At first I thought all the talk about quantum computing was nonsense. Then I realized that it actually supports the case that the e/m field is continuous. There is no limit to the amount of data that can be stored in a finite amount of space if you use high enough frequencies. Of course there will be practical limits but they are incredibly huge.

Of course the quantum computing people do not talk about the actual e/m field they talk about all sorts of entanglement and superposition. I interpret superposition to simply mean the sum of two waves. Entanglement is really about our statistical knowledge of nature rather than nature itself. I do not think that there is anything happening that is not explicable by classical electromagnetism PLUS a proper statistical understanding PLUS these ideas about WSM etc.

It seems that this is not an answer to the question asked, which concerns "c, defined as the local speed of light in vacuo".

In my earlier post, I defined 'local' to mean an arbitrarily small distance (of course; there would be practical difficulties in constructing apparatus to measure any such, but in principle ...).

Would you please answer the question?
As above; would you please answer the question?

I don't follow this - what is "ave velocity"?

Is this parameter a scalar quantity? vector? tensor?? What are its units?

What is its expected value?
This does not seem to answer the question asked ("What experiment(s) could be used to determine the values of the minimal set of parameters to fully characterise the aether?").

Would you please answer the question?
In principle, could an experiment based on one or more of the Bell inequalities falsify the ATM ideas presented in this thread?

If not, why not?

If so, what sort of experiment?
What about variation in c due to the strength of the strong force (or its gradient)?

What are the equations that must be solved - by computer simulations - to predict the variation in c due to "the change in mass of particles over time"?

It seems these two questions were not answered, so I'm bumping them; please answer these questions.

How was this 'Hubble scale' determined, as in what experiments and observations were used?

Specifically, what redshift-independent methods were used?

Also, how was this scale estimated using only the Arp-Narlikar VMH? A reference to a paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal would be appreciated.
What is the basis for your suspicion ("I suspect that neutrinos can be used to observe them")?
In what way(s), if any, does this answer represent an addition, or extension, to the Arp-Narlikar VMH?

Specifically, where in the Arp-Narlikar VMH is the possibility of electron and neutrino masses being independent of - or not tied in fixed ratios to - nucleon masses presented?

I think this is covered by an earlier post of mine, with questions about the use of the Bell inequalities to test the ATM ideas presented here.

If I have understood your explanation correctly, then these ATM ideas are explicitly HVTs (or incorporate them). However, there may be an inconsistency, in that Wolff's WSM seems to be fully consistent with SQM in the sense that it does not incorporate any HVTs, so this topic may be worth probing further ...

Well I have already explained that matter is an e/m standing wave and that therefore it expands and shrinks in exactly the same way as light does. Therefore the result must always be null locally.

Sorry this is bad typing on my part, it should read:
There is only one parameter which is the rate at which the aether increases its velocity as tension (stretching) increases.
The constant is dimensionless, being the proportionate increase in c with an increase in stretch. Of the form dc/c = k*dx/x
Well any experiment that measures GR effects can be compared to such a model. Of course this includes (so-called) gravitational redshift and other effects. I say so-called, because there is actually no change in frequency of a traveling wave in the gravitational case, the frequency starts out different.
I don't think that the Bell inequality experiment has anything to tell us other than that people cannot do statistics. If an experiment could send information at many times the speed of light (as the experts agree is not possible with the EPR experiments) then I would be proved wrong. But if you cannot send information faster than light, then clearly nothing is going on at that speed. The whole thing is developing as a system according to normal physics.
Potentially the model will apply in such cases, but until computer simulations are done to establish how it maps on to the standard model then we will not know.

At this time, the model is useful in these ways for nuclear particles:
1. Predicts the radius or wavelength of nucleons as 1.3 fm.
2. Predicts the strength of gravity relative to strong force based on observed red shift.
Consider a tensile material. It will operate according to the standard wave equation as described fully in wikipedia and elsewhere.
The only additional element to be considered is that c is locally varying. Its value depends on the local stretching of space.

I already answered these questions several times and so am now ignoring them. I never claimed to derive QED and specificall answered that I did not. You repetition of the same question in slightly different form is tedious.

Thanks for the prompt response.

I'm (very) confused; I thought I read several posts which stated that "c" varies according to direction (it's different 'horizontally' and 'vertically', in a gravity well, for example), which would make it at least a vector quantity. Add in variations in "c" due to the (local) electromagnetic field (a vector) and (possibly) the local weak and strong field strengths (or gradients, or something), and maybe it's a rank 2 (or 3, or 4) tensor.

Can you clarify please?
So, what experiment(s) could - at least in principle - be used to determine the value of this (dimensionless) constant that fully characterises the aether?

How would one (you, me, anybody) go about crunching the results from any such experiment, to produce an estimate of the value of this constant?

(to be continued)

I use the reasonably recent estimates of the Hubble constant of around 71 km/s/Mpc or 1/14*10^9 years.
The method is redshift dependent. It is the interpretation that is different. We can agree (I think) that there is a distance of about 14 billion light years which is a natural scale that is difficult to see much beyond.
It is the basis for calibrating the VMH. If the Hubble rate is used as a starting point then you can derive the strength of gravity relative to the stronger forces. Or you can go the other way. I am not aware of a peer reviewed paper on this particular aspect, but have never looked for one.

I presume that you are not asking for Narlikar's papers. If you are then see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...***+hypothesis
Well, neutrinos have a greater penetrating power (lower interaction) than anything else we know of. I cannot find good reliable information but what I can find suggests that the mean free path of a neutrino in the Universe is of the order of 10^13 times the Hubble distance. That is consistent with my derivation of the largest scale in the universe (see Harmonics Theory thread).
I don't know. There is no evidence for any change in e/p mass ratio even over cosmological distances. Therefore I assume that e must stay in proportion to p at 1/1836. If neutrinos have mass (as now seems accepted) then a similar argument may apply but I don't know if cosmological measurements tie it down or not.

Sorry, I missed answering the expected value of the constant.
I suppose that 1 is most likely, but I expect it to be some small obviously meaningful constant otherwise.

If there has been no published derivation of QED, using either WSM or LET, what is the basis for any claims concerning the consistency between the many, extremely precise, experimental results (fully consistent with QED) and alternatives (incorporating either WSM or LET or both)?

Note: my questions refer to derivations of QED using WSM and LET; they do not say, or even imply, that rtomes claimed to have obtained such derivations.

It seems, from several recent posts in this thread, that my questions have not been sufficiently clear; would you mind telling me how I can do a better job of writing the questions so that similar misunderstandings can be avoided?

Again, I'm (very) confused.

I asked about the applicability of an experiment based on one or more of the Bell inequalities as a means to (potentially) falsify the ATM ideas presented; I did not state what any such experiment could, or should, be.

My bad; allow me to clarify.

My question has no explicit or implicit relationship with any experiment conducted to date, or any gedanken experiment.

It begins with the Bell inequalities (please refer to the 2007 review paper I provided a link to in an earlier post for references to these; if you need further clarification, please ask). These explicitly provide a robust basis for testing SQM and (a wide range of) local HVTs ... the construction of experiments which implement one or more of these inequalities is a separate, and later, step ... a step which I neither included in my question, nor intended to include.

Note, too, that there are many, many possible experiments based on one or more of the Bell inequalities; note that there are more than one such inequalities.

But perhaps you did answer the question ... by saying that, even in principle, no experiment based on any one of the Bell inequalities could falsify the ATM ideas presented in this thread?

Is that so?

(to be continued)

What is the scalar quantity "u" in this equation? What is "t"?

As I understand this equation (consistent with the wikipedia citation), "c" is a constant ... it has no dependence on either "u" or "t".

What extension, or modification, (if any) is being proposed in this thread ("c is locally varying")?

How does "the change in mass of particles over time" enter into this equation (or a modification/generalisation that explicitly incorporates a "locally varying" c)?

Well I already said that QED had not been derived from WSM or LET. The only thing derived is Wolff's electron derivation.

Perhaps it would be valuable to look at what is new to me and what others have said as regards these things.

The idea that the wave equations for the universe are in principle non-linear is my suggestion, though a search shows many published papers. However they do not seem to be dealing with the same issues. Only Arp-Narlikar look at mass changing. The people in WSM all think particles are stable and never consider the evolution of them. The LET people don't even look at particles. So there are gaping gaps in the views of even those that I say are somewhat on the right track.

To me it is now entirely clear that non-linearity is an essential feature of the observable universe. Without non-linearity there cannot be observation. All observation requires interaction between some field and some sense organ or instrument. That cannot happen with linearity because all linear waves pass right through each other without any lasting effect.

From this it follows that all structures such as particles must evolve with time, even if ever so slowly. This makes the Narlikar-Arp VMH (I note that it is generally called Hypothesis rather than Theory) inevitable.

These things are logically true. The fact that 99.999% of all physicists and cosmologists totally ignore them does make the ideas wrong. Only logical argument (not just questions asking for derivative proofs) has any chance
of showing this to be wrong.

There is no difference that I know of for testing the ideas that I put forward as distinct from existing theory as far as the results of such experiments go. But there is more to be said ...

You cannot use experiments to remove logic errors. You have to look at the logic. I have explained that the EPR experiments all use samples and sub-samples without explicitly saying so and as a result introduce biases that they claim are not there. There is no need for any new experiments. There is a need for new analysis of existing experiments. If you want to confirm this for yourself, ask an EPR experimenter these questions for several different angles at which the polarizers are set relative to each other:

1. How many events are detected at polarizer A?

2. How many events are detected at polarizer B?

3. How many events of these were detected simultaneously?

If you get answers to these three questions for a variety of angles ten I can show you the correct analysis and what they do wrong. You may find that only question 3 is actually answered, which shows how deeply the error is buried in the experimental design.

In the page referenced, "u" is any field (I will come back to that). The variable "t" is time. Yes, normally c is assumed to be constant, but I am saying that needs to be altered. The variations in c will depend on x, y, z, and t. I will outline the formula for the Universe:

Consider a continuous blob of aether. It is infinitely divisible and uniform. In its rest state it has uniform tension in all directions. The simplest expression of the equation of motion involves a system of differential equations and looks at the displacement of any point from its at rest position. For the sake of notation compatibility let us call that displacement "u" and then u is a vector that depends on x, y, z and t. It is the vector that connects the at rest location of a point in the aether (which I agree with Einstein can never be directly detected or located by putting a mark on it) with the present location at time t.

Because every point in the aether is surrounded by other connected parts, the sum of the local second derivatives with respect to the three spacial dimensions forms one side of the equation. This is the normal situation in a wave equation. The other side has 1/c^2 times the second derivative with respect to time. We have the added feature of c not being constant, so need to address that.

The local tension of the aether is affected by the first derivatives (of that same u or displacement) in each the spacial dimensions. It is additionally complicated by the possibility of twisting because what was original a variation in the x direction might at some time be stretched in a direction at some considerable angle to the x axis. These effects are only substantial under extreme conditions, but under those conditions will very likely lead to different answers than any existing theory.

Remember that we cannot observe any of this directly, we have to observe consequences. The consequences are various derivatives of the displacement of the aether.

The rot or curl of the displacement vector gives the local rate of rotation of the aether. This is the correct function to determine the local magnetic field. From wikipedia the example is:


In practice the movement is not all in neat circles, but may have other components superimposed on it.

If you look at Maxwell's equations (in wikipedia) you can confirm that the magnetic field is indeed derived this way in standard theory, confirming that it really is dealing with twisting of the aether.

When you look at it this way, you can also understand why a magnetic field has the effect of making a moving charge curve. The aether view is very logical for understanding the mechanics of it all.

The messages are going so fast each way that I nearly missed this one.

Yes, the value of c will vary slightly near a massive body in the vertical and horizontal directions. This is a consequence of the motions of the aether. Naer the surface of the Sun for example, most of the motion due to the matter inside the sun (the extended standing waves of the particles in the Sun) is in a horizontal direction. The vertical vibrations at nucleon Compton frequency is slightly less, being a factor of .000002 difference. We can determine this anywhere in the cosmos by using the formula sigma GM/c^2/R where the R is the vector distance of each mass M. In a galaxy this will lead to moderate effects because of the matter mostly lying in a plane. The result is not a scalar but has components that vary in each direction so it has an ellipsoidal geometry but in most cases is near to a sphere (I suspect that makes it a tensor).

This is just a reverse way and probably largely equivalent way of expressing GR. In the low field case it will be equivalent. However I would deny the existence of wormholes and suchlike.

The constant can be determined by mathematics (very difficult) or by computer simulations of waves including matter. When the constant has the correct value the simulations should behave as all the various particles do in the real world.

When I answered this I did not address the use of the term "scalar". The wave equation is equally applicable to scalars and vectors. In my answer I addressed it as a vector, the displacement of an element of aether from its rest location. In Maxwell's equations, some apply to vectors, some to scalars. In the alternative form of Maxwell's equations, all the fields reduce to jsut one vector and one scalar which is the minimum information to describe everything. In my description the minimum information is also a vector (the aether displacement) and a scalar (the local tension) at every point in space. These are equivalent.

I'm trying to find consistency in the ATM idea(s), as presented in this thread, and am having some difficulty.

The following are quotes from various posts, all by rtomes.(note that the rtomes response has been matched to the Nereid question in this last quote; in post #55 it is misplaced).

Would you please clarify?

Specifically, are you proposing that Le Sage gravity (LSG) - plus some subset of LET, WSM, VMH (including, possibly, the null subset) - can be shown to be fully consistent with GR?

Or, contrariwise, that GR is "wrong" in the sense that experiments such as those reported during eclipses are inconsistent with it (and that LSG+... is consistent with such experiments)?

Or, perhaps, that the question of consistency is open, because there is (as yet) no comprehensive, rigorous, demonstration of phenomenological equivalence?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In any case, given the reported results of the 'eclipse experiments', should a detectable signal (of LSG+...) be found in the data from GRACE? from GPB? the planned GRAIL mission? from analysis of binary pulsars?

For avoidance of doubt, the direction here is: assume the eclipse experiment results are consistent with LSG -> estimate the values of relevant parameters -> estimate the effects on GRACE (etc) -> establish whether there should be a detectable signal in GRACE (etc) data or not.

Does J.S. Bell's 1964 paper ("the Bell Theorem") contain "logic errors"?

A copy of this paper may be found here (Google books).

What is this "tension (stretching)" of the aether?

What units does it have?

How does such tension (in the/an aether) arise?

(source; emphasis added).

In the materials in the links provided in that post (the OP), I could not find any demonstration of the following properties of the electron:

* its mass

* its charge

* its g-factor

* the electron-electron collision cross section, as a function of energy

* the electron-positron collision cross-section, as a function of energy

* the stability of the electron (to decay into other particles).

Please provide materials demonstrating that a standing wave model of the electron will - quantitatively - satisfy these six properties, to the current limits of experimental uncertainty.

If any of these properties are 'put in by hand' (i.e. are not derivable from the standing wave model itself, but are independent, external, values), please say so explicitly.

I note that on page xi he refers to "the problem of apparent action at a distance" (my emphasis). He then goes on to say that the theory of de Broglie and Bohm exists in defiance of the impossibility of (hidden variable theories) and that students should study this as it encourages flexibility and precision of thought.

On page 139 the question of Bertlmann's socks is raised as a comparison and treated as very ordinary rather than mysterious.

On page 141 he states that an interference pattern (in a magnetic field) is hard to understand in naive classical terms. And yet interference was well understood in the 1800s in classical terms. He did use the word "naive" so he obviously thinks that one should think a little more abvout it.

The bottom of page 143 and top of 144 is interesting reading concerning Einstein's views on determinism - and that people misunderstood this. The remarks in the middle of 144 by Einstein are in agreement with my view.

In Bell's description leading up to page 149, there is no mention of the probability of detection of electrons. It is always assumed that they will be detected. In practice these experiments have usually been done with photons rather than electrons, and the probability of detection is not 1. It varies with the cosine of the difference of angle between the photon polarization and the polarizer setting. For a photon at very near to right angles to a polarizer (as in classical theory) the probability of it passing a polarizer is near to zero.

I think that this same situation applies to electrons (should the experiment be done with them). Nowhere is the probability of detection even considered. From a statistician's point of view (and I have worked as a statistician as did Caroline Thompson and David Elm understood statistics well) this is a cardinal sin as the sample of events recorded is a biased sample. Indeed, he specifically says at the bottom of page 150 that he is concerned with the correlations of the visible outputs of certain conceivable experiments.

If you read David Elm's description that I gave a link to earlier, you will find these visible outputs to be fully explained without any non-local effects or mystery. He will however make clear that your sample of observations at A and B are affected by the events that you discard because you got an observation at A or B only. These discards are what causes the inequality to be satisfied.

On page 154 he addresses the common things about counter efficiencies and so on that people still talk about today. He does consider bias from the probability of detection at each location and the correlation of these.

My conclusion is that Bell was oblivious of what David Elm explained. It never occurred to him as he was not a statistician.

The preceding post should say:
He does not consider bias from the probability of detection at each location and the correlation of these.
In the 2nd to last paragraph.

This is standard physics, see Tension (physics) in wikipedia.

Tension in the aether is always there - it is a tensile aether. It varies as a result of stretching which is also standard physics. No sensible physicist would expect stretching to have no effect on tension. The speed of wave propagation is directly related to tension and density of the medium. That is what permittivity and permeability of the aether are all about. I do not propose to explain tension and stretching as they are basic standard physics. I use these terms in a standard way.

Binary pulsars is a different case than gravity sheilding. I don't see any mention of gravity shielding in the first paper and wikipedia specifically says on its gravity shielding page that:

Quote:

Gravity shielding is the process of shielding an object from the full influence of a gravitational field. Such processes have the effect of reducing the

However the second site (NASA) does have some stuff such as this:

I don't think that the above experiments are looking for gravitational shielding. I think they are looking for GR effects and it seems that GR does not predict shielding. So here is an actual case where there is a subtle difference between GR and LSG.

The Allais pendulum experiments may be such a shielding effect. They are strongly affected by eclipses. See Allais effect and article about the man in wikipedia.

I stand corrected.

As the net displacement is zero, then stricly speaking the average velocity is zero.
Assuming the validity of you method for calculating the average velocity then the total time to go there and back is as you say,

x/(c+v) + x/(c-v) = 2x.c/(c²-v²)
= 2x/[c(1-v²/c²)]

Thus, assuming the average velocity should be given by distance over total time, the average velocity is in fact

v_average=c.(1-v²/c²)

As this is clearly not the same as the one that you derived, does this not mean that your predictions are not consistent with observation as you claim?