I do not doubt, for even one second, that you think your answers were clear.

However, they were not (and still are not) clear to me ... hence the questions (and isn't that the stated purpose of this ATM section anyway?).

I also do not doubt that you think you know what domains the claims you are making are in.

However, they were not (and still are not) clear to me ... hence the questions (and isn't that the stated purpose of this ATM section anyway?).
Perhaps the following will help, by providing a broader context ...

My first reading of the ATM ideas presented in the OP is that many other ATM ideas are accepted as established^, and many areas of standard physics are rejected. Sometimes this seems explicit; sometimes not.

Before I can sensibly ask questions about, and make challenges to, the ATM ideas, as presented, I need to understand the extent to which those ATM ideas (as presented) incorporate other ATM ideas (assumed to be established) or reject standard physics.

The HVT questions (etc), discussed briefly in my previous post, are a good example: if the ATM ideas in the OP assume 'EPR were right' (to put it crudely), and incorporate HVTs; if the ATM ideas in the OP assume the standard interpretations of the hundreds of EPR/HVT experimental tests are all wrong; (and so on), then to me it is critical to examine these things first. Otherwise, for example, I may assume a potent challenge would be to show inconsistency with quantum mechanics (QM), while the ATM ideas actually incorporate an implicit rejection of QM!

In other ATM threads, this approach of working to get a firm understanding of what the foundations are has been very successful, in respect of being able to show - clearly - some glaring internal inconsistencies, or inconsistencies with the physics explicitly stated as being part of the foundation of the ATM ideas presented#.

Further, as RT has made clear, in this thread and other ATM ones, publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal is not particularly important, in terms of establishing observational or experimental results, or presenting theories, models, and hypotheses. This puts a huge burden on all discussions of the ATM ideas he presents; namely, this ATM section must do the work normally done by (peer) reviewers. A simple example: a reviewer should, among other things, check that the key antecedents to the key points are all referenced, that all such references are consistent, and that all pertinent prior work is cited. As I understand it, RT's posts simply assume that all readers are fully aware of all such antecedents, know (somehow) that RT referenced them all consistently, and so on (alternatively, perhaps RT expects no such questions simply because it is RT who presents them?).

I trust that this clarifies some aspects of my approach; if not, please ask for elaboration.

^ in the sense of being internally consistent, consistent with established physics where domains of applicability overlap, and consistent with all relevant, good experimental and observational results.

# References available on request

I may not have got (all) the correct parts ... but my question is about variations in c "due to gravity effects" and charge.

Assume we can agree on a complete description of apparatus for measuring c, defined as the local speed of light in vacuo (we may have to take some time to work on this).

Assume we set this apparatus up on the surface of Mercury, and measure c horizontally and vertically. Do I understand what you have asserted correctly if I say the two results will be different?

Note that we can, in principle, do this test over an infinitesimal length, both horizontally and vertically; note too that we can do it in as strong a gravity field as we wish.

Assume we set this apparatus up at the end of a centrifuge, in 'free space', and measure c tangentially and radially. Will the two measurements differ?

Assume we set the apparatus up, in 'free space', where there is a strong electrical gradient, and we measure c orthogonal to the electrical field and parallel to it. Will the two measurements differ?

An example of a possible (deep) inconsistency or two, brought to light by 'nit-picking'
Wolff's ideas* seem to require that c is not variable, and certainly not variable due to mass or charge; yet there is at least one RT post in this thread which seems to imply that it must be variable (and anisotropic to boot).

Is this, in fact, a deep inconsistency? If not, why not?

Wolff's ideas fully embrace and incorporate quantum mechanics (QM), and so it seems that, to him, the various HVT/EPR experiments show exactly what the papers written on them show - QM 1, EPR 0 (i.e. they rule out hidden value theories). However, RT has asserted the opposite, that HVTs are not ruled out at all - QM 0, EPR 1. Further, RT has asserted that the ATM idea presented is a (purely) classical one^ (and so, necessarily, incompatible with QM).

Is this, in fact, a deep inconsistency? If not, why not?

* None of which, it seems, were actually published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (no, presentation at an APS meeting does not count).

^ "Yes, it is very classical physics." (source)

Whether you have difficulty finding them is one thing, but it does not follow that they do not exist in an infinite universe. Also, we have no evidence on whether the universe is finite or infinite. If the universe is finite then clearly there is a valid starting point.
In an infinite universe it is still conceivable that a characteristic length exists. For example,if a process of frequency change with time occurs (the Arp Narlikar theory) and non-linearity produces harmonics as it does, then there are two processes affecting frequency in opposite directions, one continuous and the other discrete. There will be a series of lengths where these two processes cause feed-back. The first is most easily understood as the length over which z=1. At that length the "redshift" process (actually the blue shift of matter with time) causes a doubling of wavelength or a halving of frequency, while the harmonic process causes the opposite (as well as some energy to other harmonics). So this characteristic distance means that standing waves will be more stable at this length than any other length. It is a characteristic length.
I cannot find the reference for the sum of plane waves being a spherical standing wave at present. It was on a web site by a woman who had a lot of stuff about wavelets. It was also discussed in the Usenet physics and maths groups about 10 years ago and accepted by some experts as correct.
You will need to explain this, I don't understand.
There is no way to know what the loss rate is in our Universe without matching up with observation in one place. The easiest is the red shift. That gives the rate as 1 part in 1.4*10^10 per year. From that rate and the Compton wavelength for nucleons the correct strength of gravity can be calculated.
We don't know that, and I have shown that even in an infinite Universe a characteristic length does exist. At that length (over which z=1) there will be standing waves. Once you have one standing wave in a non-linear system, it automatically produces others which are its harmonics. Mathematically it must be so because a repeating wave that changes shape (as a non-linear wave must) can only produce exact harmonics. If it didn't, it wouldn't change shape, and it wouldn't be non-linear.
This is the starting point for the whole idea.

However it is clear that the Universe must operate on non-linear equations. For a start GR is non-linear when the effect of energy on the metric is considered. The experts have agreed with this.

In another sense, if you are looking for the wave equations of the real Universe then they must be non-linear. In a linear system all waves just travel through each other without interaction. That means that an observer in a linear Universe can never see anything, never hear anything, never feel, or taste or smell anything. The fact that we have senses is total proof that the real Universe is non-linear.
Yes, cells are important. But it is complex. Once you have some characteristic length and waves started, you get some sort of 3D cell tiling structure. The harmonics of these waves then produce a series of overlapping cell structures and so on without limit. I refer you to the now closed Harmonics Theory thread for the details of that. From a very simple principle it does predict the scale at which all the structures that we observe form, from galaxies down to nucleons and beyond.

It is mind boggling to start with. But it does work.

OK, I might do this later.

It was supposed to be partly a rhetorical question. I wanted you to see that in standard physics these solutions exist. Clifford recognized it well over 100 years ago that these solutions must be what matter is. But he inconveniently died and the idea did not catch on. The recognition that matter was waves then had to wait half a century until Schroedinger and de Broglie. Unfortunately less bright people than these two kept on trying to make matter be some sort of particles too. Matter is purely waves, but spherical standing waves, which is why they have a location.

You can also confirm that such solutions must exist by a though experiment. Consider a light source at the exact centre of a perfect spherical mirror. After the light has traveled to the mirror and back, make the light source vanish (this is a thought experiment). The light will continue to bounce back and forth along all diameters of the mirror. The energy flux at any location follows the inverse square law of the distance from the centre. If the wavelength of the "light" is made to be the Compton wavelength of your favourite particle, then I say that it is actually that particle, but ... in fact multiple such waves are possible, because it depends on the polarization scheme of the light what happens at the centre. When all the possible polarization schemes are considered I maintain that you will find all the particle properties such as spin, isospin, ... You can make the mirror infinitely far away also, for best effect.

Such solutions must exist in the real world to electromagnetic waves. If they are not matter, what are they? (Rhetorical question)

Well, all science fits that description.

But it is much more than that. It does give quantitative results that link previously separate domains and make sense out of the underlying principles of those domains.
No. String theory never yielded any new results. From these ideas correct answers have been found to questions that usually people get wrong answers to. Examples are:

1. The understanding that waves are real and not probabilities removes confusion and shows that a single emitted photon can be detected on average once but with a poisson distribution (meaning sometimes 0, 1, 2 or 3 times)This is confirmed by experiment and standard QM did not expect it and makes up stories about it after the event.

2. From redshift it explains gravity. In big bang theory the agreement is seen as a coincidence and a parameter being exactly 1 by chance.

3. Via Harmonics Theory (see thread) it yields predictions of the scales at which things form in the universe, and explains observed cycles periods and infrequent cataclysms.

4. Through understanding what matter is it explains the M-M experiment as an expected result and retains realistic models.
I am happy to answer questions. But I can see no point in questions on the details of QED when I have already stated that those details are not proven. I think that the questions should relate to the wider scope of the claim as made in this thread and the two videos. (BTW there are two more videos now also, but they deal with the Harmonics Theory which is a closed subject in BAUT. However they may be useful for people to see how the existing claim fits into a wider perspective).
Milo Wolff has published his proof for the electron in a peer reviewed Journal. I gave the references to that already. I am not sure if I am qualified to fully defend that.

I would make the point that rather than see this as an alternative to existing particle physics in which case there will surely be disappointments about what is not done yet, it is more useful to see it as complementary to existing particle physics in which case there will be extra hints about what various particle properties mean and why certain masses (frequencies) are favoured and so on.

I went to a talk a couple of months ago by Frank Wilczek (Physics Nobel 2004). They use phenomenal calculations on supercomputers to try and do simulations of particle interactions and I am pretty sure that this method would allow much more extensive calculations without need for such huge computers and huge times that he mentioned.

I am happy to answer questions on this, but I think (and perhaps you are hinting at this) it should logically be a separate ATM thread at another time with a subject such as "Realistic explanations for EPR tests". That would be my preference.

OK, I can see that. I certainly understand that ideas like Le Sage gravity are not how most physicists look at it. However at the same time I would say that it also has some support and is a useful concept. It attempts to go below the surface and give a mechanism for gravity.

Likewise for the other similar things. I am fully aware of the status of these things as seen by establishment physics.
Well this whole standard versus ATM thing is a BAUT forum categorization. I just see alternative explanations some of which are more popular (although I don't think we would disagree about which are more popular). In many cases there is no need to reject standard physics to accept an alternative. Le Sage gravity is not a contradiction to GR but an explanation of it.

So I guess I have a more fluid way of looking at this. I certainly do not reject all standard physics and cosmology. I do reject the the interpretation of some of it, especially the redshift. But you know that part already. I am not in the camp that argues against GR all the time. I think that it works, but that there may be better ways of looking at the explanation of why it works. It is sometimes important to look at the details because even tiny misconceptions can cause major blockages in progress later on. This is an very important part of what I have to say.

The failure to recognize that matter is the exact same stuff as light has lead physics into mysticism (at least popularized physics) and dead ends.
Sorry, what is HVT?


I think that there is more I need to answer here but I have to go out now, so will leave it until later in the day.

Here's an example of my confusion ...

In physics (and a 'theory of everything' would, by definition, be in physics), a theory is quite different from a research program, so if you think the two are essentially synonymous, then I will need to spend a *lot* more time on nit-picking questions, to be sure that I actually understand what's around the foundations of the ATM ideas presented (more later).
That's not even wrong! And as good an example as I could have hoped for re the deep communications gulf (that I perceive).

A (physics) 'theory of everything' would explicitly seek to explain/describe/account for all (physical) phenomena potentially observable to us today, here. By necessity it would have to be consistent with, 'in the appropriate limits', General Relativity, QED, QCD, and the Standard Model of particle physics ... except if it explicitly rejected certain sets of key observational or experimental results (as you seem to have done, wrt the quantum mechanics that is incorporated in the last three).

AFAIK, among physics theories, only string theory/M-theory has such an explicit scope.

So is the ATM idea presented in this thread a 'theory of everything' or not? I still don't know, so I'm going to keep asking questions ...

Here's one: what physical, potentially observable phenomena are explicitly beyond the scope of the ATM idea presented in this thread?
Which experiment(s) so confirmed?
I don't understand this, could you expand please? Only the part I have emphasised.
There were many M-M experiments, not all of them done by Michelson and Morley.

Which ones are you asserting the ATM idea presented in this thread explains?

What are your criteria for determining 'realism' wrt models ("realistic models")?
I am, again, confused.

You presented links to material by Milo Wolff, in this thread. That material explicitly discussed Feyman diagrams and the behaviour of the electron. What parts of QED do you think are independent of Feyman diagrams and the behaviour of the electron?

Further, did you not write "The only area where there is no quantitative results established is particle physics beyond the electron"? Did you not mean Wolff when you wrote that? Does Wolff not outline, in one of the links you gave, a method he claims will produce exactly the same results as QED?

As you no doubt are well aware, QED incorporates special relativity (SR). To the extent that LET is inconsistent with SR (and I'm not sure if you claim that it is), doesn't it follow that Wolff's program is inconsistent with LET (assuming that his assertions concerning what can be achieved with his method do not contain holes)?

I hope you can clarify this point soon.
As I have just said, the questions seem, to me, to be intimately related to exactly what has been presented in this thread.
Would you be so kind as to give an explicit reference?

I have checked all the links that look appropriate, and all your posts, in this thread, and the only thing I found was a presentation at an APS meeting (actually several such presentations). It seems there was no subsequent publication of those presentations, at least not in any journal that the standard abstracting services (such as ADS) track.
Not even to answer questions on apparent inconsistencies between other material presented and what's in Wolff's own stuff?

I understood that this Wolff material is pretty central to the ATM idea being presented here; if so, how can any BAUT member question or challenge that idea, except wrt (trivial?) parts round the edges (unless you are prepared to address the explicitly presented core)?If so, then questions about HVT/EPR experiments, about MMX, about the HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), and much, much more become pertinent ... 'complementary' implies 'consistent with QM', which is certainly how I read the Wolff material; yet the ATM idea presented in this thread seems, implicitly, and perhaps explicitly, to reject QM.

This further illustrates my confusion over whether what is presented is intended to be a 'theory of everything' or a research program, or something else.You may be referring to Lattice QCD work; if so, then from what's presented so far, I think you're in for a rude shock .... Wolff's approach does not include the strong force (I think he explicitly excludes it), so I doubt that even he would claim that it could substitute for contemporary QCD methods.

But perhaps I have misunderstood what has been presented, so far, concerning the scope of applicability of Wolff's ideas - would you please clarify? Specifically, what is the basis for the assertion that the Wolff method has applicability to strong force phenomena?

Here's the challenge then ...

To what extent does asking how a specific set of experimental or observational results are consistent with Le Sage gravity (for example) - and having you agree that there is a clear, big, inconsistency - constitute a demonstration of a failure of the ATM ideas presented in this thread, in the sense of them being a 'theory of everything'?

Put another way, if things which are indeed well and truly ATM are presented as key parts of the ATM idea presented in this thread, isn't it a legitimate challenge to ask for a detailed, quantitative explanation of consistency (of those embedded ATM things)?
That may be so ... however, you chose to come here to present ATM ideas, so you can hardly complain about the rules, can you?
That must surely rank as one of the most extraordinary assertions I've read in this ATM section!

But, since you made it, I can now ask you to show - quantitatively - how Le Sage gravity is consistent with GR.
Perhaps you wrote in haste ... I can't put 1 g of light into a wooden container, and carry it around in my pocket (to take one obvious example). Would you please clarify?
Hidden Variable Theories ... the generalisation of the heart of the EPR challenge to quantum theory, and what the Bell Inequality is all about.

My impression is, as I have already said, that the ATM idea presented in this thread is classical, and implicitly assumes QM is explicable in terms of hidden variables (something to do with standing waves I expect).

Actually, I'd much rather you did something similar in Physics Forums ... after reading the many, long, threads there on exactly this topic (including some with posts by Caroline Thompson).

What's important is not so much whether you can present ATM ideas concerning one or two specific 'EPR' experiments, but whether you assert that the ATM ideas presented in this thread are inconsistent with the 'no hidden variables' part of QM or not.

This is very deep and fundamental ... rejecting QM is, I think, a much bigger deal that rejecting the standard interpretation of the Hubble relationship (for example) ...

Well, you were the one that mentioned TOE not me. I think that it is more than a research program but does not claim to be a complete TOE.
Well does string theory, for example, explain why we find the universe has particular scales at which things form ... galaxies, stars, planets, moons, cells, atoms, nucleons, quarks? If it doesn't do this then it is no way a TOE or even close to one. AFAIK string theory has not made a single testable prediction regarding anything that was not already known from prior theories (or even explanation that was not possible before, not counting bringing things under a single theory). Considering the number of man years that have gone into it, that is a dismal record.
In principle there is nothing beyond the scope of the proposal that all phenomena are explicable by the motions of a non-linear aether, or equally expressable as Maxwell's equations plus the recognition of a variable speed of light. That variable speed depends on local energy fluxes. This is equivalent to GR variations of the metric due to gravity, but a similar property exists for charge and strong force effects. These effects are 10^40 stronger than gravitational ones but tend to cancel out over anything but small scales. However we can see for example that a nucleon is the equivalent from an e/m point of view to what a black hole is from a gravitational point of view. This is a quantitative result.
Just to repeat the emphasized part was "The only area where there is no quantitative results established is particle physics beyond the electron". Yes, I was referring to Wolff with the electron. However this was not the only quantitative result. I was saying there no quantitative results for smaller particle interactions.
All the ones that get a null result. This should be clear. If matter is made of standing waves of the same stuff as light, then when you look at the apparatus for an M-M experiment it experiences exactly the same variations in light path due to motion that the light that is being measured experiences. So the result is obviously to be null. Only a person that thinks matter is something different to light would expect a result that is not null. I think that Lorentz and Fitzgerald understood this at least to the extent that an electron was an e/m phenomenon.
A realistic physics model is one that may be conceived of rather than just working from equations that are not necessarily understandable. It probably lies close to "mechanical" except that waves are perhaps not seen as mechanical. I think that this is a widely enough used term. I would say that "spooky action at a distance" is not realistic, but deny that any physics experiment demonstrates this. Of course that idea began with Newton who couldn't se a mechanism for gravity that wasn't "at a distance". Le Sage etc provided a mechanism that is realistic for Newton's gravity.
Milo Wolff's proof does not depend on Feynman diagrams AFAIK.
Yes, I meant Wolff as having done the electron. And yes he claims to get the same results as QED. I think that this is all good, because it shows that realistic models can fit with much of present theory (maybe even all).
I have no disagreements with SR or GR. LET theory gives the same results, and the only difference is in providing a realistic model for it.
Is that for LET theory? I think that the best presentation of this comes from Ilja Schmelzer http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/glet/ and http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/derivation.html but there are others.
I may have lost the thread here somewhere. Give me a nudge if so. :-)
The Wolff part is only central if you concentrate on particle physics. In fact I have some reservations about it because he (and Gabriel LaFreniere) uses a non-tensile aether and I prefer a tensile aether. Surprisingly some results can be achieved both ways. I was totally convinced that a tensile aether is needed to have polarization, but Gabriel has demonstrated results of interactions that cause polarization from a fluid aether. He has animated GIFs on his site that he labels in regard to this.
It may be more than one of these. In part there are different ways of looking at things (which it is) that can yield the same equations. Sometimes though a different way leads to subtle differences and insights about something that will happen differently. This is the really interesting part of theoretical physics and cosmology because it is how progress is made. (I would add that the ATM restrictions in BAUT and the attitude to it does restrict free exchange and exploration of things properly. I understand the reasons but it has undesirable consequences).

It is more than a research program. I arrived at WSM ideas, Le Sage gravity, the variable mass hypothesis and several other concepts independently as a result of my cycles studies and Harmonics Theory development. This was because those results (such as being able to predict the atomic and particle scales at 0.5 A and 1.3 fm from the Hubble scale and the maths) convinced me that particles must be standing waves and that they must be changing over time. In each case later on, after getting on the internet, I discovered that all those things had been proposed before, some as long as 200+ years before! If one model can lead to so many ideas and explanations of them all, then it is useful.

I think that the behaviour of non-linear systems (of which the universe is an example) are so complex that humans will never have a real TOE that they can solve. We do not even know how to address many existing observations with present tools. The insights are not possible.
I agree that the strong force is not included in Wolff's work. That is why it stops at the electron.
None.

I don't want to discuss TOE. I want to discuss practical issues of what my suggestion is useful for. As far as I am concerned, Le Sage gravity is an explanation for gravity, not a rival theory. There may be some alternatives that will crop up, but I don't think you can have say LSG versus GR because there might be more than one version. But there might be cases such as during eclipses where there are testable alternatives between these as bodies throw gravitational shadows on others. I don't know what GR says here (and I am unsure that anyone does). There are in fact interesting results from eclipses Maurice Allais is one and Wang & Wang is another. Here is a place where theory can be advanced by experiment.
Sure. As long as we don't try to do 5 ATMs at once :-)
And as long as it doesn't mean I can't raise those other issues later.
I don't make the forum rules, and I don't want to be prevented from doing prepared presentations on the other issues sometimes. The main issue here, as I see it, is that a single classical electromagnetic approach will work for quantum stuff once it is understood that matter is spherical standing waves. I am convinced that the e/m field is entirely classical, totally continuous and indivisible, and in no way is it probability based. It is real, as Schroedinger and de Broglie believed. Where probability comes into it is our knowledge. That has caused confusion because let us face it, most people (including physicists) are really crap at statistics.
Which one was that? I come and accept working under the rules, but I can still criticize them as that isn't against the rules. :-)
I think that the Wikipedia article is quite good and refers to a lot of other material on Le Sage gravity. Note that further down it refers to a wave model alternative to the wee particle one, and you will understand that I prefer the wave model. I don't think I can write something as complete as that in this thread. But I will mention a couple of issues. Feynman argued against it based on drag. This has subsequently been proved not applicable if the frequency spectrum of the background radiation (ZPF) has the right shape. With partciles there is the issue of their velocity - for waves the velocity is obviously c and that is what makes it work the same as GR as I understand it.
Ah, but you can, you just don't recognise it as light. ;-)

But seriously, I said with a perfect mirror. Of course this doesn't exist (which is why I also had to keep vibrations going into the cymatics experiments) but you are to consider it approaching to that situation. I think that you can understand what I am getting at in the spherical mirror example.
That is probably a fair description. Bohm does a reasonable job, but I think it can be made conceptually simpler. The disproofs of hidden variables have been repeatedly found to be flawed. I think that deserves its own ATM thread. Can we leave that for another day? It is not the heart of my suggestion.

If you asked questions about the cymatics example and how those waves are self-supporting both in distances from each other and the ladder waves, then I would think that you were entertaining the idea. But I don't feel that you do. Unless someone is willing to entertain an idea, to try it on for size, to see what it feels like and what it might be good for, first, before testing it harshly, one is not open to change and will be stuck forever.

Yes, that makes sense.
Well I do assert that QM is wrong about that. I also assert that QM does not properly deal with the issue of a single emitted photon being sometimes observed more than once. QM has gaping illogical features in this area. The concept of collapse of the wave function is absurd. It is possible to do QM without that (and for example McGraw-Hill Ecyclopaedia of Science and Technology never mentions collapse of the wave function) but many people are brought up on that. The question is which QM we are talking about?
I don't reject most of QM. But the interpretation is often less than helpful.

When I went out the other day there were a couple of unanswered questions. I am trying to find all of those now because I had skipped on to the next set yesterday.
Possibly. The variable c will certainly be important for nucleons and is surely why they are not recognized as pure e/m standing waves at present. How important it is for electrons I am not sure. Wolff's results indicate that perhaps it is not.

The main effect of a non-linearity (or variable c) on a spherical standing wave is to make the innermost waves have different wavelengths, with the frequency always constant. You can see this in my cymatics examples if you look very closely. However as a separate issue, Wollf and I agree that the innermost wave of an electron has double the wavelength to all the other waves. This is because it has an amplitude:

a = sin(2*pi*x/lambda) / (2*pi*x/lambda)

This function changes phase at the origin (x=0) and has a finite maximum amplitude at x=0. There are no infinities in the WSM.
Wolff is a physicist within the community (well he may be retired now so perhaps "was" is a better word). I am not. Perhaps that means he is sitting somewhere between me and the general physics community in his views. I think that you are correct that Wolff and I have some differences. We also have some similarities. I use him as an example to show that the WSM approach can agree with accepted physics to a large extent. Of course it must if it is to be useful as it must replicate known results. However I think that it can do this more easily as it is a realistic model.

Amoung the WSM community (there are a number of different people working on these ideas on the fringes of physics) I am in a definite minority in favouring a tensile medium rather than a fluid one. Milo does work with a fluid one. I think that transverse waves are important in getting some results, although it is really surprising the extent to which two different models can produce the same equations. Of course a tensile medium can produce all the effects of a fluid one plus more.

Variable c is almost self-evident to me when looking at electromagnetism inside matter. All materials have refractive indices other than 1 which show that light does propagate through them at a different velocity. Of course you can do all sorts of elaborate juggling of ideas to achieve this and say that c is constant, but it obviously isn't.

To me the electromagnetic effects in matter and the gravitational effects near massive objects (high M/R ratio) are illogically dealt with by present physics. They are situations of common origin and you cannot sensible unify them by treating them in different ways.

Yes, this is very relevant.

I think that in a past post I mistakenly stated that LET produced GR and that should have been SR. I will show in this post how LET plus WSM produces GR.

First it is necessary to make my position clear, then I will return to your questions. It is important that we specify what we measure things relative to. Einstein was brilliant in this regard as he cut through fluffy philosophical issues to what you actually measure. And that is ultimately what science tries to explain. However there are different ways of conceptualizing something that get the same mathematical answers. A big part of what I am advocating does relate to the conceptualization because I think this way makes thinking easier which leads to better progress in the future.

I advocate using Euclidean space and variable c. This is in many ways (and certainly for modest variations in c) equivalent to relativity with distorted space-time and constant c. It is a recognized alternative that some people favour simply as a computation device (as GR is darn difficult to fully solve). When things are equivalent the choice is made for convenience. I do not see any differences in experimental results between the two approaches.

When it comes to the small scale however the idea of a variable c depending on the local space tension which depends on the energy flux density is significant. This is the domain of QM rather than GR. The results obviously need to reproduce known results within the domains that are well studied.

We can consider the case of an object like the Sun which has enough concentration of mass to bend light a little - 1.75" of arc at the surface. In my WSM based on a tensile medium, if you consider the waves of all the particles in the Sun, they interfere a lot, but outside the Sun there is a combined effect with is to produce a sum of a transverse wave with vibration at right angles to the radius vector from the Sun. So if we look at a small region outside the Sun, there is this vibration going on in a very small scale because the Compton wavelength of nucleons is 1.3*10^-15 m and it is happening in the tangential direction not the radial one. All light must pass through this space with this fine vibration. We can consider light traveling in two directions (other cases can also be done, but just to show the limits):

1. Light traveling directly towards or away from the Sun. This is actually traveling a slightly wiggly path because the WSM waves are at right angles to its motion. If the light travels at c and the aether vibrates at a maximum of v in each direction then the effective speed is actually sqrt(c^2-v^2).

2. Light traveling traveling tangentially to the Sun however is either directly assisted by the aether vibrations or directly opposed by them so that it varies between (c+v) and (c-v) effective velocity. We do not average the velocity of these to find the progress, but average the distance traveled in equal times (the old physics problem about going up and down stream). So we have to average 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v) and invert that which leads to the expression (c^2-v^2) as the effective velocity.

The difference between these two velocities is the GR spacial distortion formula. It results directly from a WSM equation in the presence of massive bodies. In doing this space is assumed to be totally Euclidean and simple transverse WSM waves in that space. The result is to create all the GR effects in an easy to understand way (well easy compared to normal GR).

In WSM for either a tensile or fluid medium you get the same results for de Broglie waves. They all come out quite naturally as a result of interactions (interferences or beats) between the waves of the observed object and the observer. However you only get the above result for transverse waves which seems to require a tensile medium.

So to return to your questions, it is necessary to realize that in the proposed model, matter is not of constant dimensions. If you use rulers made of matter, they have been distorted by the effects of WSM waves vibrating along with that matter. The experimental results will be in accord with those expected by GR because this model is consistent with GR (certainly in the low fields case - I am not sure about at exceptional cases like black holes - I expect that in the WSM case a black hole limit can be approached arbitrarily closely but not exceeded).

For example, when you measure c horizontally and vertically, your ruler is changing in size as a result of c changing. It might be argued that this is not a lot of use if you can't detect it. However it is a much easier way to conceptualize things and to do calculations than in standard GR.

Regards
Ray

Tomorrow we are going away for 5 days, so I will probably not be making any posts in that time. Will see you again after that.

And I think I will probably cease posting to this thread ... I can't understand what seem to me to be quite fundamental aspects of the ATM idea presented, and - to me - the answers to questions which sought to clarify these aspects have been inconsistent, almost arbitrary.

One last try.

What - so far - are some examples of specific, quantitative, potentially observable differences ('predictions', if you will) between Le Sage gravity+LET+WSM+... and GR?

What - so far - are some examples of specific, quantitative, potentially observable differences ('predictions', if you will) between Le Sage gravity+LET+WSM+... and QED?

What - so far - are some examples of specific, quantitative, potentially observable differences ('predictions', if you will) between Le Sage gravity+LET+WSM+... concerning electron phenomena/phenomenology?

So, assuming we could agree on a complete description of apparatus for measuring c, defined as the local speed of light in vacuo (possibly several different sets, using independent methods), there is no physical environment in which that apparatus would detect an anisotropic c?

QQ1: Please provide a reference (or references), in a paper (or papers) in a relevant peer-reviewed journal(s), to a derivation (or derivations) of QED using WSM.

QQ2: Ditto, to a derivation of QED using LET.

QQ3: What is the basis for asserting the applicability of WSM, or any other ATM idea presented in this thread, to weak force phenomena?

QQ4: What experiment(s) could be used to determine the values of the minimal set of parameters to fully characterise the aether?

QQ5: is the ATM idea presented in this thread a hidden variable theory (or does it contain one or more such, as critical components)? If so, is it (or are they) local hidden variable theories (HVT)? non-local HVTs? both?

QQ6: is the WSM ATM idea a hidden value theory (or does it contain one or more such, as critical components)? If so, is it (or are they) local hidden variable theories (HVT)? non-local HVTs? both?

QQ7: to what extent does the ATM idea presented in this thread incorporate a c that varies according to the strength of the (local) weak force? the (local) strong force? the gradient of the weak force? the gradient of the strong force?

All quotes from rtomes, in this thread (emphasis added)See also post #9.

Assume the Arp-Narlikar VMH rules the universe.

Beyond the Local Group (of galaxies), what evidence do you have concerning how the universe scales (whether at ratios of ~10^4.5 or anything else)?

Also, in this ATM idea, does 'the leakage of the wave energy result in adding mass to' electrons and neutrinos?

I haven't been following this thread in detail but if you want to average the distance in equal times you end off with

average d = ((c+v).t + (c-v).t)/2 = c.t

converting that back into an average velocity gives you c.

What you don't do is average 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v).

Given this apparent error, does that mean that your theoretical predictions no longer agree with observation?

Are we made of vibrations?

An important question about the ATM ideas presented in this thread and standard quantum mechanics (SQM): to what extent do the ATM ideas being presented in this thread mean that contemporary research into quantum computing is a waste of time and resources?

If this seems too big a topic, perhaps we could start with a simpler question: to what extent is the (SQM) concept of 'qubits' nonsensical, in the ATM ideas being presented in this thread?

In the harmonics theory thread I showed how to derive the Bohr radius of 0.5 A and the Compton wavelength (or radius) or a nucleon 1.3 fm from the scale of Hubble, galaxies, stars and planets because they are each related by ratios of the order of 34560. This is complimentary to standard theory which has no fundamental explanation of scales in the universe at which structures form. I presume that further discussion of this is closed.
This is more difficult, because I cannot be certain what the standard theory will say (sometimes people say one thing based on simplifying assumptions). However...

In the case of bodies of matter such as planets during an eclipse there should be observable effects due to the gravity shadow. So in a solar eclipse, the moon throws a gravity shadow on the earth. That means that the part in totality will have a slightly different acceleration towards the sun to the rest of the earth. The actual motion of earth surface perturbations is complex because it depends on where the totality is relative to the centre of the earth as seen from the sun and moon. There are several experiments which show that this is true. The Chinese example of Wang and Yang is a great example:

I am not aware of any relating to an electron.

Well of course it is observed to be different. Some examples:

1. When a planet goes nearly behind the Sun the return time of signals is different.

2. In ordinary matter, there is a refractive index which is far from 1, meaning that light travels at a different speed.

The proposal deals with all of this in a natural and understandable way.

The fact is that when you have a wave equation then under a Lorentz transform things look just the same. That is a simple mathematical fact that was never recognized before relativity. Up until then all people had a mass hallucination about instantaneous because light is so fast.

None.
There is only one parameter which is the rate at which the aether increases ave velocity as tension (stretching) increases. So it promises a much reduced set of parameters in physics. All other present parameters should be produced as a by-product. This can be demonstrated by computer simulations. Actual calculations are too complex to be realistic.
There are no non-local effects. All effects are due to simple deformations of the aether locally. It is simply the wave equation with variable c. Nothing more.
Local.
I do not know how the weak force arises. In the case of gravity it arises due to the change in mass of particles over time. It will be some other naturally occurring residual effect that can be discovered by computer simulations.

Rules is strong word. It is an important consideration that is ignored by standard theory. When it is included then the big bang is seen as entirely bung. There is ample other evidence for this, but that is another matter. I think that standard physics works very well at solar system scales and below meaning that any differences will be difficult to detect (such as the gravity effect during an eclipse mentioned). However at large scales theory is a house of cards. If redshifts are interpreted wrongly then it follows that galaxy cluster velocities are not actually known and the Virial theorem is wrong etc etc as I have mentioned.
The Hubble scale is now known to be about 14x10^9 light years. This is about 10^4.5 larger than the galactic distance scale (there are actually several scales with the two most prominent being spiral galaxy spacings at ~2x10^6 light years and small irregular galaxy spacings of about 1.7x10^5 light years.

Larger scales are as yet not observed but I predict scales of around 3x10^14, 10^19 and 10^23 light years. These scales cannot be observed using light or nuclear related forces. However I suspect that neutrinos can be used to observe them. Neutrino telescopes are gradually becoming a reality and we are likely to see these scales become observed in our life-times. In all cases there will be secondary levels (as observed in the galaxy case) at about 1 order of magnitude apart.
For electrons I would say probably yes. For neutrinos I don't know. If they have observable and measurable mass then probably yes.

I suspect that I have an explanation for a neutrino but don't yet have enough confirming evidence. I give it here as a possibility only.

When any atomic restructuring occurs (e.g electron changes orbit or two atoms form a bond) then some energy is given off as a wave. This is much like dropping a stone in a pond as there are a series of wiggles that the die down. However when such a wave is given off by the Sun for example, each such wave is a spherical traveling wave (at least in principle, because it gets scattered and all sorts of disturbances happen) which expands at c until it passes us here on Earth. From a gravitational point of view the emitted photon is a shell in the sense that Newton described spherical shells as having gravity equivalent to a point. However after it passes us we are inside the shell and it then has a zero gravitational effect as explained by Newton. So at the moment of it passing us the e/m field not only vibrates with the photon passing but also dips a tiny bit. This dip is what I think a neutrino's mass is.

Sorry, you are quite right, I stated that all wrong. It is like the boat going up and down river case where the boat does c and the river does v. It has to travel an equal distance each way (as the standing waves it goes through have an equal amount of each phase of the wave).

So traveling a distance x at c+v takes time x/(c+v) and then traveling x at c-v takes time x/(c-v) so the total time to travel 2x is x/(c+v) + x/(c-v) and the average velocity is 2x / [x/(c+v) + x/(c-v)] = 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2).

Yes, in this view everything is only vibrations.