|
TO build sub-atomic particles waves need to be focused. Then the extreme density gradients at the focus will stimulate more collisions of primaries. Higher rates cause increased creation and so density humps will appear in the iether. These humps serve as the particles we observe. The asymmetry amplifies the positive rest energy and the humps are bound by an amplified negative pressure.
To make atoms, however, these humps need to be organised by control waves in the manner described by Schrodinger. The focusing has to be organised with positions chosen at random but with probabilities highest where constructive interference between control waves is greatest. This implies that electrons must be particle sequences joined end to end in time but not in position. After a short period of focusing at one spot the position is shifted to another place. The previous hump then decays to be replaced by another at the new location. In this way the electron can appear to jump about at random to fill a spherical volume of space. It will be wave-confined to produce the "orbital" of the atom: it appears to us, however, as a fuzzy ball of electric charge. A real electromagnetic force is not required for such confinement. If electrons are positioned by wave interference patterns, then electric confinement is rendered unnecessary. It is true that the orbital is produced by waves bent by the electrostatic force in the mathematical derivations, but it is suggested that a similar abstract procedure could be used by the computational abilities of the
iether.
The linear accelerated motion of an electron from a negatively charged sphere may be imagined in order to make the mechanism more understandable. The excess of electrons on the surface of the sphere will cause the computing ability of the iether to generate a wave interference pattern spreading outwards. Humps, representing an electron, will be repeatedly generated at places with increasing separation so that the impression of a single accelerating object will be generated. In fact, at each position, each hump will not need to move at all. The effect of motion will appear rather in the way the illusion of motion is generated in a television screen by the illumination of one pixel after another in sequence.
 The
iether, however, provides a three-dimensional screen on which the moving picture of matter can be generated. We interpret the motion as the acceleration of a single particle under the action of an electric force caused by the electron's charge interfacing with the field. In fact no electric or magnetic force need exist and charge can now be seen as a purely abstract concept! These are illusions generated by the waves. We certainly perceive what appear to be real forces, but our bodies form part of the three dimensional picture, which according to the principles just described, appears more as a semi-virtual reality than something truly real.
The late and famous physicist, Richard Feynmen(7), showed that the situation is more complex than this simple description implies. All manner of interactions form and dissolve again before the final end results appear, some even involving time-reversal effects. These are the abstract plans going ahead of real time, suggesting that control waves may also be abstractions: all generated by the vast ietheric computational power available.
A full treatment (15) shows that a perfect explanation for the enigma called "wave-particle duality" has appeared; it seems entirely free from paradox.
A similar argument can be offered to explain the atomic nucleus and the weak force responsible for radioactive decay. Again, for these three forces, no change in existing mathematical logic is involved: it is just the interpretation which has changed.
Only gravitation remains so far unexplained. It appears, however, as a by-product of the same mechanism. As the sub-atomic humps are generated by focused waves, the same waves cross the focus to spread out to infinite distance. As they go they combine their effects with waves arising from other humps to stimulate further creation, causing gentle energy density gradients to arise with densities greatest the closest to concentrations of matter. So buoyancy type forces are produced on distant matter. The humps caused by increased energy creation demand an increased balancing annihilation so that the filaments inside them grow faster than those outside. It is this differential size, acted on by the net negative pressure gradients which cause the force of gravity. FIG.3 illustrates the way sub-atomic humps and gravitation are produced in the manner just described.
The theory is quantified in the proceedings of the St. Petersburg Conferences (3) and (4). It predicts the same red-shift and the same perihelion advance as General Relativity, due to inertial mass changes with speed and gravitational potential. Then, due to the density variation of the iether, the same doubling of gravitational light deflection and nearly the same "Shapiro Tim Delays" are predicted. So two more achievements of General Relativity are paralleled. It is these density gradients which give rise the same effects as Einstein's concept of curved space-time".
But now a puzzle has arisen. In 1964, prior to his experiments, Shapiro(8) quoted the "Schwarzschild Solution" of General Relativity for his expected result and this is plotted as the dashed line marked "GR" in FIG.4. This was based on the prediction that light slows as it nears the Sun so that on reflection from a planet, such as Venus, the time required for the echo to return will be slightly greater than would otherwise be expected. The author's "Extended Newtonian" prediction backs this up by the close agreement shown by the solid line marked "N". However, after the tests, which used radar beams bounced off the planet, Shapiro(9) quotes an unpublished source which gives the prediction shown by the chain dashed line marked "Shapiro Empirical"? It is this, not the others, which fit the experimental observations! It seemed the chain-dashed line must be just an empirical match, which is why it is so marked.
This author, however, found that if the iether rotated in a vortex motion centred on the Sun, then a further extra time delay would result. This was due to light being helped by the flow on one path but hindered more on the other, resulting in a small net extra "vortex delay". The vortex needed to obey the relation v
9r = vE9RE beyond Earth orbit, vr = vERE to just inside that of Venus and then to the Sun, v = 119 -
3310ge(r/Rs) km/s.
Added to curve N, a fair match with the chain curve of FIG.4 is produced. (The tangential velocity of the iether is v and r is the distance from the Sun, with suffix E for "Earth".)
Such a vortex can bring into the line the apparent inconsistency of two early observations, the Michelson Morley null interferometer result and the stellar aberration observed by the astronomer Bradley. The former indicated that the earth had zero speed whilst the latter showed it moved at 30km/s: its orbital about the Sun. It seemed that at last the long-standing puzzle, which led to the development of relativity theory, had been resolved. The Earth would have no velocity relative to a fluid moving along with it but would be in orbital motion about the Sun relative to any star. A fluid background medium is permitted!
A brilliant mathematician and ardent relativist, John Day M.Sc., has however, for several years been corresponding with this author as a critic, mostly attempting to make a convert to relativity theory. He has proved the most valued critic, helping sometimes with clever maths to enhance the very theory he was
criticising.
On Christmas Eve 1996 a letter arrived showing he had derived the "empirical" curve from a fundamental equation of General Relativity called a "Metric". So this was, after all, not an empirical fit! But the same metric has also given rise to the lower curve GR: so giving two solutions. For example, water can flow in tow ways toward a drain hole. It can have pure radial flow toward the hole or a vortex can develop.
 It seems very likely that the chain dashed curve represents a vortex solution from Einstein's mathematics, which somehow is far more accurate than that available from the Extended Newtonian approach.
Finally John Day showed he could obtain almost the identical metric from the Extended Newtonian basis. This seems a major advance. It indicates that the same mathematics is applicable to both theories despite the incompatibility of their initial assumptions! It means the mathematics of relativity can be regained to advantage and yet the incompatibility with any background medium, and therefore with quantum theory, is removed.
An objection raised by John is worth a mention. He said that comets could have retrograde orbits: so disposing of the vortex theory. It does nothing of the sort! Planets are not locked to the iether: both have independent motions but, constrained by the same physical laws, their speeds just happen to coincide. A space-ship in retrograde orbit would simply have a high speed relative to the iether and if it carried a Michaelson-Morley type interferometer large fringe shifts would be observed. This hints at the need for a new experiment!
Another objection he raised is that a vortex would require an impossible cylindrical symmetry. This objection is also readily countered. The problem is that centripetal accelerations will require radial pressure gradients so that axial ones will also develop when vortex speeds reduce with distance from the central plane. Such three dimensional vortices are known, however. It means that, away from this central plane, the ecliptic i.e. the orbit of earth, axial flows will develop together with axial accelerations which adjust to counter the induced axial pressure differentials involved.
Only for the predication of gravitational wave generation does a possible discrepancy arise. A pair of neutron stars are orbiting each other very fast and, as described by Will (10), their orbital period is decreasing at a rate of 76 microseconds per year. This is consistent with an energy loss by gravitational wave generation as predicted by General Relativity. The Extended Newtonian will give the same prediction if gravity propagates at the speed of light. This was Einstein's assumption based on the impossibility of even a message travelling faster than light. This limitation does not apply for the new assumptions and it seems likely that gravity waves could propagate even thousands of times faster. Then no gravity waves could possibly be measured.
It seems that a paradox-free grand unification can now be offered and a new text book (15) detailing this should be available in 1998. It demands that the primary consciousness be in the invisible, a function of the highly structured iether. To produce matter in the manner described demands a deliberate creative act and could only have occurred if the iether evolved a driving will after it first developed a machine-like intelligence.
|
