The Theory of Invariance

The most precise measurement of the bending and delay of light in the neighbourhood of the Sun has been achieved in the Cassini experiment.
The text describing the Cassini experiment states: "According to general relativity and other alternative theories of gravity, photons are deflected and delayed by the curvature of spacetime produced by any mass distribution.".

In other words: light is slower in the neighbourhood of a mass. And light is bended through the effect of refraction.

There are effects, mainly related to 'ether drift', that can only be explained through the existance of a medium.
So General relativity (mathematical model) must be the representation a fysical model based on a medium.
This medium must consist of particles of which the velocity has a direct relationship with the speed of light.
The speed of these particles must be reduced in the neighbourhood of a mass (for a reason that I cannot explain ...)
Gravitational force on a mass is the result of medium particles being faster at one side than those at the other side of the object.

So both the speed of light and gravity depend on the speed of the the medium particles and that's why they are related. The clock rate of atomic clocks has a direct reltionship with the speed of light, so that's why atomic clocks exactly behave as per the theory of general relativity.

In 'black holes' the medium particles must be very slow ...

I wish you build up your medium theory successfully.

Hi bart, I finally got round to reading your third paper, on quantum teleportation. Forgive me if I haven't got a firm handle on it just yet, I'll need to read it a few times. One thing that jumped out was an anti parallel wave motion. Something that I've looked at as a negatively refractive index, frequency modulated wave but not as a a.m. wave.

Well, what can we say about the mm experiment and its variants. They are not null experiment but rather unexpected in terms of a stationary aether. If we say that matter creates it own "space" then we are in a car with a windshield. Moreover a car with an dash board air vent. If you granny is more sensitive to the air flow from this vent, then assume that it's down to her refractive index. She has permittivity and permeability which differs from your let's say.

I would say that the speed of light is slightly faster in intergalactic space. i get an upper limit of about 3.24E 8 metres per second. We measure it in a lab in the Earth's gravity well but we use mirrors, so it's an average. On a kilometre run I get a figure of about 1.6E-6 metres. (somewhere in Joe Keller's threa he and I talked about Dayton Millar but it's a sod to find) Neutrinos spring to mind here, in effect they don't "see" mass very well, so they can go a little faster than the "local" speed of light and still have mass.

So, let's move onto the speed of gravity. Tom v Flandern has it, at a minimum of twenty billion times c. Newton of course has it instantaneous. i think it's going to be about the ratio of the speed of gravity to the speed of light. A very small number indeed, and it's my hunch that it's going to be c^2 / b^2 = 1.054E-34 Note that that would be a dimensionless number.

The Lorentzian is simply the equation of an ellipse; well an ellipsoid really but we'll leave out the z axis and time for now. The semi major axis would be one gravitational second (call that b) and the semi minor axis one light second (call that c). x^2 / b^2 + y^2 / c^2 = 1
We can write that in terms of refractive index when x^2 = c^2 Note that for Newtons speed of gravity we have Sqrt(1 - 1 / infinity) an exponential. Tom';s would be sqrt(1 - 1/ 4E 20) and with my guess sqrt(1 - 1 / 9.4E 33)

Allow ourselves negative refractive index and this changes the sign of the Lorentzian at the speed of light. A phase change universe in other words. It's a negative scaling which would change a right shoe into a left shoe. Or it would flip of the axis, a preferred frame perhaps?

Let's write 1 - v^2 / b^2 = (2 G m / c^2) the Schwartzschild radius, and try a couple of radii. one being one gravitational second, the other 1.054E-34 metres. Rearrange 1.054E-34 = c^2 /b^2 to get about to get about 2.92E 25 metres for b the speed of gravity.

That's a huge distance! But put it into the Schwartzchild equation and it comes out with a pretty good mass of the "big bang" universe 1.96E 52 kg. The other radius of 1.054E-34 metres gives us a mass thats pretty close to the Plank mass.

However, this is an event horizon for the cosmos, and we are outside that, yet we can count the galaxies and have a rough idea of the mass of the universe. we can work out the radius of the universe from g /rs (r / c)^2 = 0.5
rs = Schwartzschild radius and we'll take g to equal G

I get that to be about eleven times bigger than the event horizon but it's been a while since I did it. Can we actually see a giant ball that has negative refractive index? No, a spherical neg r.i. lens looks like a concave lens, it would wrap itself round us!

The Schwartzchild radius is simply a capture orbit, light cannot escape fro that radius it orbits. What about gravity? There we would have to put our guess of the speed of gravity into the equation. 3.077E-9 = 2 G m / b^2 where m is the mass of the universe and b the speed of gravity. Gravity would be trapped in orbit at this radius.

<b>[Bart] "So General relativity (mathematical model) must be the representation a fysical model based on a medium.</b>

Most proponents of GR deny that there is any medium involved. Albert showed us that there is no need for a medium (to be able to describe things with equations), so they have taken the next step and say that there is not a medium.

<b>[Bart] "This medium must consist of particles of which the velocity has a direct relationship with the speed of light.</b>

If light traveled through space as particles (photons) such a medium would not be necessary. And there would be no good reason for light to have a specific speed.

EM radiation exhibits the properties of a wave under some conditions, and the properties of a particle under other conditions. Specifically, it behaves like a wave when travelling through space, and like a particle when it encounters (interacts with) matter.

We are most familiar with the behavior of light interacting with matter when the mater it interacts with is a detector of some sort.

<b>[Bart] "The speed of these particles must be reduced in the neighbourhood of a mass ..."</b>

The speed of the particles that comprise this medium (assuming that the medium we discuss does in fact exist) <u>must be zero</u> relative to a mass such as Earth. If this were not the case, experiemnts such as MMX would have detected a directional bias in the speed of EM waves propagating through this medium.

<b>[Bart] "... (for a reason that I cannot explain ...)"</b>

The reason you are searching for, to physically explain why the particles slow down, is the process of entrainment.

The interaction between "normal" matter and the particles of this medium is very small, but it is not zero. (If we move an electron back and forth it causes the particles in this medium to vibrate. Depending on how fast we move the electron we experience the vibrations in this mdeium as things like radio and visible light.)

Over long periods of time that small interaction manifests itself as a drag effect between normal matter and the particles of this medium. This eventually causes the particles of the medium to move with (become entrained by) normal matter. Look around you now. Visualize an "atmosphere" of particles smaller than we can detect at present. Small enough to easily pass through the matter comprising Earth and your desk and you. They permeate everything. (Except metals? EM fields are thought to terminate on the surface of conductors. Inside, only electrical fields exist. I fear we do not understand such "simple" phenomenae as well as we think we do.)

These particles are stationary with respect to you and your desk, just like the particles that comprise the air around you. Sometimes the air around us moves due to natural causes. We call it wind. There are probably also natural currents in this other medium, but we do not have a way to detect them yet.

Or do we?

Rotating MMX experiemnts do measure speed of light changes.

From time to time experiemts like the standard MMX have detected "anomolous" variations in the speed of light. They are generally not reproducible, and so are considered to be equipment errors. Without a doubt, some are.

We probably ought to spend more time looking for and at such things. And thinking about them.

===

Hmmm. We have learned to make artificial currents in the air, by using devices such as a fan. So far we do not know a way to make artificial currents in this other medium. Or maybe we can, but since we can't detect it we just don't realize we can.

But we <u>do</u> know how to make it wiggle.


Regards,
LB

"If light traveled through space as particles (photons) such a medium would not be necessary. And there would be no good reason for light to have a specific speed. "

I don't envision the photons to be the particles that travel. The ether particles move in random direction and collide with each other all the time. The photons are an 'additional momentum' given to the ether particles. This momentum is organised in and orderly way (wave packet) which is taking a 'considerable amount of space'. Take a look at the 'double slit' experiment whereby a single photon is involved: the wave packet goes through both slits at the same time and recombines behind the slits, thereby creating an interference pattern.

I covered this in my papers that I shared.

The ether particles are indeed entrained by normal matter. The "Gravity Probe B" experiment has demonstrated that the Earth entrains space (the ether).

<b>[Bart] "Gravitational force on a mass is the result of medium particles being faster at one side than those at the other side of the object."</b>

The particle field responsible for supporting the propagation of light and the the particle field responsible for creating gravitational force cannot be the same. The required properties (EM radiation is wave phenomenon, gravitational force is not) are just too different.

But there is a relationship between them. The particles comprising the field through which light waves propagate is subject to the effects of gravitational force. Under the influence of gravitational attraction, these particles crowd closer together near masses such as Earth and Sol. (This is part of that drag phenomenon I mentioned above that causes the entrainment of these particles.) The field comprising these particles becomes more dense near a mass.

A light ray travelling to my telescope from a distant star will be bent if it has to pass near Sol, through this dense region of the particle field. You can think of this particle field as some kind of a 4D space-time "manifild", or as some kind of mostly undefined "dark matter". (Actually, this is kind of accurate.)

I like to think of it as some kind of aether (but obviously not the same as the one Lorentz envisioned). We can't detect the particles of this aether-like field, but we can infer some of the bulk properties of the overall field from the way light behaves as it travels through it.

I suppose that makes it a somewhat undefined "dim" matter?

LB