I think I'll just go ahead and lay out some items to be explored.
1. There are no photons. It all started with a misinterpretation of the results of the experiments on the photelectric effect. As Augustin Fresnel worked so hard to demonstrate, electromagnetic radiation is purely a wave phenomenon.
2. Even though 19th century physicists were unable to grasp it, there is a medium of propagation of electromagnetic radiation. Up until about 1899 it was clear to physicists that any wave phenomenon is a disturbance propagating through some sort of medium ... by definition.
3. There is no such thing as mass converting to energy and vice versa. There is no E=mc-squared. I need to go back and carefully do my homework to see exactly how that odd idea was introduced and try to show that it has no real basis in nature. Just to give one small example, I feel fairly certain that the energy of an atomic bomb can be accounted for purely by Coulomb forces.
4. The tiny 'bending' of light passing near massive objects can be explained by a slightly lower speed of light close to such objects. I think it will eventually be shown that the characteristic speed of the medium is slightly less near massive objects, i.e., there is a dependence on "aether density" as it were. There are undoubtedly no such things as 'black holes'; this is an inadmissible extrapolation (orders of magnitude) from the miniscule observed 'bending'.
5. Lorentz and Fitzgerald will eventually be shown to have been on the right track regarding the odd null results of the Michelson-Morley experiments. There must be a certain physical change in the dimensions of objects moving through the medium. The effect is a result of propagation delay changing the equilibrium spacing of neighboring atoms in a solid. It will turn out that the Michelson-Morley experiment was precisely the wrong experiment to measure the speed of objects moving through the medium.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Lee,
We share many ideas.
Regarding the equivalence of mass and energy, Feinman has derivation of it in the first volume of his lectures Chapter 15. It follows from the assumption of relativistic mass. Actually, Feinman assumes equivalence and then derives the relativistic mass function.
I've tried to adopt other ways to solve the same problem. Particularly the idea that the greater the speed of a charged object the less capacity an electric field has to accelerate it. But the problem I've had with such schemes is that they are more complicated with no improvement in the ability to predict outcomes.
I don't know if you have had the opportunity to view the ACF sight yet, but the theory predicts absorption of ether. And so I also wonder whether an accelerated object may gain mass after all.
In some regards equivalence of mass and energy can make sense. For example if an object is in reality a wave of corpuscular form, then it is comprised of a quantum of energy/momentum. To accelerate this corpuscle of energy/momentum would require a change of its energy/momentum. And so its the energy/momentum that seems to be the source of inertia that is resisting change.
Regarding 4. where you mention ether density increasing near a massive object. Please do refer to my site where it is predicted to arise from thermodynamic relationships in the ether. I've not worked out the problem of predicting deflection with AFT and would like to correspond about that if you are interested.
Well gotta get my supper. Take care.
Regards, Phil
Post a Comment