Medium entrainment considered as flow

If you have not seen this theory, take a look. It is similar to what you're talking about.
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS16.pdf

Professor Cahill calls the medium, Quantum Foam and the flow into matter is inflow. He says it can explain gravity and why there appears to be missing matter in some spiral galaxies. Interesting. I don't think I believe it, but if it accurately predicts observations, why should I argue.

Morgan Donal

If there is a light carrying medium, the individual particles that comprise it must be stationary with respect to a mass such as Earth. We know this because we know that a flowing medium causes waves moving in it to behave differently than waves moving in a medium that is not flowing. We can measure the differences. And when we look, we do not see these kind of diferences.

===
If you could place a visible tag on several of these particles that just happened to be above your desk right now, and then came back to check on them tomorrow, those exact paticles would still be there. They would still be the same distance from your desktop, <u>and from each other</u>. Note that this behavior is not like a gas. And not like a liquid.

This behavior is more like what we see in solids. But obviously it cannot be a solid in the usual sense of the word.
===

So the <u>observed behavior</u> of light would seem to preclude the possibility that a physical light carrying medium could have the kind of flow patterns that (the two of) you are talking about.

However, if part of the light carrying medium is stationary with respect to Earth, and another part of the light carying medium is stationary with respect to Sol, then there <u>must</u> be a zone somewhere between Earth and Sol where some of the particles of the light carrying medium are moving (or flowing) relative to each other. The effect would probably be spread over a large volume, and it would obviously be tiny. (If not, we would have noticed by now.)

Since we know almost nothing about these particles it will be difficult to predict how light crossing this zone would be changed.

But if we just start looking very closely at the region[1] of space between here and there, we might see somehing odd. In fact, we almost certainly have already. Lots of anomalous observations are made every month. They get reported, but usually not widely. And then they are forgotten.

All of those anomalies represent a potential gold mine. Just keep in mind that you might find something other than gold. And it might be more valuable.

Regards,
LB

[1] the "region" I'm talking about will be a spherical shell, centered on Sol. <ul>
<li>The radius of the inner surface will be larger than the radius of Sol, and probably larger than the radius of the orbit of Venus.</li>
<li>The radius of the outer surface of this shell will be smaller than the radius of the orbit of Earth.</li></ul>
Other than that, I offer no guidance. Hmmm. Except that the parts of this spherical shell that are closest to Earth's orbital plane are more likely to bear fruit than, say, the parts of the shell above each of Sol's polar regions.

Thank you very much, Morgan.

In my opinion it's quite alright to believe something, as long as you leave an equal amount of room for doubt.

One thing Professor Cahill doesn't mention is the cosmological redshift. If the foambubbles pop on contact with mass, where (and how) are new bubbles formed? And how does this affect light traveling through the medium?

___

Larry, you say:

"And when we look, we do not see these kind of differences."

But we do see relativistic phenomena, that's what got all this started.

Exactly. Relativisic phenomena, such as light bending as it passes near Sol or other massive objects.

If the light carrying medium is compressed by gravity near a mass, we would expect to see that beam bend (refraction) as it moves into and then out of the more dense regions of the LCM near a mass.

The Shapiro delay is another relativisic effect. When we bounce radar beams off of Venus, for example, we see that the echo takes longer than expected to return. Until we adjust our calculations to include the slowing of light speed as a function of gravitational potential. Venus is closer to Sol, and therefore in a deeper gravitational potential well than Earth. So light (and radar) beams sent from here to there and back do not travel at a constant speed. The closer they get to Sol, the slower they travel.

These two relativistic effects are actually the same thing. The echo of a light beam aimed at Venus from here would return later than expected, because of the changes in the speed of light between here and there. And a radar beam aimed at Earth from the far side of the Sol system that passed close to Sol would bend just like the light beam.

GR explains this by invoking "photons in curved space-time".
DRP explains this by invoking "waves in variable density, entrained, light-carying-medium".

Both approaches see the various relativistic phenomena we know of as being proportional to the local gravitational potential field.

BTW, the equations are the same in both cases. The differences are in the physics, not the math.

"there must be a zone somewhere between Earth and Sol where some of the particles of the light carrying medium are moving (or flowing) relative to each other"

This is the exact topic covered in the paper:

The effect of planetary aberration examined for Jupiter occultation by the moon on 7-Dec-2004:
www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3802

Light crossing the boundary of medium particles with different relative speed is causing the aberration of light.

The occultation on 7-Dec-2004 was a very special event in the sense that planetary aberration exceeded the value of stellar aberration for stars showing in the same direction as Jupiter. I wonder if there is another way to explain the described observation then to assume variations in speed of the light carrying medium.

Larry, we have two interpretations here:

1) The medium is entrained by mass in such a way that the velocity of the medium is constant and zero at the surface of the mass.

2) The medium is entrained by mass in such a way that the velocity of the medium is constant and non-zero at the surface of the mass.

I agree that this "small" difference is huge for a deep physics explanation.
For a mathematical explanation, the difference is very subtle, though.

___

Curved space-time is more of a mathematical construction than a deep physics explanation, in my opinion.