Sorry I don't know what this means. What frequency are you talking about in Hz?
Again, I have entirely missed the point you are making.
The origin (I assume that is what you mean by source) of the waves is that they are eigenmodes of the universe. Because of existing larger waves which have slight distortion effects, smaller waves (produced from the larger waves by energy loss due to non-linearity) will take up the natural eigenmodes. Just like the waves in this guitar body or any other vibrating thing:


All waves form as a result of larger waves that act as partial containers (maybe very partial ones, but the structure that is there is enough to give form to them).

Once you have a cell structure existing in 3D it just keeps going. And as harmonics form at smaller scales they naturally have relationships to the larger waves. That means that stars form preferentially nearer the centres of galaxies where there is higher energy density. Planets form preferentially near stars ... moons near planets ... nucleons form near the middle of atoms ... quarks form (or are forming) near the middle of nucleons.

There is nothing random. It is a slow continuing process. Particles are only parts of the waves that we pick out as a pattern - in reality there is just a flux everywhere.

It seems to me that you might be arguing that some waves cannot exist in space, maybe long ones or short ones. I have been told this before, but at the very longest waves that can be measured, the flux is still increasing at a steady rate with wavelength. So I don't believe the theory, I believe the observations.

I think that we are getting bogged down here and not understanding each others explanations. It is to no benefit to the general case. At best it is only a vaguely related matter to the proposal. So I think we would be best to leave it aside. I have explained as clearly as I am capable already.

For avoidance of doubt, you are asserting that formula (1) and formula (2) are "the same as the GR result for effective spatial distortion when doing calculations in Euclidean space as is generally used for calculation purposes"?

Can you also show that these two formulae result if "strictly correctly it [is] integrated over the full range"?
Please do demonstrate time dilation, which earlier you conflated with gravitational redshift (I think, post#122 was ambiguous).

Please also demonstrate Shapiro time delay (if that is not already covered in your demonstration of time dilation/gravitational redshift).

Please also demonstrate frame dragging.

Please also demonstrate gravitational (wave) radiation.

Finally, in post#46, you stated: "I will show in this post how LET plus WSM produces GR", and there's been a (now quite long) chain of posts asking for a specific, concrete, complete demonstration of that claim. This post (that I am quoting) is the latest such ... and it still seems to be missing a key ingredient! Namely, WSM.

Please explain how the above demonstration incorporates WSM. In your explanation please explicitly reference the relevant WSM equations and definitions.

This thread has too little time left for me to continue trying to get a specific, consistent set of answers on this topic, so I'll discontinue it.

One final word: "plasma frequency" is a standard term in physics, and refers to the fact that e/m waves (photons, radiation, whatever) below a certain frequency (called the plasma frequency) cannot propagate through a plasma. This is a classical result, and fully consistent with experimental results. The plasma frequency depends on the electron density, electron mass, and so on (there is some dependence on the electron velocity distribution, and if the charge carriers in the plasma are not electrons, a different set of results applies, ... and so on).

FWIW, it seems many ATMers are ignorant of this basic piece of plasma physics, and it may well be that relatively simple exploration of its implications in the ATM ideas presented in this thread will reveal some fatal flaws (as it did for several other ATM ideas).

Some gratuitous advice: to borrow Celestial Mechanic's words, it may be a good investment of your time to "get thee to a library!", or enroll in a university course, and cover all the bases of modern physics to at least B.Sc (physics) level.

Indeed, this is something that has been written, in several different forms, several times in this thread (and in other ATM threads).

However, this thread contains many posts which strongly imply the opposite.

Perhaps the most obvious example is the rejection of the Bell theorem, and SQM (standard quantum mechanics).

Further, so far, no claims about the equivalence of the alternatives presented to existing physics - in terms of phenomenology tested to date, or 'reduces to in the appropriate limit' - have been shown to have legs*.I would like to question and challenge this, but there is no time left, and, as you have put it on the table, the ATM rules preclude you from introducing it in future, in a new ATM thread, for example.Please provide support for this assertion, or retract it.Please provide support for this assertion, or retract it.I would like to question and challenge this, but there is no time left, and, as you have put it on the table, the ATM rules preclude you from introducing it in future, in a new ATM thread, for example.

Are white dwarf stars "common in the universe"? What about neutron stars? What are their internal structures?

To the general point. SQM is at the heart of the Standard Model (of particle physics). The ATM ideas presented in this thread explicitly reject SQM. No demonstration of consistency between the ATM ideas presented in this thread and any part of the Standard Model^ has been presented in this thread, except at the word salad level.

Surely a critical requirement for "show[ing] that there is additional knowledge that can be had" is a clear demonstration of consistency in domains where the Standard Model and the ATM ideas presented here overlap?

* the exceptions are the equivalence of SR and LET (but only if one accepts the references cited), the equivalence of one aspect of WSM (again, only if one accepts the references cited), and formula (1) and formula (2) (which have not yet been questioned or challenged).
^ the exception is one aspect of WSM (but only if one accepts the references cited).

To clarify, the question followed on from some discussion of MMX.

It was a request for a demonstration of time dilation, in SR (not GR), based on the ATM ideas used to discuss why all MMX would yield a null result.

This thread has very little time left, this demonstration should (I think) be quite straight-forward, so I'd like to see it ASAP.

Just quickly ... this is another place where consideration of the plasma frequency may result in an apparent inconsistency in the ATM idea presented in this thread.

In particular, unless there is some new physics being proposed, almost the whole universe is opaque to low frequency e/m (below the plasma frequency of the inter-cluster medium, for example).

But I'm not going to pursue this any more, in this thread.

For the remaining life of this thread, I will concentrate on just one aspect of the ATM ideas presented in this thread - the variability in particle (principally electron, proton, and neutron) masses, and implications in terms of phenomenology.

First, what does this variability in particle masses mean? Let's imagine we could get some mass from a part of the universe where the masses are smaller (let's call it 3Cxyz), right here into a lab (in New Zealand say, or Albury Australia, or California). Suppose we had a fish tank full of water, suitably oxygenated (with oxygen from 3Cxyz), and put some tropical fish (from Brazil, say) into it. How quickly would the fish die? If the ratio of m_e (Earth) to m_e (3Cxyz) (call it E/3C as a shorthand) were only 1.001, or even (perhaps) 1.1, they may starve to death. If the ratio were 2, they'd die pretty fast; if it were 10, death would likely come within a heartbeat (or gill movement) or two.

We could also make some fireworks with 3Cxyz matter, and set them off. If E/3C were only 1.001, would anyone notice a difference? There'd certainly be a difference if it were 1.1, and the colours would all be quite 'wrong' if it were 2 (not to mention that the fireworks may not explode at all, or explode as they were being made, or ...).

These are pretty dramatic (chemical and biological) examples of what would happen if 3Cxyz H, C, O, Na, Sr, Cu, etc were mixed with 'our' matter.

However, we don't need fish or fireworks to tell if the mass of a 3Cxyz H atom differs from that of one of 'ours'; thousands of labs could reliably detect a difference of 1 ppm, and many could detect 1 ppb (I think).

So where can '3Cxyz' mass be found?

Per the ATM ideas presented in this thread, all quasars (however those objects are defined).

Such mass can also be found in all galaxies with 'intrinsic redshift'.

Finally, IIR (the relevant Arp papers) C, there's a great deal of such mass quite close to home - in the satellite dwarf galaxies of M31, for example, and (maybe) those of our own Milky Way galaxy.

This ends part 1.

Now for my questions: the above is based on my understanding of the ATM ideas presented in this thread; rtomes, would you please comment on the above, and in particular correct anything that is wrong (in terms of the ATM ideas presented in this thread)?

Part 2 will introduce several explicit tests aimed at determining whether 3Cxyz mass actually exists.

Perhaps another thread when this one has run its course?

Yes and no. They are both equivalent (in some sense) only if you derive the acoustic equation in the rest frame of the air/medium. The acoustic equation starts off from the mechanical properties of the medium. The e-m wave equation, on the other hand starts off from Maxwell's equations, which don't assume some prefered, stationary frame.
I assume that you mean that a Lorentz-like transform, with a a speed of propagation replacing "c"?

Remember two things, however.

1) How do you arrive at a time dilation?
2) Reality cannot simultaneously support two transformations between inertial frames.

As before, why "faster"? (Though perhaps this is for another thread?)

Suggestion (for rtomes): if you take up Fortis' suggestion, why not start with a presentation of the MMX in/under LET*?

Then develop a presentation, based on LET, extending the demonstration to include your additional ATM idea(s) re MMX.

* Assuming that you can show that LET is, as you have asserted, fully equivalent to SR.

Ray, how does something like Compton scattering work in your model? It is difficult to imagine how it could work as the two em wave structures that make up the electron and the photon will just pass through each other and emerge so they are essentially unchanged at large distances from the interaction.

This has nothing to do with plasma frequencies.

The waves I am referring to here are the WSM waves of particles which are at the Compton frequency of particles, ~10^23 Hz for nucleons.

Because of the non-linearity, waves will not pass through each other. That is the whole reason for scattering, that the nearer you get to a particle the greater the non-linearity gets and the more the scattering.

When Maxwell derived his equations he did assume a fixed frame and everyone did that for a number of decades. It was only around 1900 that the Lorentz transform was discovered. If you interpret the Lorentz transform in this way then it may help to understand what I am saying...

Any wave equation can be put through a Lorentz transform and the equation still holds true.

The fact that this statement is correct is the whole reason for relativity. It is the reason that the rest frame cannot be found from within the system. There is nothing in the maths of a Lorentz transform that depends on the value c being the speed of light. It is the speed of wave propagation in the medium of the wave equation and works equally well for a sound equation. Don't believe me, check it out. Once this is seen then you will forever look at relativity is a different way.

About two simultaneous transforms between frames, you are right. That is why we can find the medium of sound, as we have light. If we ever discover some wave that is much faster than light then we will "see" the medium of light.

There is the problem of transport of course. The whole reason that the mass changes is because of incoming waves are different at another time and place (but mainly time). So any such matter taken about will very rapidly come into alignment with local matter with a few energetic fireworks along the way.

But your question "First, what does this variability in particle masses mean?" can still be answered. To some extent (but not fully) you can look at the whole thing as a transformation of co-ordinates. It is perfectly valid to use different co-ordinate systems as long as you remember what you are doing. If you defined a distance and time scale basis with galaxy distance quanta as the units then there would be no expansion (obviously) but then you would have change in frequency of light emitted by atoms over time. This much can still be done from a big bang model, but it is a funny co-ordinate system if you believe in a big bang.

However there is an actual difference that I say exists and that is that the changing frequencies happen not continuously but in sudden steps. Now we have a difference that is measurable in a number of ways. The sudden steps mean that galaxy redshifts can have periodicity. Such periodicity (when you think about the WSM aspect) will depend on the distances between that object and other objects of similar type. For large spiral galaxies, we would not expect the steps to happen more often than the light time between the objects. We can see that a step in one galaxy can propagate to its neighbours and set them off on a change too. However for small irregular galaxy companions which have a smaller distance quanta (are closer to neighbours) the steps will therefore happen more often. All of these things are expected to be exactly how Tifft has reported them to be.

Another consequence of the sudden steps in a galaxy internal redshift is that violent energetic events will almost certainly accompany these changes. There will be huge amounts of photonic energy involved. The question is whether evidence exists for such periodic cataclysms, and the answer is yes it does. It is well established that mass extinction events happen at regular intervals of close to 26.65 million years. The reported figures were usually 26-27 million years, but analysis of geological time periods (which are generally 1, 2 or 3 of these units long) can be used to derive an accurate figure of 26.65 million years on average.

If these events were due to spiral galaxy shifts (as we live in one of those) then I would have expected the interval to be consistent with either the 36 or 72 km/s quanta or to be based on the light distances to nearby spiral galaxies. I think that the actual galaxy quanta is 2.22 million light years or only 1/12 of the time interval. We can reduce the discrepancy to 1/6 when we consider a return trip of any effects. However I cannot explain this large factor even though the values are linked. It may be that there are events every 2.22 million years that have lesser effects or it may be that there are not, but that it is a cluster scale event rather than a galaxy event.

One thing about my way of looking at things is that there is a lot of extra stuff going on to do with WSM waves between neighbouring structures at all scales than is normally thought about in physics and cosmology. This applies at every scale and I find "coincidences" between the beat waves and distance periodicities and other confirmations. An example of this sort of thing is that local stellar distances show 4.44, 5.9, 8.9, 11.8 light year distance quanta. Theses waves will obviously wobble in the corresponding number of years, and Jupiter's period is matched to one of them. All planets cannot be matched exactly to such periods because orbital mechanics generally causes disruption of exact ratios, but it is appropriate that the most massive planet is locked to waves beyond the solar system.

Actually, if you follow the thread of the assertions, questions, responses, clarifications, etc, etc, etc ... I think you'll find they are about photons ... a source at the centre of a perfectly reflecting spherical mirror, as an introduction to the concept of spherical standing e/m waves.

So, it seems that somewhere along the line you may have made a transition from e/m to WSM waves ("at the Compton frequency of particles"), but at least one reader (me) missed that transition ...

Not to worry; as I said earlier I no longer have any interest in questioning and challenging the ATM ideas presented in this thread, other than those to do with variable mass ...

Where does the non-linearity come from? I don't see it in the wave equation. I assume that this is something that you have added to the theory of electromagnetism so can you provide your version of Maxwell's equations?

Actually I look at SR in a different way because it is possible to derive the Lorentz transformation without appealing to the constancy of the speed of light. It can be derived by considering the most general coordinate transformation that can exist between inertial frames. When you do this you find that there is an undefined constant which appears. Of course it turns out that this constant corresponds to the velocity of a massless particle. I'll try to find a nice version of this approach.

First, thanks for the clarification; clearly there's a great deal more to this ATM idea than simply an assertion of equivalence with the VMH!

On "the problem of transport of course": many quasars (however defined) are accompanied by (bipolar) jets, and some jets' termini are well-defined in terms of radio, IR, x-ray, and even optical structures. These jets share many characteristics with the jets of DRAGNs, the jet of M87, and so on.

What, in the ATM idea(s) concerning variable mass, are these jets? the 'hot spots'? the radio lobes? To what extent do the jets involve the transport of mass to "another time and place"?

How close is the relationship between objects identified as having 'intrinsic redshift' (however such a conclusion is reached) and those objects being composed (entirely) of particles having a mass smaller than those of corresponding particles here on Earth? For example, are the satellite dwarf galaxies of M31 composed (entirely) of 'lighter' particles?

If, per Arp, (at least some) quasars are expelled (ejected?) from the nuclei of (some, normal) galaxies, what (in the ATM idea presented here, concerning variable mass) goes on at the interface between the quasar and the normal matter of the galaxy through which it is moving?

I've got a great many questions brewing about the rest of this post, so (to be continued).

Yes, that is what I was describing. This was to give you the idea of what it is in conventional physics terms.

However I had also stated that such a standing wave that you then get is none other than a particle if you take the frequency to the Compton frequency of a particle.

I do think that there are large scale ones of these waves too (i.e cluster, galaxy, stellar, planetary etc), but I do make a definite declaration about whether they should be regarded as e/m or gravitational, just that they have velocity of propagation c.

You are moving into areas that I have not explored more than briefly - i.e. what the jets are and how they form. I have indicated that I think they result from too much energy coming into a galaxy wave and causing that to eject energy at its poles. This perhaps adds a little on the front of Arp's ideas, but it is still speculative. However the form of that matter will be as described by Arp and Narlikar.

What I add to their ideas is the WSM concepts which help to explain why these processes happen, why they happen in particular discrete steps, and possible connections to geological and paleontological evidence of regular catastrophic events. There are also some additional things that we can think about:

If I am right, then various regular energetic events such as these are happening in a variety of matrices of various spacings and at regular time intervals. It is quite possible that active galaxies are just normal galaxies that happen to be seen at the time of energetic events that all galaxies go through regularly. This can be tested when galaxy distances are known accurately then any one class of active ones should tend to have distances from us that are of the form d = a + b*i where a and b are constants and i is an integer. The constants a and b are related (by c) to the time since the last such burst of activity and the interval between such bursts. These constants can also be related to the same phase information from geology and paleontology. Such a result would not only give conformation to my views but also allow far more accurate distance determinations in cosmology.

It is even conceivable that the voids we observe are not just empty, but currently inactive. This is a similar situation to where spiral arms are not really made of more stars than the spaces between, they just happen to be where the waves of new bright stars are occurring (as a result of supernovas).

Perhaps that should be "but I do not make a definite declaration ..."?

Oh, and that "c" may be variable, and may vary differently for e/m, gravity, strong force, ... (for weak force, well, I don't think I understood whatever the answer was) ...

Yes, thank you. I do not.

(continued)The universe that seems to be described, indirectly, in these posts only vaguely resembles the universe which astronomers observe, as far as I can tell so far.

To focus on 'variable mass particles', I'll try the following:

* How close is the relationship between objects identified as having 'intrinsic redshift' (however such a conclusion is reached) and those objects being composed (entirely) of particles having a mass smaller than those of corresponding particles here on Earth? For example, are the satellite dwarf galaxies of M31 composed (entirely) of 'lighter' particles? Are the spiral galaxies identified by D.G. Russell as having intrinsic redshifts in excess of 5000 km/s (example) composed (entirely) of particles having a mass smaller than those of corresponding particles here on Earth? ¹

* What, in your ATM view of the universe, in terms of the mix of particles having a masses smaller than those of corresponding particles here on Earth and those with the same masses, is the composition of the Milky Way ISM (inter-stellar medium)? the ICM (intra-cluster medium), in nearby clusters such as Virgo?

* What, in your ATM view of the universe, in terms of the mix of particles having a masses smaller than those of corresponding particles here on Earth and those with the same masses, is the composition of cosmic rays?

* What, in your ATM view of the universe, is the origin (are the origins) of cosmic rays (other than those from the Sun/solar wind, Jupiter, Earth's magnetosphere, or heliosheath/heliopause)?

Finally, I really would like an answer to my (and Fortis') earlier question on (SR) time dilation.

¹ This is a repeat of a question asked in an earlier post

All redshifts (except peculiar velocity) are due to objects having particles of different mass. However the component that is due to the passage of time we might call cosmological. Whatever remains after removing that and other known causes such as gravitational and peculiar velocity may be taken as internal. Even gravitational redshift is actually due to real differences in frequency as light does not change its frequency in flight.

I think in a slightly different way to this, but have adopted the nearest jargon that exists to explain my thinking - it is near enough for practical purposes.
The milky way would have a common internal redshift throughout (at least at the coarse level). There are a few odd things, such as that O and B type stars do show a displacement of their frequencies as measured by average velocities of large samples. So there may be finer effects here of the order of 10 km/s.

As soon as we go outside the galaxy there will be differences of internal redshift and differences due to the passage of time (cosmological redshift). I think that Andromeda probably has an internal blueshift rather than it coming towards us. That would be consistent with Arp finding that the largest spiral in a cluster normally has an internal blueshift. Virgo cluster will therefore also have variations. Was it Virgo cluster that Guthrie and Napier used in their 72 km/s periodicity survey? If so, then it has about 8 steps of variation of 72 km/s internal redshifts throughout the cluster.

The VMH (and especially when WSM ideas included) would expect that in such a cluster there would be additional patterns of variation of internal redshift with several things:
1. The size of the galaxy (larger ==> bluer)
2. The location of the galaxy in the cluster (more central ==> bluer)
Often these two will be correlated.

This affords a real prediction that is testable on the existing data such as Guthrie and Napier analysis. We cannot tell which galaxies are at the centre of the cluster for sure because of line of sight issues, but we can statistically say that those on the periphery are on average further from the centre than those that we see on the line of sight of the centre. So we can make a regression equation from apparent distance from centre and galaxy size (brightness and/or diameter) to predict internal redshift (or variation from average redshift for the cluster).
Difficult to say. At the point of origin they would have the mass of the originating galaxy, but how rapidly they come into line with the environment when moving very rapidly I don't know, but there should at least be a trend in that direction.

Note that in my view, the actual relativistic mass is totally explicable as the number of waves coming inwards in the WSM picture. High velocity causes the incoming waves to be much faster and accounts for the relativistic mass directly. This is part of the simplification of the view that all these otherwise unrelated things become part of a coherent whole.
Not certain, so will speculate based on what is known. In my ideas, the energy concentrations get greatest at successive centres of the levels of structure. By this I mean you get concentrated energy at the centre of clusters, galaxies, stars, ... but the most concentrated will be a star (or black hole) in the centre of a galaxy in the centre of a cluster. It is quite possible that in the centre of such a BH or whatever the energy flux will be so high that it goes beyond normal states of matter to actually produce free quarks and even deeper levels of structure (at the typical 10^4.5 ratios). This would explain why the energies can be so high. There may be some peaks in the spectrum of cosmic rays as a result, and these should be related by ratios like 2, 3, 4, 12/24 and ~10^4.5 and such.
Yes, sorry about this. SR is correct on time dliation.
I was trying to think of something deeper, and to some extent answered this with the fact that wavefronts come into WSM particles more rapidly at higher velocity. But the maths of SR is correct.

(I hope this gets posted before the thread is automatically locked ...)

As you no doubt know, the composition of cosmic rays has been determined to a high degree of precision, though mass and charge resolution drops as the incident energy increases.

In the unlikely event that there is still time on this thread, would you please present an account, using the ATM ideas proposed in this thread, for the fact that no ions with masses that differ from 'here on Earth' ion masses have been detected in cosmic rays, to date?

Note that this null result is, IIRC, down to the ppm level, for various (relatively low) energy ranges, for a range of isotopes and elements. Also note that recently there has been a paper published on a strong statistical case for EeV cosmic rays originating in 'local' AGNs (to a distance of a few hundred Mpc, IIRC).

Do you think that you could detect a difference of 72km/s / 300,000 km/s in the mass after it has done a thousand collisions and all the bits are added up? And that is assuming that the mass has not come in line with our matter, as it likely would have. If you a realistic test that could falsify the idea, then I gave one in my last post on cluster distribution of internal redshifts.

Actually it explains and predicts quite a lot of things that have never been explained or predicted before.

1. There is the explanation for the various scales in the universe from galaxies (and clusters) through to nucleons.

2. There is a prediction of the inter-quark distance scale. Does standard theory give one of those, or will they wait until it is measured and then say that they predicted that after they adjust the parameters?

3. It explains the huge cataclysms that recur in earth and show up as geological epochs and links these accurately (well within present Hubble constant accuracy) to super-galactic cluster waves and their harmonics.

4. Fitting with that is also the mass extinction events. These things have no meaning in standard cosmology.

5. It explains why Kotov finds a period of very close to 160.0101 minutes in so many things - many variable relating to the Sun, many in the solar system, multiple types of binary and variable stars, galactic cores and even quasars. It is a pervading wave that is responsible for the outer planet spacings, the mass/radius relationships of planets (that show up in orbital periods near their surfaces), the radius of BHs in galaxies which commute with 160 light minutes.

6. It unites logically diverse explanations of things from VMH and LSG to WSM and GR making a coherent whole.

7. It requires no mysticism, no action at a distance, no quantum weirdness. Everything is simple mechanics.

8. It was able to predict a new particle which standard theory did not.

9. It predicted and explains the redshift periodicities.

10. It removes all the problems of missing mass at large scales. This because the virial theorum is using wrong velocities, they are contaminated by internal redshifts.

and many more

My thanks to Nereid and Fortis for spending their time looking at my material and for asking questions and having a discussion. I recognize that this material is very wide in its application and so not ideal for discussion in this way. All the same, I think that it has clarified a number of things and brought out some clear issues of the ways to test between models and the extent to which different ideas are linked.

Best wishes
Ray