intrinsically redshifted.)

The "extended gas shell" is a simple radiation transfer model if the gas is ionozed, and either a Compton shift or CREIL model if not. I think the CREIL model is most likely the best for intrinsic redshifts, because this explains the Lyman forest quite will. (However, a Compton mechanism could develop the same spectral signature.)

So ejections can have many forms. What about the direction of ejections in your hypothesis, is it always (roughly) along the minor axis of the galaxy? I think Arp has suggested ejections also to the direction of the accretion disk.

Yes, I would guess that a galaxy would be born along the minor axis, but it should deviate from the axis very quickly - the jets should only plow deep into space when they are exactly balanced in the galactic core. It is difficult to imagine how this could occur, and stay balanced over light centuries!

[papageno]

How come that this "ether", which gives the gravitational lensing, shows no sign of such dispersion?

Very good question.
The same question can be ask about a 1/r component in the calculation of the orbits of the planets (why are they so close to 1/r^2 predictions), and the answer to both questions is the same:

It is not obvious that your answer, which follows, actually addresses the question I had in mind, so I'll re-phrase it:
Why is chromatic aberration not observed in gravitational lensing? [I forgot to credit Nereid for bringing up this point in another thread.]

(The dispersion I had in mind is dn/df, the change of refractive index with frequency).

When an object, or a photon for that matter, approaches the sun, it is slowed by the increase in path length, but the energy is returned as the path length again 'stretches out', this is a virtual spring constant.

This sounds just like conservation of energy (kinetic energy + potential energy) in an elastic scattering event.
How exactly would this result in refraction?

In the analogy with light passing through a solid, transparent object, if you are studying a starlight that passes near the sun, the density gradient is equal, there is displacement, but it is too small to be measured.

What is this supposed to mean?
"The density gradient is equal" to what?

Refraction in transparent materials (not only solids, because liquids are also transparent - water, for example) is the consequence of the EM wave interacting with the material.
How is this analogous to gravitational lensing (let alone "exactly the same")?

(I recommend you read in Feynman's Lectures on Physics about refractive index and its derivation from microscopic properties of the material - such as atomic polarizability.)

(The same is true in the 'bending' of light" whenever there is a change in the density or refractive index: light "bent" one way will be "bent back" at the opposite end of the crystal. Light from a sources very near the sun should be more dispersed, and I think the radio signals we have observed while probes pass near the limb of the sun show this, however it is not seperatable from corona effects at this time.

There are also instances where gravitational lenses condense the light from an object.

A magnetic moment is consistent with an electronic interior with multiple vibrational modes, this is not news

You described the neutron as "the charges within this unit viberate at such a high frequency, that there is no measurable pole".
How exactly does the magnetic dipole moment of the neutron arise?

- Likewise, It is my understanding the quadrupole only emerges when neutrons interact, and the 'quarks' are released - remember, this was a simplified conceptual model represented by the neutron at the atomic level.

I withdrew the point about the quadrupole moment, since it was based of faulty memories.

However, I am curious about your explanation of the similarities between the proton and the neutron.

[turbo-1]

My working hypothesis is that the Pauli exclusion principle is not exclusive; the medium Maxwell hypothesized as the 'ether' does exist, and the gravitational field is indeed electromagnetic. However, the 'ether' is a function of mass, the more local mass, the slower the path through space through this medium, and that includes the pathlength for both baryons and leptons. The 'GR' lensing effects of the sun are exactly the same as the tensors that cause lensing in solid but transparent objects.

I have been working on such an etheric cosmology too, and watching for differences between classical optics and GR gravitational lensing. One thing that Nereid noted (although the thread is locked) is that classical optics should result in chromatic dispersion. There is a problem with that idea. Chromatic dispersion can be exhibited, but it should be strongest where there exists:
1) a strong differential in the refractive indices of the propagating media
2) a well-defined boundary at which the EM waves can be dispersed , both incoming and outgoing
3) a high angle of incidence as the light ray enters and leaves the lensing region.

These are not things that can be expected if vacuum polarization is a subtle effect.

If the Pioneer anomaly is the result of polarization in the gravitational field surrounding the Sun, the "lens" exhibits a variation of only about 40ppm over a radial separation of 70AU. That is not much of a lens.

[Jerry]

It is not obvious that your answer, which follows, actually addresses the question I had in mind, so I'll re-phrase it:
Why is chromatic aberration not observed in gravitational lensing? [I forgot to credit Nereid for bringing up this point in another thread.]

(The dispersion I had in mind is dn/df, the change of refractive index with frequency).

Your questions, as always, are good, succinct, and fundamental, and I apologies for answering so few of them on the CMB thread. Sometimes I don't have answers.

Aberration is a function of Dispersion. Dispersion is a function of the difference in velocity through a medium of different light wavelengths. If there is no measurable optical dispersion in a gravitational medium, that is very little difference in the speed at different frequencies, there is no aberration.

Dispersion varies from material to material and in general. Let's assume in the gravitational medium it is constant at all wavelengths...until the data prove otherwise!

This sounds just like conservation of energy (kinetic energy + potential energy) in an elastic scattering event.
How exactly would this result in refraction?

Well, yes, and from a particle prospective this is what happens - photons of light slow in a more dense medium, then (somewhat unrealistically) speed up again. But in the wave mechanical solutions, it is the refraction is a well-characterized, almost perfectly elastic phenomenon...less so, if the dispersion is great.

Refraction in transparent materials (not only solids, because liquids are also transparent - water, for example) is the consequence of the EM wave interacting with the material.
How is this analogous to gravitational lensing (let alone "exactly the same")?

This is one of my new rules: Leptons are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. This is a natural solution when special relativity is rejected, and the 'path through space' is varied to solve the Michelson-Morley paradox, not time.

(I recommend you read in Feynman's Lectures on Physics about refractive index and its derivation from microscopic properties of the material - such as atomic polarizability.)

Feynman's lectures are excellent - the theory they are based upon was mostly phenomenologically derived - this does not mean Feynman's solutions are correct - it only means the work. (And work very well.)

There are also instances where gravitational lenses condense the light from an object.

No problem with any lensing effects - lenses are lenses, and whether you use GR and dark energy to explain the results, or a 'refractive index of space' near massive objects, the results are similar.

You described the neutron as "the charges within this unit viberate at such a high frequency, that there is no measurable pole".
How exactly does the magnetic dipole moment of the neutron arise?

Don't pin me down on this one, I was generalizing. If you want a magnetic dipole, you can put a couple of figure eight lobes in the windings of my golfball.

However, I am curious about your explanation of the similarities between the proton and the neutron.

My particle physics are more than thirty years old, and a lot of detail has been added - my bad. The speculation on what is happening in a galaxy core or a neutron star is of the 'wild' variety. But it is based upon the assumption, that in extremely dense medium, vibrational moments are retarded, and the the path through space is limited, and this has the potential for prying open nuclei that are inert in other enviroments and releasing energy - on the inside of a differential gravitational well. Without a big bang, there has to be point violations of thermaldynamic rules...or else dark energy.

[Nereid]

[snip]

One thing to cross off, before starting to take a look at the Jerry ATM idea: to what extent does the density of an object depend upon its distance from the Sun?

No direct correlation. This is completely different from solar theory, but I am assuming the planets were captured 'brown dwarf' like objects, and that they did not condense from a dust cloud.

For example, if an object (an asteroid perhaps) has a highly eccentric orbit, does its density vary, according to distance from the Sun? Or is its density the same, no matter where in the solar system it may find itself?

Any body in a highly elliptical orbit should deviate more from Newtonian prediction than a body in a more circular orbit. If we put transmitter/receivers on a asteroid, as the asteroid approached the sun, the increase in velocity due to the increasing effect of solar gravity, should be measurable less than Newtonian predictions. (This loss of momentum is conserved in the general 'gravimetric' field of the sun.)

As the asteroid leaves close proximity with the sun, most, but not quote all, of energy is returned to the asteroid. There is more energy lost when a orbiting body is close to the sun in an eccentric orbit. This helps explain why dark comets like Tempel 1, with precious little thermal capacity, are as likely to outgas from the side of the comet not facing the sun, as the sol-facing side. It also explains how planets that were captured in very eccentric orbits become more circular.

Why don’t we see this with probes? We did: Pioneer 6 Doppler shows a marked diversion in velocity as it neared the sun, slowing more than expected. As the probe passed the limb of the sun, the velocity increased again. The Pioneer 6 anomaly was pointed out to me by a Ari Jokimaki after I describe this attribute of the solar system in an earlier thread. (This Doppler oddity is attributed to coronal magnetic effects.)

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=13695

If this is correct, we should expect, to see just as much heavy metal in the outer solar system as in the inner solar system. There is one obvious exception: the Saturn system is loaded with water. Titan and Phoebe are much more dense than your run-of –the-mill Saturn moons and contain little water, relative to the rest of the Saturn moons. Phoebe appears to be a recent acquisition, I don’t know why there is so little water on Titan. The more distant planets and moons are at least as dense as those in the inner solar system.

For completeness, I guess I should also ask about volume and mass - to what extent are either of these dependent upon the object's distance from the Sun?

I don’t have an estimate for the sun.

My post, to which Jerry Jensen responded (above) is here.

My questions seem to have been unclear; let me try again.

If I could land on Mercury/Venus/Moon/Mars/Io/Europa/Ganymede/Iapetus/Titan/Triton/Pluto/Charon, take a sample of local 'rocks', and measure their densities, in situ; and then return to Earth with those samples, and measure their densities, on Earth, would I get the same values (within measurement error bars)?

If I could somehow count the number of H, He, Li, Be, B, ... U nuclei in Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune, and if I could somehow move each planet to an orbit just like the Earth's, and repeat the count, would I get the same values (within measurement error bars)?

If there was a very sensitive mass spectrometer aboard each of the Pioneers, Voyagers, the various Venus and Mars landers, Galileo, Cassini, Falcon, NEAR, Giotto, and so on, and if they had measured the mass of H, H₂, He, H₂O, ... in situ, would they have obtained the same values as corresponding measurements here on Earth (within measurement error bars)?

All according to the Jerry Jensen ATM idea that we are discussing in this thread.

To repeat, I'm trying to establish an agreed 'baseline' for my challenges to your idea; in particular, I'm trying to confirm that, in this ATM idea, the observed mass of an atom is the same, no matter where it is, and that the observed density of a lump of matter is the same, no matter where it is (in the solar system at least).

If the answer is "no, the observed mass (or density) is NOT the same; it varies with location", then I will ask about the techniques used to measure mass (and density).

If the answer is "yes", then I can move on to the next set of clarification, which will bring me closer to beginning to challenge your ATM ideas.

[Jerry]

My post, to which Jerry Jensen responded (above) is here.

My questions seem to have been unclear; let me try again.

yes, I am easily confused by bolding, color, words in general.

If I could land on Mercury/Venus/Moon/Mars/Io/Europa/Ganymede/Iapetus/Titan/Triton/Pluto/Charon, take a sample of local 'rocks', and measure their densities, in situ; and then return to Earth with those samples, and measure their densities, on Earth, would I get the same values (within measurement error bars)?

Yes.

If I could somehow count the number of H, He, Li, Be, B, ... U nuclei in Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune, and if I could somehow move each planet to an orbit just like the Earth's, and repeat the count, would I get the same values (within measurement error bars)?

Yes

If there was a very sensitive mass spectrometer aboard each of the Pioneers, Voyagers, the various Venus and Mars landers, Galileo, Cassini, Falcon, NEAR, Giotto, and so on, and if they had measured the mass of H, H₂, He, H₂O, ... in situ, would they have obtained the same values as corresponding measurements here on Earth (within measurement error bars)?

Yes - except that the mass spectrometer would have to be recalibrated: At greater distances from the sun, the velocity achieved at a given acceleration would be greater. It would be interesting to know how much they had to tweak the Ion and Neutral Mass spect on Cassini, relative to the Earth calibration.

All according to the Jerry Jensen ATM idea that we are discussing in this thread.

To repeat, I'm trying to establish an agreed 'baseline' for my challenges to your idea; in particular, I'm trying to confirm that, in this ATM idea, the observed mass of an atom is the same, no matter where it is, and that the observed density of a lump of matter is the same, no matter where it is (in the solar system at least).

Yes, although the amount of energy needed to accelerate it to a specific velocity would change.

If the answer is "no, the observed mass (or density) is NOT the same; it varies with location", then I will ask about the techniques used to measure mass (and density).

Acceleration after a given force would change, but for most methods used to determine mass and density (static systems) there would only be minor offset changes.

[papageno]

Aberration is a function of Dispersion. Dispersion is a function of the difference in velocity through a medium of different light wavelengths. If there is no measurable optical dispersion in a gravitational medium, that is very little difference in the speed at different frequencies, there is no aberration.

Dispersion varies from material to material and in general. Let's assume in the gravitational medium it is constant at all wavelengths...until the data prove otherwise!

The problem is this assumption. There is no material that is non-dispersive over the whole range of possible frequencies.

If you want to explain gravitational lensing with a refractive ether, you have to explain why there is no observable dispersion.

This sounds just like conservation of energy (kinetic energy + potential energy) in an elastic scattering event.
How exactly would this result in refraction?

Well, yes, and from a particle prospective this is what happens - photons of light slow in a more dense medium, then (somewhat unrealistically) speed up again.

Why is it unrealistic? The speed of light does not depend on an initial "push", like a bullet, but on the electromagnetic characteristics of the medium the wave is going through.
And the same works for sound (mechanical waves).

But in the wave mechanical solutions, it is the refraction is a well-characterized, almost perfectly elastic phenomenon...less so, if the dispersion is great.

But you tried to give a particle-picture.

In the wave-picture, the dispersion comes from the fact that the microscopical components of the medium respond in different ways to excitation of different frequency.
For your ether to be non-dipersive, the response of its material must be the same whatever the frequency.

Refraction in transparent materials (not only solids, because liquids are also transparent - water, for example) is the consequence of the EM wave interacting with the material.
How is this analogous to gravitational lensing (let alone "exactly the same")?

This is one of my new rules: Leptons are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle.

They already do.
The Pauli principle is a special case of the Fermi-Dirac statistics.
This and the Bose-Einstein statistics are a natural consequence of the principle of indistinguishability of identical particles.
Relativistic quantum mechanics has a theorem linking the spin of a particle to the statistics it follows.

Changing the rules about the statistics of identical particles has so far-reaching consequences that it will take generations to deal with them. New explanations for every experiment involving more than one quantum particle would be necessary.

This is a natural solution when special relativity is rejected, and the 'path through space' is varied to solve the Michelson-Morley paradox, not time.

Show us this natural solution is obtained and that it yields the result you claim.

(What have leptons to do with gravitational lensing?)

Feynman's lectures are excellent - the theory they are based upon was mostly phenomenologically derived - this does not mean Feynman's solutions are correct - it only means the work. (And work very well.)

You should read them more carefully, and starting from the beginning.

No problem with any lensing effects - lenses are lenses, and whether you use GR and dark energy to explain the results, or a 'refractive index of space' near massive objects, the results are similar.

As I explained to turbo-1, if you go and measure the refractive index locally at each point along a curved path of a ligh-ray, you'll find 1.
If you measure the index in a refractive medium, you'll find n > 1.

How can claim any kind of analogy between gravitational lensing and refraction?

You described the neutron as "the charges within this unit viberate at such a high frequency, that there is no measurable pole".
How exactly does the magnetic dipole moment of the neutron arise?

Don't pin me down on this one, I was generalizing. If you want a magnetic dipole, you can put a couple of figure eight lobes in the windings of my golfball.

How would that give a magnetic dipole moment?

However, I am curious about your explanation of the similarities between the proton and the neutron.

My particle physics are more than thirty years old, and a lot of detail has been added - my bad. The speculation on what is happening in a galaxy core or a neutron star is of the 'wild' variety. But it is based upon the assumption, that in extremely dense medium, vibrational moments are retarded, and the the path through space is limited, and this has the potential for prying open nuclei that are inert in other enviroments and releasing energy - on the inside of a differential gravitational well. Without a big bang, there has to be point violations of thermaldynamic rules...or else dark energy.

Unfortunately I don't see you proposing anything less "wild" than mainstream researchers.

[Jerry]

Unfortunately I don't see you proposing anything less "wild" than mainstream researchers.

Except the new data matches my predictions.

Please read the paper of Anderson, Neito and Campbell:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0608087

Now revisit my predicted behaver of probes near planets:

Very specifically, according to the 'kitchen sink' hypothesis, as a probe approaches a planet, the acceleration is slowed as energy is compressed into a field effect that is a function of the mass of the planet. This should retard the moment of closest approach, and increase the approach time. After
closest approach, the energy compressed into the field effect returns to the probe, decreasing the deceleration as the probe leaves the proximity of the
planet.

This would result in a net increase in the energy of the probe relative to the planned trajectory because the integrated approach time is increased and the
retreat faster, regardless of whether the probe was in a gravity braking or accelerating pass. The only exception would be in a braking orbit, where the
angle-of-attack by the probe is much more acute than the angle of recession, and even in this case there may be a slightly positive acceleration relative to expectations.

I think this is consistent with measured observations in this paper, but there is more:

The further from the center of the solar system the event occurs, the greater the deviation should be from expections. Obviously, the closer the approach to the planet or moon, the greater the deviation as well. Likewise, all probes approaching the sun should exhibit similar deviations.

As the Cassini data in the Saturn moon encounters is analysed, the magnitude of this effect should be at least twice the observed effect of probes near the Earth, adjusted for mass and distance.

[publius]

Speaking of gravitational lensing, or the curving of EM in a gravitational field, I found this in Landau & Lifshi-tz (hyphen to avoid profanity filter), The Classical Theory of Fields, at the very end of chapter 10, with a problem to work out Maxwell in a gravitational field.

The reader should note the analogy (purely formal of course) of equations 5 and 6 to the Maxwell equations for the electromagnetic field in material media..................

We may say that with respect to its effects on the electromagnetic field, a static gravitational field plays the role of a medium with electric and magnetic permeabilities epsilon = mu = 1/sqrt(h).

I note they are using Gaussina units, and in SI, these would be the relative mu and epsilion. 'h' is a term derived from the g_00 component of the metric tensor, which for a weak inverse square field will be a simple term involving the scalar Newtonian potential. There will be no dispersion here because there is no frequency dependence, of course.

And mulitplying the two together for the wave speed in the "medium" you will get the expression for the coordinate speed of light, involving the time dilation factor in terms of the potential.

This only applies to a static gravitational field. For a time varying g-fields, things get messy, and L&L write Maxwell for this.

The "permeability" for D and B have cross terms involving the other field, ie

D = [something(E) + something(H)]

So one can indeed think of a (static) gravitational field as being refractory medium, but this is from a stationary frame in the gravitational field, such an observer far away. Locally, in free fall, will not see any such effects, measuring n = 1, and c = c as always.

-Richard

[papageno]

Except the new data matches my predictions.

What predictions?

Please read the paper of Anderson, Neito and Campbell:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0608087

Now revisit my predicted behaver of probes near planets:

[snip!]

This is not supposed to address my points, is it?
Because it certainly does not.

[papageno]

So one can indeed think of a (static) gravitational field as being refractory medium, but this is from a stationary frame in the gravitational field, such an observer far away. Locally, in free fall, will not see any such effects, measuring n = 1, and c = c as always.

This is a bit like gravitational redshift.
When the detector is at a different gravtiational potential than the source, a shift of the spectrum is detected.
When the source and the detector are at the same potential (that is, the spectrum is measured locally), then no shift is detected.

[Jerry]

The problem is this assumption. There is no material that is non-dispersive over the whole range of possible frequencies.

If you want to explain gravitational lensing with a refractive ether, you have to explain why there is no observable dispersion.

You accept that GR is not despersive. I am describing the same phenomenon, but I think the fundamental assumptions behind Einsteins predictions are dead wrong, and the equations of motion are uncorrect approximations.

Here are the fundamental difference:

1) GR assumes time is variable. Although this satisfies certain mathematical solutions, it is not a correct characterization of space and light. There is no time dilation.

2) Space is best viewed as a medium that is mass dependent. The velocity of any object, wave or particle moving within this medium is a function of the local mass density. The rate of many, if not all, reactions is a function of the local mass.

3) Although the true speed of light is a constant, in reality there is no area of space where there is no mass, therefore, the speed of light is always changing relative to localized masses and the relative velocity of masses. There is more optical distortion in the solar system than

4) GR predicts gravity waves. I am of the opinion that the energy removed from gravitationally collapsing systems is usually in the form of very high energy gamma rays.

Why is it unrealistic? The speed of light does not depend on an initial "push", like a bullet, but on the electromagnetic characteristics of the medium the wave is going through.
And the same works for sound (mechanical waves).

What is unrealistic is using particle analogies, period. I think we all agree complex wave mechanic solutions underly all atomic structure. I don't like using terms like protons and neutrons, but these are the descriptors most readers are familier with.

In the wave-picture, the dispersion comes from the fact that the microscopical components of the medium respond in different ways to excitation of different frequency.
For your ether to be non-dipersive, the response of its material must be the same whatever the frequency.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence of abberations in gravitationally shifted spectrums; there is also no evidence of frequency dependence in the cosmic redshift, and this is one of the reasons I think that the cosmic redshift is is a property of space and distance, not of space expansion.

The Pauli principle is a special case of the Fermi-Dirac statistics.
This and the Bose-Einstein statistics are a natural consequence of the principle of indistinguishability of identical particles.
Relativistic quantum mechanics has a theorem linking the spin of a particle to the statistics it follows.

Changing the rules about the statistics of identical particles has so far-reaching consequences that it will take generations to deal with them. New explanations for every experiment involving more than one quantum particle would be necessary.

I am well aware of this, but it is a necessary step, and will keep may physcists busy well into the next century. The first step is to realize how badly the current model is broken.

Show us this natural solution is obtained and that it yields the result you claim.

Natural in the form of GR or special GR?

Maxwell's field equations describe, in the broadest of terms, wave mechanical solutions that approximate the force we call gravity. Approximate, because so many of the solution sets are non-linear, and therefore cannot be solved directly. (Big hand wave here - hi mom!.) I have worked out some approximations, and they predict different masses for the planets and moons than Newton. They also predict grossly absurb Boeguer anomalies will be observed in any and every mountain peak where the surface gravity is quantified anywhere beyond 2 AU, and negative anomalies will be observe for peaks on Venus and Mercury, if there are any.

There are measureable difference between Einstein/Newtonian and my expectations, and the easiest place to study this is in the close passes of probes with moons and the planets. The Anderson/Nieto/Campbell paper is the first concrete evidence I have that the velocity changes during gravitational boosts is different from expectations, but anyone who has followed my threads (especially Ari) can verify my descriptions of what happens when probes pass close to dense objects is highly consistent with these newly reported results - the effect near the earth is actually greater than I expected, but the reason I had constrained it to less than 1 part in 50000 was because no one had reported observable deviations until now.

It is interesting that in their paper, A,N&C raise the possibility that a variation in the speed of light may be biasing their measurements, to the best of my knowledge this is not a solution they have publicly considered in the past and this is something I have suggested to them.

This slight reduction in the speed of light with increasing distance from massive bodies predicts a slight lensing effect as we observe more distant planets. This has at least two reprocussions: 1) Direct attempts to measure diameters from the earth and Hubble over-estimate the diametes of the planets relative to measurements from Cassini. 2)The opposition effect is brighter than existing models predict.

(What have leptons to do with gravitational lensing?)

I am arguing that the velocity of light is a function of the local mass - in contrast to Einstein's proposal that time is a function of mass. I think he is varying the wrong terms. In my universe, when two trains are approaching, the field associated with each train is locally contracted, and the speed of light between the trains is less than it would be between two objects that are not approaching.

How can claim any kind of analogy between gravitational lensing and refraction?

Gravitation lensing is refraction in a field where the speed of light at all frequencies is the same. (In reality, this never happens...there is always some dispersion.)

[papageno]

You accept that GR is not despersive.

So?
In GR gravitational lensing is not a refractive effect.
Bending of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the frequency.

I am describing the same phenomenon, but I think the fundamental assumptions behind Einsteins predictions are dead wrong, and the equations of motion are uncorrect approximations.

The fundamental assumptions are the Principle of General Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence.
Where are they wrong?

Here are the fundamental difference:

1) GR assumes time is variable. Although this satisfies certain mathematical solutions, it is not a correct characterization of space and light. There is no time dilation.

Prove that it is incorrect.

2) Space is best viewed as a medium that is mass dependent. The velocity of any object, wave or particle moving within this medium is a function of the local mass density. The rate of many, if not all, reactions is a function of the local mass.

And what cannot be accounted for by having time as a coordinate on equal footing as space coordinates?
Why should space "best viewed" as a medium?

3) Although the true speed of light is a constant, in reality there is no area of space where there is no mass, therefore, the speed of light is always changing relative to localized masses and the relative velocity of masses. There is more optical distortion in the solar system than

Yet somehow this distortion is not observed.

4) GR predicts gravity waves. I am of the opinion that the energy removed from gravitationally collapsing systems is usually in the form of very high energy gamma rays.

As far as I remember, you could not support this opinion.

What is unrealistic is using particle analogies, period. I think we all agree complex wave mechanic solutions underly all atomic structure. I don't like using terms like protons and neutrons, but these are the descriptors most readers are familier with.

The point got lost:

When an object, or a photon for that matter, approaches the sun, it is slowed by the increase in path length, but the energy is returned as the path length again 'stretches out', this is a virtual spring constant.

How do you get refraction from this?

In the wave-picture, the dispersion comes from the fact that the microscopical components of the medium respond in different ways to excitation of different frequency.
For your ether to be non-dipersive, the response of its material must be the same whatever the frequency.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence of abberations in gravitationally shifted spectrums; there is also no evidence of frequency dependence in the cosmic redshift, and this is one of the reasons I think that the cosmic redshift is is a property of space and distance, not of space expansion.

Mainstream theories expect the absence of chromatic aberration in gravitational lensing.
If you want to treat gravitational lensing as a refractive effect, you have to justify the observed absence of chromatic aberration.

The Pauli principle is a special case of the Fermi-Dirac statistics.
This and the Bose-Einstein statistics are a natural consequence of the principle of indistinguishability of identical particles.
Relativistic quantum mechanics has a theorem linking the spin of a particle to the statistics it follows.

Changing the rules about the statistics of identical particles has so far-reaching consequences that it will take generations to deal with them. New explanations for every experiment involving more than one quantum particle would be necessary.

I am well aware of this, but it is a necessary step, and will keep may physcists busy well into the next century. The first step is to realize how badly the current model is broken.

You obviously missed the part where I pointed out that leptons already follow Pauli exclusion principle, since they are spin 1/2 particle and so fermions.
So, you are not really setting up a new rule.

Natural in the form of GR or special GR?

Show us the natural solution you found after rejecting special relativitiy. (Remember, GR does not reject SR, but it includes it as a special case.)
Show us that the consequence is that leptons obey the Pauli principle (remember, the spin-statistics theorem of special relativistic QM already does it), and that "the 'path through space' is varied to solve the Michelson-Morley paradox, not time".

Maxwell's field equations describe, in the broadest of terms, wave mechanical solutions that approximate the force we call gravity. Approximate, because so many of the solution sets are non-linear, and therefore cannot be solved directly. (Big hand wave here - hi mom!.) I have worked out some approximations, and they predict different masses for the planets and moons than Newton. They also predict grossly absurb Boeguer anomalies will be observed in any and every mountain peak where the surface gravity is quantified anywhere beyond 2 AU, and negative anomalies will be observe for peaks on Venus and Mercury, if there are any.

There are measureable difference between Einstein/Newtonian and my expectations, and the easiest place to study this is in the close passes of probes with moons and the planets. The Anderson/Nieto/Campbell paper is the first concrete evidence I have that the velocity changes during gravitational boosts is different from expectations, but anyone who has followed my threads (especially Ari) can verify my descriptions of what happens when probes pass close to dense objects is highly consistent with these newly reported results - the effect near the earth is actually greater than I expected, but the reason I had constrained it to less than 1 part in 50000 was because no one had reported observable deviations until now.

It is interesting that in their paper, A,N&C raise the possibility that a variation in the speed of light may be biasing their measurements, to the best of my knowledge this is not a solution they have publicly considered in the past and this is something I have suggested to them.

This slight reduction in the speed of light with increasing distance from massive bodies predicts a slight lensing effect as we observe more distant planets. This has at least two reprocussions: 1) Direct attempts to measure diameters from the earth and Hubble over-estimate the diametes of the planets relative to measurements from Cassini. 2)The opposition effect is brighter than existing models predict.

Where is this "natural solution"?

(What have leptons to do with gravitational lensing?)

I am arguing that the velocity of light is a function of the local mass - in contrast to Einstein's proposal that time is a function of mass. I think he is varying the wrong terms. In my universe, when two trains are approaching, the field associated with each train is locally contracted, and the speed of light between the trains is less than it would be between two objects that are not approaching.

Leptons = electron, muon, tauon, and neutrinos. What do these particles have to do with gravitational lensing?

As I explained to turbo-1, if you go and measure the refractive index locally at each point along a curved path of a ligh-ray, you'll find 1.
If you measure the index in a refractive medium, you'll find n > 1.

How can claim any kind of analogy between gravitational lensing and refraction?

Gravitation lensing is refraction in a field where the speed of light at all frequencies is the same. (In reality, this never happens...there is always some dispersion.)

You are supposed to explain what the analogous characteristics are, not restate "gravitational lensing = refraction".

And you forgot to addres this:

How would that give a magnetic dipole moment?

[Nereid]

I've started a thread in the Q&A section on this; please use it to clarify the nature of each (according to textbook explanations).

[Jerry]

[QUOTE=papageno]So?
In GR gravitational lensing is not a refractive effect.
Bending of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the frequency.
[quote]That is correct, if one assumes refractive index always include dispersion. A 'perfect' source of refraction would not be frequency dependent.

The fundamental assumptions are the Principle of General Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence.
Where are they wrong?

The second postulate of relativity states that the speed of light is constant. Einstein used the Michelson Morley experimental results to demonstrate a Galilean transform cannot be used between different frames of reference.

But Michelson and Morley did not point their refractometer straight down! As near as I can tell, it never even occurred to anyone that the 'ether' is a function of mass, and anywhere on the earth's surface the speed of light through this 'ether' should be the same.

Prove that it is incorrect.

According to the Wilson hypothesis, we must observe time dilation in the lightcurves of supernova at very great distances. In Goldhaber's 2001 paper, they demonstrated that if supernova magnitudes are assumed to be, on average, constant with increasing distance, a single parameter can be used to correlate light curve width with magnitude and distance.

But we know supernova magnitudes are NOT the same, and that in the local sample, the brighter the supernova, the longer the light curve. So looking back in time, the sample of supernova must be magnitude biased - we should expect to find more and more of the brighter supernova, and see longer light curves. But that is not happening - after correction for the time dilation parameter, the average light curve widths of the most distant supernova are, if anything shorter than the local sample. These data, the lack of a measurable increase in the lightcurve length of distant supernova after time dilation corrections, demonstrates that the Wilson hypothesis is failing.

There are several other evidentuary trails that reach the same conclusion: No statistical evidence of time dilation in the redshifts of Gamma Ray curves, no evidence in the redshifted power function of quasars.

And what cannot be accounted for by having time as a coordinate on equal footing as space coordinates?
Why should space "best viewed" as a medium?

The time-dilation functions are not real, and result in paradox - such as the well constrained twin paradox I outlined above.

Yet somehow this distortion is not observed.

Oh, I think it is. The opposition of Saturn was stunningly more brilliant than expected. It would only take a slight lensing effect to account for this observational fact that remains a puzzle.

4) GR predicts gravity waves. I am of the opinion that the energy removed from gravitationally collapsing systems is usually in the form of very high energy gamma rays.

As far as I remember, you could not support this opinion.

The S-4 run of the LIGO gravity telescope found no direct evidence of gravity waves. The report on the S-5 run will be out this month. This science run should constrain the non-occurance of measurable gravity wave events well into the local cluster. The sensitivity of these systems exceeds the 1960's predictions for the expected threshold for observing gravity wave events by several magnitudes. It is time to give the theory a rest: they are not there.

The point got lost:
How do you get refraction from this?

Simple optics: If the density of the medium, or in this case, the virtual density of the medium changes because the speed of light varies, so will the path of the light. There is also a differential effect, due to greater time approaching a mass than receding from it - I went through this for probes, but it also applies to light.

Mainstream theories expect the absence of chromatic aberration in gravitational lensing.
If you want to treat gravitational lensing as a refractive effect, you have to justify the observed absence of chromatic aberration.

...or else use a slightly different definition of refraction, allowing for a perfect refractor. This is just sematics

You obviously missed the part where I pointed out that leptons already follow Pauli exclusion principle, since they are spin 1/2 particle and so fermions.
So, you are not really setting up a new rule.

No, my bad, this is a mental typo: I am arguing photons (as well as leptons), are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, at least in terms of the 'gravimetric' field: When they approach any mass, they slow down. Notice I am not assigning a spin state, only insisting that the speed of light is not constant if the light is traveling near any mass. (In fact, light might not be able to travel in regions where there is absolutely no mass - I don't expect that is true, but what a great answer to Obler's paradox!)

Show us that the consequence is that leptons obey the Pauli principle (remember, the spin-statistics theorem of special relativistic QM already does it), and that "the 'path through space' is varied to solve the Michelson-Morley paradox, not time".

I think this is a great piece of evidence that the GR solution is wrong: Why would a 'path solution' work better at a quantum level and a 'time solution' work better at an astronomical level? Feynmen had to use a black box, renormalizing between quantum and relativistic solutions in order to transfer between the two frames of reference. That's silly.

How would that give a magnetic dipole moment?

If you want to create a magnetic dipole, but provide no observable charge to the outside world, the positive and negative charges must spend exactly the same amount of time on each surface, and at each internal depth of the 'particle'. In a simple configuration, this would also cancel out any dipole moment. Spiraling the charges allows the creation of a dipole without creating a charge preference anywhere on the surface. (Mote point, but a fun one to consider.)

[papageno]

In GR gravitational lensing is not a refractive effect.
Bending of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the frequency.

That is correct, if one assumes refractive index always include dispersion. A 'perfect' source of refraction would not be frequency dependent.

Then prove that refraction in your "ether" is not frequency dependent.
On the other hand, if it is frequency dependent, then provide a quantitative estimate for the expected chromatic aberration and show that it is too small compared to specific and concrete examples.

The fundamental assumptions are the Principle of General Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence.
Where are they wrong?

The second postulate of relativity states that the speed of light is constant. Einstein used the Michelson Morley experimental results to demonstrate a Galilean transform cannot be used between different frames of reference.

But Michelson and Morley did not point their refractometer straight down! As near as I can tell, it never even occurred to anyone that the 'ether' is a function of mass, and anywhere on the earth's surface the speed of light through this 'ether' should be the same.

No, Jerry, that is the second postulate of the special theory of relativity, not of the general theory. We were talking about GR.

And the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, is an inference of the experimental fact that the speed of EM waves measured in inertial frame of references does not depend on the speed of the source.
So, if you want to refute the second postulate of SR, you'll have to show where all the experiments whose result depends - directly or indirectly - on its validity are wrong.

Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained without the constancy of the speed of light, if we assume that the luminiferous aether is dragged along by the Earth's surface in its rotation (just like in simple models of drag of fluids).
So anyway that experiment is not the only one contributing to the body of evidence in support of the second postulate of SR.

Now, show us where the Principle of General Relativity or the Principle of Equivalence are wrong.

Prove that it is incorrect.

According to the Wilson hypothesis, we must observe time dilation in the lightcurves of supernova at very great distances.

[snip!]

There is no need to drag supernovae into this. We can do it with things that are more down-to-earth.

For example, during my undergraduate years, a few colleagues of mine did in a teaching lab measurements of the muon mean lifetime.
The same type of muon, coming down through the atmosphere produced by cosmic rays has a longer mean lifetime, as measured from the lab frame of reference.

Another example is the GPS, which requires both SR corrections and GR correction to yield correct results.

So, explain exactly how you determined that time as a coordinate that depends on the frame of reference, is incorrect.

And what cannot be accounted for by having time as a coordinate on equal footing as space coordinates?
Why should space "best viewed" as a medium?

The time-dilation functions are not real, and result in paradox - such as the well constrained twin paradox I outlined above.

No, Jerry, declaring something as unreal does not make it so.

So, show us how you determined that time cannot be a coordinate as frame dependent as are the spatial coordinates.
And support your claim that "space is best viewed as a medium that is mass dependent".

Yet somehow this distortion is not observed.

Oh, I think it is. The opposition of Saturn was stunningly more brilliant than expected. It would only take a slight lensing effect to account for this observational fact that remains a puzzle.

You should know by now that you are supposed to support your claims.
Show us specifically the distortions you think occur within the Solar System, and show us that they are consistent with your idea.

As far as I remember, you could not support this opinion.

The S-4 run of the LIGO gravity telescope found no direct evidence of gravity waves. The report on the S-5 run will be out this month. This science run should constrain the non-occurance of measurable gravity wave events well into the local cluster. The sensitivity of these systems exceeds the 1960's predictions for the expected threshold for observing gravity wave events by several magnitudes. It is time to give the theory a rest: they are not there.

None of this supports your idea.
I thought you had finally understood that the shortcomings of the mainstream research are not by default proofs of your ideas.

So, where did you provide support for your idea?

When an object, or a photon for that matter, approaches the sun, it is slowed by the increase in path length, but the energy is returned as the path length again 'stretches out', this is a virtual spring constant.

How do you get refraction from this?

Simple optics: If the density of the medium, or in this case, the virtual density of the medium changes because the speed of light varies, so will the path of the light. There is also a differential effect, due to greater time approaching a mass than receding from it - I went through this for probes, but it also applies to light.

It is not simple optics, because gravitational lensing in vacuum it is not ordinary refraction.

How did you go from "an object slowed by the increase of path length" to "if the virtual density of the medium"?
Why introduce a "virtual medium" if conservation of energy is enough to describe your slingshot-like effect?

I think you are grasping at straws.

Mainstream theories expect the absence of chromatic aberration in gravitational lensing.
If you want to treat gravitational lensing as a refractive effect, you have to justify the observed absence of chromatic aberration.

...or else use a slightly different definition of refraction, allowing for a perfect refractor. This is just sematics

It is not. You still have to explain why your refractor is "perfect" and why local measurements find n=1.
So, go ahead and explain.

You obviously missed the part where I pointed out that leptons already follow Pauli exclusion principle, since they are spin 1/2 particle and so fermions.
So, you are not really setting up a new rule.

No, my bad, this is a mental typo: I am arguing photons (as well as leptons), are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, at least in terms of the 'gravimetric' field: When they approach any mass, they slow down.

Since when does the statistics of particle depend on its velocity (or acceleration) or the presence of gravitational field?

Also, if you are going to change the statistics of photons, you'll have to re-derive Planck's law for the spectrum of a black-body.

Notice I am not assigning a spin state, only insisting that the speed of light is not constant if the light is traveling near any mass. (In fact, light might not be able to travel in regions where there is absolutely no mass - I don't expect that is true, but what a great answer to Obler's paradox!)

Lab experiments that would test this speculation of yours are left to the reader.

Show us the natural solution you found after rejecting special relativitiy. (Remember, GR does not reject SR, but it includes it as a special case.)
Show us that the consequence is that leptons obey the Pauli principle (remember, the spin-statistics theorem of special relativistic QM already does it), and that "the 'path through space' is varied to solve the Michelson-Morley paradox, not time".

I think this is a great piece of evidence that the GR solution is wrong: Why would a 'path solution' work better at a quantum level and a 'time solution' work better at an astronomical level? Feynmen had to use a black box, renormalizing between quantum and relativistic solutions in order to transfer between the two frames of reference. That's silly.

I think you are confused.

Anyway, where is this "natural" solution you found after rejecting SR? And how does it solve the problems you found?

How would that give a magnetic dipole moment?

If you want to create a magnetic dipole, but provide no observable charge to the outside world, the positive and negative charges must spend exactly the same amount of time on each surface, and at each internal depth of the 'particle'. In a simple configuration, this would also cancel out any dipole moment. Spiraling the charges allows the creation of a dipole without creating a charge preference anywhere on the surface.

Or we can take the neutron as made of three charged, half-integer spin particles, which give a net spin of 1/2 and magnetic moment.
Show us that your "model" works better, taking into account the whole body of evidence.

Also:

Leptons = electron, muon, tauon, and neutrinos. What do these particles have to do with gravitational lensing?

[...]

You are supposed to explain what the analogous characteristics are, not restate "gravitational lensing = refraction".

So, why did you drag leptons into this, and which are the specific characteristics that makes gravitational lensing a refractive effect?

[Jerry]

Such certainty from so little actual data!

There is a great deal of data. I will not argue that I have not presented it well. But the real problem is that astrophysicists find it so easy to write-off data that differs drastically from the predictions.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro...12/0512370.pdf

Published B and V fluxes from nearby Type Ia supernovæ are fitted to light-curve templates with 4-6 adjustable parameters.

4-6 adjustable parameters? What are the criteria for deciding when the data looks like it is suppose to? Just five years ago, Goldhaber was using a single parameter to line all of the little supernovae up on one Hubble curve. Now they are all over the place, and so are the toys researchers are using to stretch and bend the light curves, so that they agree with expectations.

Very simple, straight-forward presentations of supernova light curves, with or without time-dilation corrections, are never presented by these research groups. Why?

The local supernova sample set has become quite widely diverse, both in terms of magnitude and light curve lengths. These standard candles are not nearly as standard as the research groups hoped they would be. The most telling fact of all, is that none of the distant supernova light curves are longer than the longest of the local curves, produced by the brightest supernova. This one fact alone disproves the Wilson hypothesis - there is no evidence of time dilation in the supernova light curves.

[Jerry]

There is no need to drag supernovae into this. We can do it with things that are more down-to-earth.

For example, during my undergraduate years, a few colleagues of mine did in a teaching lab measurements of the muon mean lifetime.
The same type of muon, coming down through the atmosphere produced by cosmic rays has a longer mean lifetime, as measured from the lab frame of reference.

Yes there is: The Supernova data, properly interpreted, contraindicate the muon data. I did the muon half-life labs as well, and I was just as convince of the correctness of the GR interpretation…until I analyzed the supernova results. Muon, and every other type of decay, should be influenced by the structure of local space, whereas if time dilation is a property of the universe, the failure of our telescopes to fine any of the brightest long-life supernova at high redshifts is much more solid evidence against relativist predictions.
Likewise, the unexpected forces characterized in AN&C are consistent with the concept that the rate of muon decay is a function of the velocity of the muon relative to the local reference frame.

Another example is the GPS, which requires both SR corrections and GR correction to yield correct results.

Likewise there should be a gradient in the speed of light between the earth and the GPS satellites, and it could be either a combination of time and space corrections, or a function of only the path through space. Here again, the differences between the expected results of flyby’s is consistent with a mass field gradient, but not with GR and SR.

So, explain exactly how you determined that time as a coordinate that depends on the frame of reference, is incorrect.

This needs to be looked into. Two weeks ago I could not explain why there has not been any observed variance when probes do Earth flybys, today I know there is. The GPS papers are worth a good read.

[papageno]

Yes there is: The Supernova data, properly interpreted, contraindicate the muon data.
[snip!]

No, Jerry, cherrypicking the evidence is not the way to go.

If relativity is wrong, it won't show up only in supernovae data.

Likewise, the unexpected forces characterized in AN&C are consistent with the concept that the rate of muon decay is a function of the velocity of the muon relative to the local reference frame.

Go ahead and show us the specifics.

Another example is the GPS, which requires both SR corrections and GR correction to yield correct results.

Likewise there should be a gradient in the speed of light between the earth and the GPS satellites, and it could be either a combination of time and space corrections, or a function of only the path through space. Here again, the differences between the expected results of flyby’s is consistent with a mass field gradient, but not with GR and SR.

Go ahead and show us the specifics.

So, explain exactly how you determined that time as a coordinate that depends on the frame of reference, is incorrect.

This needs to be looked into.

So, you did not determine it before making the claim.

Two weeks ago I could not explain why there has not been any observed variance when probes do Earth flybys, today I know there is. The GPS papers are worth a good read.

What about the other points in my post?

[Jerry]

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08...os-discovered/

Astronomers have turned up plenty of extrasolar planets, but a newly discovered binary pair of planets is quite the find. The system consists of a 7-Jupiter mass planet and a 14-Jupiter mass planet… but no star. These planets - or “planemos” - just orbit each other. Their discovery challenges the current theory that planets are thought to form out of the disks of gas and dust that surround newborn stars.

So does Titan - red sand and pebbles, not ammonia and water ice. That is about the third time in the last two months that a Universe Today article has supported one of my conjectures: Good work, Frazier!

[Jerry]

First of all, it is clear the General Relativity formula, within a small margin of error, correctly describes the variation in the speed of a Cesium clock, at the altitude of the GPS satellites:

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

In General Relativity (GR), coordinate time, such as is expressed approximately by a slow-motion, weak-field metric, covers the solar system. The proper time elapsed on a moving clock depends on the clock's position and velocity in the fields of nearby masses, and can be computed in terms of the elapsed coordinate time if the velocities, positions, and masses are known. Conversely, the elapsed coordinate time can be computed by integrating corrections to the proper time.

Relativistic effects on satellite clocks can be combined in such a way that only two corrections need be considered. First, the average frequency shift of clocks in orbit is corrected downward in frequency by 446.47 parts in 10^12. ...

The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was 442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 10^12, well, within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

But the devil is always in the details: I am arguing the texture of space, or specifically, a field strength, is proportional to the local mass, and this is what allows a cesium clock to beat faster: A satellite in orbit is in an environment where the field strength is weaker and there is less elastic resistance to any inertial moment: A clock will count faster because nuclear activity is less incumbered in a less massive environment.

It is important to note, that the accuracy of the relativistic prediction of the clock speed does not mean that the mathematics used in the GR prediction are unique: The values of GR parameters have been experimentally determined.

So which explanation is correct? If this elastic field interpretation is correct, when a satellite is in an elliptical orbit, the probe will not accelerate as fast in its approach to the earth as predicted by Newtonian and GR mechanics. It will also recede at a slightly faster than expected rate.

In another article, Ashby has this to say:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...3-1/node6.html

Similar plots were obtained for 25 GPS satellites that were tracked during this experiment. Rather than show them one by one, it is interesting to plot them on the same graph by dividing the calculated and measured values by eccentricity e, while translating the time origin so that in each case time is measured from the instant of perigee passage. We plot the effects, not the corrections. In this way, Figure 6 combines the eccentricity effects for the five satellites with the largest eccentricities. These are SV's nr. 13, 21, 27, 23, and 26. In Figure 6 the systematic deviations between theory and experiment tend to occur for one satellite during a pass; this ``pass bias'' might be removable if we understood better what the cause of it is. As it stands, the agreement between theory and experiment is within about 2.5%.

Notice that the eccentricity is very small, only 0.01486, and yet there is a trackable, measurable discrepancy of 2.5% in the rms of the plot. Is there a trend in this discrepancy that is consistent with my hypothesis? According to the concept I have presented, the satellite should fall towards perigee at a slightly slower rate, and rise to apogee slightly quicker than expected.

This should retard the perigee and advance the apogee – The derivative of the mean falling slope should be smaller than the derivative of the rising slope. My eyeballing of these graphs calculates a 4.6% steeper slope during the rise than during the fall. This is consistent with Asby’s 2.2% net variance between the measurement and theory. Notice that the error cannot be written off as an atmospheric effect: The satellite is following the predicted orbit, but the measured position crosses to either side of the predicted position.

2.2% is not trivial in an orbit that has only a 1.5% eccentricity. The effect is systemic and trackable, but not explainable using Newtonion or Relativistic gravity theory. What would the error be if the eccentricity were 0.1 or 0.5? How much error does this translate to, when calculating the extremely eccentric orbit of a comet, and using the second order effects to determine the mass of the comet?

These are the magnitude of errors which must be expressed locally if the masses of the planets are as poorly represented by Newtonian mechanics as I maintain. Thank you, Papageno, for pointing out that if GR predictions should be confirmed in the tracking of the GPS system. What has been confirmed is that there are measurable, inexplicable systematic defects that are consistent with an alternative hypothesis.