Slang,

Like you suggested, perhaps it was I who misunderstood the question.

I really have no feel for such possible effects that might mask the differential speed. I can only speculate. If I get a null result like Michelson Morley did, perhaps the effect would be too small to be detected by the instrumentation being used. Perhaps there could be something wrong with the set-up design. Perhaps there might be a flaw in the equipment. Perhaps too much humidity could mask the true results. Perhaps there could be statistical/ computational errors. Perhaps the rotation of the earth could somehow flaw the experiment. Perhaps there might be unknown variables in the ambient condition. Perhaps there could be some time dilation factors that I'm not aware of. Perhaps the refraction factor could somehow alter the speed of light. Perhaps the location or latitude might somehow effect the results. Perhaps the frequency of the chosen laser is somehow not conducive to such an experiment -- and certainly many other possibilities.

Many of these factors possibly might also effect the results giving a false positive.

I believe there are five necessary requirements of this testing to probably eliminate all of these "seemingly remote" possibilities.

First there must by a null result shooting north-south. Second, all results would need to be repeatable and consistent with a new set up each time. Third, this testing should be conducted in three divergent areas of the world.

Forth, I believe there should be a positive effect shooting east vs. west showing the rotation of the earth. The expected range of this differential speed is expected to be roughly within the same range as up vs. down testing within a factor of maybe three. Fifth, up vs. down must have a detectable statistically significant differential speed . If all of these conditions are met I believe the results will be hard to dispute regardless of the conceivable possible errors involved with single mode testing. If the first four all test out according to expectations and the up vs. down testing fails to find a significant difference then, at the least there would seem to be a fault in my understanding of the mechanisms of gravity unless this speed differential were so small that it would be beyond the capability of the equipment to detect.

If they all test out according to plan and are later verified by others then this would be 1) Strong support for the existence of luminiferous aether and evidence to discard Special Relativity 2) evidence to support my theory of gravity. 3) Evidence to support aether theories concerning alternative mechanisms in the quantum world 4) evidence to support alternative theories that would greatly simplify the explanations of 20th century physics in general for all times.

Hope this answers your question and Nereid's.

respectfully, forrest

What I am asking for is for you to quantify the amount of EM radiation (and now de Broglie waves) radiating outwards from the Earth. Watts/m2 is a reasonable unit to quantify the EM radiation (if you don't want to work in photons). Are you able to do this?
You have been talking in terms of pressure differential, which suggests a spatially varying pressure field with the differential being the pressure difference between two nearby points in that field. If we write the pressure at x as P(x) and the pressure at some nearby point, x+deltax, as P(x+deltax), the the difference in pressure is simply

deltaP(x) = P(x+deltax) - P(x)

If deltax is small, we can use calculus and the derivative of the pressure field, i.e.

deltaP(x) = (dP/dx).deltax

(If you are not familiar with calculus, an how this works, please ask.)

So it can be seen that the pressure differential is proportional to the derivative of the pressure. From your posts (as well as just by looking at the way the radiation pressure from a spherical object varies), the pressure varies as 1/r², which means that (ignoring constant pre-factors) the pressure differential varies as 1/r³.

Can you show me why my reasoning is incorrect?

Fortis, happy Sunday

Just copied the related Bernoulli equation concerning Pressure Differential:

Where ( p1 - p2 ) is defined as the Pressure Differential (or differential pressure) of a flowing system.
http://www.ajdesigner.com/venturi/ve...fferential.php

( p1 - p2 ) = p/ 2 x [ [1 – [A2 / A1] ] ^ 2] [ Q / A2 ] ^ 2

p1 and p2 are pressure points in a field. A1 and A2 are the cross sectional areas of these points within a flowing field. Q is the flow rate per volume. p is the fluid density.

All of the exponential factors are squares in the above equation!

I understand that the volume of a sphere decreases according to the cube root of it's radius. I don't understand how that relates to the above equation, the definition of differential pressure, or the inverse square law of gravity.

I followed your logic up until this statement:

respectfully, forrest

Not sure that Bernoulli's equation is relevant here, and certainly doesn't look like it would lead to the thing that you are looking for.
It's just basic calculus. For any function f(x) = a.xⁿ, the derivative (or gradient)

df/dx = a.n.x^n-1

so for our case, where P= Const/r² = Const.r^-2

the derivative, dP/dr is given by

dP/dr = -2.Const.r^-3 = -2.Const/r³

Hope that helps.

Thanks Fortis,

It helps to the extent that I can see the source of your conclusion, I just can't see how this derivation would be relevant to the inverse square law of gravity concerning pressure differentials, which is how I thought this dialog started.

The reason why I believe the surrounding aether field of the earth would increase its density differential according to the inverse square rule in a direction away from the earth, is because the EM radiation and De Broglie waves reduce their intensity by this same rule. If accordingly these waves are the source of this field differential pressure which I have proposed, then accordingly it seems to me that this aether field would be configured by its pressure differential in this same manner.

respectfully, forrest

This comes back to my earlier question where I was asking you how the pressure of the aether fell off. Are you now able to answer this?

Fortis, Happy Sunday again.

As you probably recall, this is the third time you've asked this question and the third time I'll be giving you the same answer. If you think there is a flaw in my logic concerning my explanation please ask more detailed questions. The explanation of this relationship, according to my theory, is based upon the surface area of a sphere, 4 pi r^2. The same explanation would hold true for both light and magnetism. I would guess that many others over the centuries have used a similar explanation concerning Newton's inverse square law of gravity. To understand my explanation please look at the drawing on page 57C and 57C1 and see my one page long explanation. Without this supporting drawing the explanation of this concept would be more difficult to understand. If you still have further questions on this derivation ask detailed questions concerning the logic involved.

I appreciate the many excellent questions that you have asked so I'm looking forward to many more of the same.

respectfully, forrest

It is the aether pressure that I am looking for, not the pressure differetial. You can see that these two quantities are different, and you should expect them to behave differently, i.e. the pressure should not go as an inverse squared law if the differential does. Can you help me out, or do you need more clarification on this question?

What is the difference that you expect, "shooting east and west"?
(bold added)

How do you intend to synchronise the timers?

How do you intend to ensure that the timers stay synchronised?

As is beginning to become clearer (see my last post), I think we have been talking past each other on this experiment of yours.

Maybe I should refrain from asking further questions on what effects you might, or might not, need to incorporate in your analyses until I have a much better understanding of your intended experiment.

Would you please describe it, in more detail? A diagram would be nice too.

(bold added)

Perhaps my comment was ambiguous ... I am referring to only the precision, accuracy, and consistency of relevant terrestrial and near-Earth environments, and only the success of GR (etc) wrt clocks, distances, and the SOL within those.

As I understand it - and I now see that I don't, really - you propose an experiment that will show an effect at the ~ ppb level ... but have not explained (in this thread at least) how the thousands of other 'experiments'* continue to yield consistent results at this level (and at the ppt, ... level too).

Put another way: if the SOL does, indeed, vary by the amount you claim, then few, if any, of these thousands of 'experiments'* should give consistent results, at the ppb level (or below).

So, please show - quantitatively - that the GPS system gives consistent results, to within ppb or less, under your 'pushing theory of gravity'.

I thought you wanted this thread to focus on your 'pushing theory of gravity', and the experiment you proposed in the OP?

forrest, you have been a member of BAUT for some time now, and I think it's fair to say that you understand the rules.

May I ask why you have, apparently, introduced new ATM ideas, in the post I am quoting? Do you think, perhaps, that it's OK to use this thread as a marketing platform for your ideas, without the necessity of defending them?

Is it reasonable to ask a moderator to split/copy split the (new) ATM ideas out, into a new thread, so BAUT members may question and challenge them?

(bold added)

Now I'm even more confused.

As I understand your proposed experiment, an analysis of the results will include "use [of] the formulations [...] to estimate time dilation" that will be involved in that experiment.

Further, if "[s]pecial Relativity works fine but so do Lorentz transforms since they are the same equations", then the SOL is constant, and your proposed experiment will have a null result (once all the relevant, well-known physical effects have been taken into account).

I keep coming back to an apparent logical inconsistency in your claims: IF your experiment should produce a non-null result, at the ~ppb level, THEN the GPS system cannot be working consistently, the orbit of the Moon cannot modelled accurately, etc, etc, etc. On the other hand, IF "we understand how to use the formulations required to estimate time dilation under every possible condition" and "[s]pecial Relativity works fine but so do Lorentz transforms since they are the same equations" THEN your proposed experiment must be expected to give a null result.

Can you clarify please?

* if we count the continued, daily/hourly/etc successful operation of the GPS system (for example) as an experiment

There are quite a few.

In my post #330, my first question was:
"my last posts" are #323, #324, #325, #327, and #329. I made this clear in post#334 (I'm ignoring #328, for now).

Your posts #336 and #337 addressed my #329 and #327 (respectively); AFAICS, you have not addressed #323, #324, or #325 yet. If there are no errors or serious misrepresentations (etc), please say so explicitly.

My post #352 contains an unanswered question (please refer to the whole post): "What is "up"?" I also asked it again in my post #370.

My post #373 contains a reference to a question (two actually) I asked way back in post #252 ... that question remains unanswered; here's the key question, again: "Has a paper containing the underlying 'vortex theory of (pushing) gravity' been prepared, in a form that adheres to the style, format, layout, etc requirements of a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (e.g. ApJ's)?" Your post #388 did not answer this question, a fact I mentioned in post#392, when I asked it once again.

In post#394 I asked for clarification on what seems to be an important aspect of your proposed experiment; that question ("how you came to the conclusion that modern equipment could do no better than ~10 ppb?") remains unanswered (AFAICS), but you need to read the whole post carefully before answering it.

That will do for now (there are others).

respectfully, Nereid

More unanswered questions ...

In post#398, I introduced five types of independent tests of the constancy and isotropy of the SOL; in post#407 you commented on refraction, as it relates to just the first of the five ("A"). We have not yet closed out refraction (there are many subsequent posts on it and the extent to which it needs to be addressed in your proposed experiment); however, you have not commented on B, C, D, or E yet*. For avoidance of doubt, you have already acknowledged that 'time dilation' is irrelevant wrt D and E.

respectfully, Nereid

* other than to misunderstand the nature of how B relates to a constant, isotropic SOL.

Fortis,

There is no way that I can image any experiment to test or even estimate the density of this theoretical entity. It would be like asking a cosmologist could he tell you the density of dark matter. Sure we could all speculate. If it is the carrier of light it must be pretty dense. I have theoretical ideas concerning how it is configured but that’s not related to this topic. If you are interested it’s on pages 12-24. By these drawings you can have some idea of their possible density according to this theory.

On three different previous replies to you I have answered this question in detail according to my related theory. I don't want to speculate about aether density. My theory and experiment is only concerned with aether pressure differentials. If you don't like my explanation I don't know what else I can do.

respectfully, forrest

Welcome back Nereid,

A range from about 30 feet per second to maybe 90 feet per second differential. Since Michelson and Morley saw this effect I expect it is bigger than the up vs. down shooting. The effect is related to frame dragging in Special Relativity, I call it aether drag. I will not do any calculations on this until after I know the results, because it’s generally unrelated to this experiment. If I don’t see this effect but do see the up vs. down effect then I will investigate this before I publish.

Don’t have a clue. I don’t know the design of the equipment yet. The manufacturer/ builder will explain the process to me I expect.

There are no more details other than what I’ve already presented on this thread. There would seem to be several possible versions of this testing. The next step for me would be to find out the latest instrumentation that might suit this experiment. Until I know this, I cannot speculate any further concerning an exact design-of-experiment other than what I have already explained.

These other theories do not predict this effect. If the effect is confirmed by my experiment and verified by others -- then these other theories, at the least, would be incomplete.

Whatever the accuracy The GPS system, I believe it is not directly related to my pushing gravity theory.

Thanks.
Unless and until you describe your proposed experiment in a great deal more detail than you have, up till now in this thread, the only person who can work out what "effects" are pertinent (given the setup, esp. the known accuracy and precision of the core components/instruments), in terms of the expected results, is you.

And an experiment of this kind may be called many things, but, to quote a fairly new BAUT member, it "is not real science".

Accordingly, I can't see that there's anything more to discuss about this proposed experiment of yours.

(bold added)

I found the following, in a recent post by you, forrest, to be most informative:
(bold added)

Thanks for this, it gets to the heart of the matter, wrt your ATM ideas presented in this thread ... at least from my perspective.

I doubt that the gulf between your perception of what science is - at least wrt physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc - and mine could be much more clearly presented than this.

To give my own summary: your reasons for not considering further (or just ignoring completely?) the huge body of published results concerning (or built upon) the GPS system is nothing more, or less, than a personal, intuitive belief. Further, the fact that a subset of these published results seem to have direct pertinence to the experiment you have proposed, as you have proposed it in this thread, is not germane ... because of a personal belief (that you choose to not discuss).

If my summary is at least close, then the only thing left to discuss is these quite different perceptions of science, isn't it?

respectfully, Nereid

PS I'm looking forward to your answers to my earlier - as yet unanswered - questions, in the remaining few days of the life of this thread.

Astrophysicists are doing this, so I'm afraid that it is different to your case.
Sadly, physics is about much more than drawings.
If the aether behaves as a fluid, the pressure is a key parameter as it is related to the density of the "stuff" that makes up your fluid. I would have thought that you would have given this some thought, so I am surprised that you appear to dismiss this.

Good luck with the experiment. I'm sure you'll learn a lot, even before you get the results. We'll open a new thread to discuss the results at that time.

I am interested in the GPS as well. Surely the whole GPS system is just your proposed experiment on a global scale?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

What do the size, shape, and orientation (axis/direction which the 'flutes' face/whatever) of each vortex depend upon?

My guess is that one physical attribute is 'mass' - is that right?

If so, to what extent does this attribute differ from the 'mass-energy' of GR?

Can you say a few words about the other attributes please?

What happens when two vortices collide?

What happens if you split a vortex apart (say a particularly neat exploding planet, or an object which fissions due to excessive rotation)?

Some more questions then ...

Is there a lower limit for vortices? I think I get that an object as massive as a star can have a vortex; what about a brown dwarf, does it have a vortex of its own too?

How about Jupiter? Does any vortex which an object with the mass of Jupiter depend upon its environment (say, doesn't have one if it's in a stellar system, like our own, but does if it's 'free floating')?

And the Earth? same question.

And the Moon? An object like Ceres? the asteroid Eros? a 100 kg sphere of lead? a 100 g sphere of carbon?

respectfully, Nereid

Nereid,

Please prioritize the order of importance concerning your questions. Before I can answer one post you have two or three more all containing a group of questions. My time for this is limited to an hour or two per day. If not I will address them in the order that they were asked. Thanks

respectfully, forrest

Well, given that there are only ~2 days left in this thread's life, it doesn't really matter, so you choose which you wish to answer first, second, etc.

The only one I'd really prioritise is one of the oldest, one that requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer:

"Has a paper containing the underlying 'vortex theory of (pushing) gravity' been prepared, in a form that adheres to the style, format, layout, etc requirements of a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (e.g. ApJ's)?"

So, respectfully, please answer this one first.

hhEb09'1,

This experiment was conceived in 1997. At that time I don't believe the timing accuracy for such an experiment was available. It is my present expectation that the technology and accuracy required, although better, may still not be adequate based upon the required ppb timing with the lasers. If so the expense involved for such an experiment might be very high. It may be possible in the next decade however.

respectfully, forrest

Captain Swoop,

Captain, according to what I have read the ground leg of the GPS system transmits in millionths of a second. For my experiment you would need billionths of a second timers. Nereid and I both have calculated this effect to be about 65 ppb. The satellite timers, from what I have read, are accurate to within 30-40 parts per billion.

Even if all the timers on the ground and in orbit were of the same accuracy, the distance to these satellites is about 22,000 miles where the gravitational influences as well as this effect would be only about 1/9 of the effect here on earth. For these reasons the GPS system could not detect this effect. Additionally There are the time confounding effects of time dilation and the timing algorithms these satellites use for self correction.

On previous postings I have stated that I believe satellite testing for this effect, when the technology is available, would seemingly always be inconclusive and controversial because of time dilation influences.

respectfully, forrest

Fortis,

I think it's pure speculation to estimate the density of dark matter. In this case my opinion is that it is wild speculation in that I don't believe in massive dark matter in the first place, other than baryonic.

The drawing includes a long explanation as I explained before. You can post it on this thread if you like.

If the aether behaves as a fluid, the pressure is a key parameter as it is related to the density of the "stuff" that makes up your fluid. I would have thought that you would have given this some thought, so I am surprised that you appear to dismiss this.

The problem the way that I see it, Fortis, is that in regard to explaining and speculating regarding the aether's density the only kind of number I could give would be unrelated to any pressure number in physics because it is not matter. My guesstimate is that the aether consists of about 1 part in a hundred thousand substance and the rest is space. This may sound like a small number but there are many reasons for this according to my aether related theory.

Bottom line is that I don't believe this number is directly related to my pushing gravity theory. If you wish to discuss this matter further I will gladly do so on my website. I welcome all questions there since we would be able to discuss the whole of physics and cosmology.

respectfully, forrest

Perhaps there's yet another miscommunication?

I can't speak for the Cap't, but:

a) the GPS system has been successfully used to measure the relative positions of ~300 sites to ~mm, both horizontally and vertically; of course, there's more to it than just some satellites with transmitters and clocks ...

b) ditto, wrt velocities whose magnitudes are ~cm/year (or less)

c) this material has been available for many years now, for example one reference is in one of the links in one of my earlier emails

d) as I have pointed out, many times, the "time dilation influences" are well understood, and are fully consistent with GR; they may be "inconclusive and controversial" to some (including you?), but not to scientists who actually work in these fields full-time.

So here's yet another Nereid question, that you may choose to answer before this thread closes, or not: please provide support for your assertions in this post (that I am quoting) regarding the full GPS system, preferably with references to papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.

Nereid,

I believe I have answered this question before on this thread but I will gladly give my answer again. Presently there is only one prepared Technical Paper. It is displayed on the website under the category of Technical Paper. This paper is in regard to the Pan Theory of Relativity which is a theory of relativity and a diminution of matter process, only indirectly related to my pushing gravity theory. The style, format, and layout are flexible depending on the publishing source. Within a couple of months I will choose an online publisher. If you, or anybody else, are interested please contact me on my website.

respectfully, forrest

People estimate its distribution based on the assumption that our current model of gravity works. Similarly the aether is a fundamental component of your model, so it seems reasonable to try to estimate some of the fundamental parameters based on the assumption that your model is correct. Does that make sense?
Why would it be unrelated to any pressure number in physics? We can talk about the pressure exerted by many different things, from atoms and molecules, through photon gases, plasmas, relativistic gases, and plenty of exotic things that theorists dream up for fun. Why is your model so different?
Surely it is directly related to your theory, as it must be involved in aether dynamics. Which brings us onto a difficult problem for your model. It doesn't appear to have an underpinning dynamical model for the aether. The aether just appears to have only those properties that are forced upon it to provide some level of match to current physics, and those properties appear to be either ad hoc, or not amenable to testing (as they make no quantifiable prediction.) One simple example is the velocity field for your aether in the vicinity of the earth. You claim that there should be some effect on the up and down speeds of light, but the only estimate you have is that it is greater than zero and smaller than we have currently been able to detect. Even a null result carried out using the most sensitive equipment imaginable would be consistent with your theory. As an aside, wouldn't an aether pressure give you some insight into the likely magnitude of this velocity?

Thanks.

Here's a piece of advice: pick a major, peer-reviewed journal in a field of science that covers General Relativity one way or another. Find the 'guide to authors' (or similar) and go over it very, very carefully. Read a dozen or so recent papers published in that journal (via the arXiv preprint server, perhaps, so you don't have to pay lots of $$), to get an idea of how the journal's requirements are implemented in real examples.

Then start to write the first draft of a paper you might, one day, consider submitting for publication in that journal.

By doing this I think you will discover many useful and helpful things, among them:

* papers are required to have a section which demonstrates the author's familiarity with and understanding of papers already published which are directly relevant to the one submitted (if you'd have had such a draft paper ready, you'd have been able to answer a good many questions asked in this thread much more satisfactorily and quickly, among other things)

* papers which present the results of experiments are required to have at least one section which discusses the various expected sources of error, expected systematic effects, quantifies them, and estimates their significance (I think it's clear, even to you, that you are woefully unprepared in this regard)

* papers which present a new theory, or even reference one such, are required to do so in a logically consistent manner, with clear definitions of new terms (or conventional terms used in new ways), references to other papers for aspects of the new theory that are not explicitly presented, and so on.

I think you would also benefit - greatly - from thinking on why journal editors have such requirements in the first place, and maybe starting a new thread - in the Q&A section - to discuss this topic.

respectfully, Nereid

So far I don't think I have seen anything other than a lot of handwaving, guesses and referals to drawings. What your 'theory' is lacking (or so it seems to me) is solid maths, predictions and falsifications. If you have been working on it for as long as you claim surely you could have answeredd a lot of these questions. Actualy if you had some solid numbers a lot of them wouldn't have been asked..

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Nereid,

I think this is a good question that is directly related to my overall theory of gravity.

According to the related theories of aether and gravity, the strength of vortices can be given as a theoretical ratio. The ratio would include the particles themselves which would create a surrounding vortex by virtue of its atomic spin. The second entity would be the force resulting from the vortex spin. The strongest vortices based upon this ratio, would be atoms. Accordingly more than 99% of the gravitational influence of matter would be the result of atomic and molecular vortices.

The related prediction is: A Particle’s Mass consists of both substance and a self-generated physical field vortex caused by spinning nuclei which produce detectable field waves called De Broglie waves. The resultant vortex is the primary interaction force with other matter and the primary reaction entity with pushing gravity.

Accordingly all atomic particles would consist of more than 99% space. All the space between an atoms nucleus and its electrons would be filled with a spinning aether vortex caused by the spin of the nucleus.

Vortices would accordingly be what gives mass to matter. For more info contact me on the web or just read the related material.

All matter would have at least some non-linear gravitational influences. For brown Dwarfs and smaller bodies like Jupiter, the "active range" would only be small and based upon observable effects at their boundaries with similar sized entities or larger. This could include orbital anomalies of asteroid sized objects orbiting at these gravitational boundaries.

[/quote]And the Earth? same question. And the Moon? An object like Ceres? the asteroid Eros? a 100 kg sphere of lead? a 100 g sphere of carbon?[/quote]

For bodies maybe the size of Neptune and smaller I expect the this effect would be presently undetectable until you get down to the molecular and atomic world. In this "middle range," my formulations become Newtonian. The actual boundary between Newtonian gravity and the beginning of minor vortex variations cannot be calculated from my formulations without additional observational data in our solar system concerning the boundary of the "active range" for planetary sized bodies bodies. Presently they are only estimated since these formulations would be only observation based.

respectfully, forrest