Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Medium entrainment considered as flow
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Medium entrainment considered as flow
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Michiel

Netherlands
85 Posts

Posted - 29 Oct 2011 :  17:36:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Without having a deep physics explanation, I would like to share this thought:

What if the light carrying medium flows in to mass?
Imagine the medium is "pulverized" inside particles with mass, then catapulted outwards, only to recondense into medium again after some time.

___

I first had this idea when considering the two kinds of time dilation:

1) Time dilation because of relative speed.
2) Time dilation because of gravity.

Speed has [m/s] as unit, and gravity is an acceleration, with [m/s^2] as unit.
Could the second form of dilation just be the same as the first? Well maybe, if the medium gains speed towards the mass.

___

One can further imagine:

-Light as a wave would be curved by massive objects.
-The speed of light would always be observed the same at arrival, because the rate at which the medium is "consumed" is a property of mass itself.
-Redshift (big bang's expansion) could be explained by the constant recreation of medium in space.

___

As you can see, it's hardly a theory of everything, but it's certainly an interesting thought.

mdonal

USA
3 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  01:49:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If you have not seen this theory, take a look. It is similar to what you're talking about.
http://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
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  10:19:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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, and from each other. 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 observed behavior 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 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. 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.

  • 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.

  • The radius of the outer surface of this shell will be smaller than the radius of the orbit of Earth.

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.
Go to Top of Page

Michiel

Netherlands
85 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  11:11:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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. :)
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  11:35:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  14:35:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"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:
http://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.
Go to Top of Page

Michiel

Netherlands
85 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  17:13:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  17:18:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Bart,

Sorry if it seems like I'm giving you a hard time. I'm really trying to help. But you are still using the wrong label for what is happening. (When I finally figure out how to explain this properly, a light bulb will go off in your mind and you will say "OHHHHH".)

(Please re-read my recent detailed comments about this in the Requiem for Relativity thread. But here is a summary)

When we look at light from a distant object, we either see it where it is, or we see it with an angular displacement from where it is.

There are a number (at least four) of phemnomena that can contribute to this angular displacement.

lead angle (caused at the source by aiming ahead of the target. If you spew light waves in all directions, then you don't have to know where to aim. It happens automatically.)
medium drift (caused in transit by transverse and/or longitudinal motion of the medium)
medium drag (caused in transit by friction with the medium)
aberation (caused at the observer by the observers transverse motion relative to a straight line between observer and source)

edit1******
actually that is wrong. it should be

the observer's transverse velocity relative to the direction of the incomming beam.
/edit1*****

AngularDisp = LeadAngle + DriftAngle + DragAngle + AberrationAngle

(And here is another example.)

Remember, I am looking at this from the more general perspecive of the physicist. Astronomers seem to be not used to thinking in terms of any phenomenon other than aberration[1] when talking about angular displacement. So they say aberration when they are actually talking about angular displacement, which can be caused by aberation but can also happen even when there is no aberration present.

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

If there is a light carrying medium, and if there is a flow boundary in that medium that light from a Jovian moon crosses on its way here, then that light will most likely be displaced as it crosses the boundary. When the light arrives here that displacement will cause the moon to appear to be in the "wrong" place.

However, at the time the light beam sufferes this displacement it has not been observed. That separate event will not happen for many minutes.

And if Earth happens to be at a point in its orbit where it is moving either straight toward Jupiter or straight away from it, then the observer's transverse speed relative to the light beam from the moon is zero. Which means that the aberation angle for that particular observation will be zero.

But the moon is still in the wrong place.
edit2*****
change moon to star
/edit2****

Because even though aberation was zero, drift was not.

LB

[1]
We have no way to even guess what the lead angle was, but it does not matter as long as the source radiates in all directions. One of the beams will be just right.

Mainstream astronomers do not believe there is a medium, and if they are right then there can be no drift or drag contributions to angular displacement. Even if they are not right, they still do not include a term for them in their calculations.

Aberration angle is something they can actually measure. So in their minds, the drift angle and the aberration angle are one and the same.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  17:49:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Michiel] "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."

And roughly a century of observaional evidence says that if there is a medium, it cannot have a velocity at the surface of Earth.

At least - not a steady velocity.

MMX type experiments have been done hundreds of thousands of times. If there were a medium out there that resembled the "classical aether" of the mid to late 1800s, or this "inward flowing aether" that you mention above, these MMX experiments would easily detect our movement through this medium. Or its movement through us. The difference in the speed of light for beams moving across the flow versus beams moving with or against the flow would be about 64 meters per second.

Since the very first MMX, no such difference has ever been observed.

But ...

These MMX experiments also rarely produce a result of zero. The actual results appear to vary unpredictably and are frequently in the range of 4 to 8 meters per second. Since no one believes in a light carrying medium, and since the non-zero results from MMX are "random" and much smaller than "expected", they are written off to equipment errors and ignored. Another gold mine?



Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  18:39:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "... a very special event in the sense that planetary aberration exceeded the value of stellar aberration ..."

(replace "planetary aberration" with "planetary displacement angle" and stellar aberration" with "stellar displacement angle".)

Remember, aberration happens at the point of observation and depends only on the ratio of the transverse speed of the observer vs the speed of the incomming light beam or particle. If abberration were the only thing that could cause an observational displacement angle, it should not be possible for this to have happened.

To a main stream astronomer things like medium drag or medium drift don't exist. so when they see two objects with differing displacement angles, they can only scratch their heads.

To those willing to consider other ideas, it can be seen that the light from the background star could have been displaced by drift or drag numerous times during its trip to Earth. Never by very much, but then the observed difference was not very large either. By the time it got here the light beam was already out of postion.

How often do we see small errors in the location of some stars? But not others.
Do these erros persist?
Do they repeat?
Or do they go away and not repeat?
Does an error move from one star to another that is visually near-by?
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 27 Jan 2012 :  11:08:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bart,

Have you received any feedback from the community of astronomers re your paper arguing for a medium-drift-effect in certain occultation observations? Specifically I'm wondering if anyone is objecting because of a strict adhearance to the technical definition of aberration.

Your paper does use the word aberration in places where you are clearly talking about medium drift. You will have an up hill battle just trying to get them to consider the possibiilty of a medium. Falling into a word/definition pothole won't make it any easier.

I'm not suggesting that you need to try to re-educate the astronomy community. But you need to personally understand the physical naure of what you are observing, so that you can search for wording to avoid any sort of knee-jerk rejection due to miscommunication.

The fact that no one truely has a good understanding of the physical nature of the medium we are talking about does not make your job any easier. I have some ideas[1] (based on TVF's theories) that seem to be internally consistant, but it would help to have other minds looking at observational evidence and evaluating that evidence in light of these ideas. And evaluating these ideas in light of the evidence.

If I'm right about the basic physical nature of the medium, observations such as the one you discuss in your paper should become easier to understand and explain. And the details of such an observation should allow me to fine tune my ideas. Hopefully this process will converge to an explanation that holds up in the face of future observations.


LB

[1]
  • The medium is entrained by massive objects.

  • This entrainment must be static within and near each mass.

  • Entrainment beyond a ceratin distance ought to change from static to dynamic

    • How far out?

  • Still farther out, entrainment ought to cease. Beyond this distance there should be only the "background" medium (which ought be entrained by and move with the next larger gravitational structure).

    • How far out?

    • Is the entrained medium near a planet/moon system large enough to exclude all background medium from the star it orbits?

    • Is the entrained medium near a star/planet system large enough to exclude all background medium from the galaxy it orbits?

      • Joe Keller has suggested that there is obsevational evidence for an optical and/or radio anomaly at about 50 to 60 AU from Sol. Pinning this down could be a big help.

  • For a planet, entrainment near the orbital plane of its moons ought to be more consistent, and extend farther, than it does well above or below that plane.

  • For a star, entrainment near the orbital plane of its planets ought to be more consistent, and extend farther, than it does well above or below that plane.

  • For a galaxy ...


And so on.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  07:56:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
One more thing Bart,

Tom was an astronomer. For most of his career, he was a main stream astronomer.

He learned in school that the anglular adjustment he had to make on his telescope to center a star was called the "aberration angle". And that is the word he used in his early writing.

Later in life, after he decided to leave the main stream, he began thinking in terms of light as a wave propagaing through a medium filled space, rather than as a particle moving through empty space-time. This leads immediately to considerations of medium drift, and he began to write about it.

But, more often than not, he continued to use the word "aberration angle" even when he meant "angular displacement caused by medium drift".

Old habits die hard. No one is perfect. I'm sure if you look, you will even find places where I have been inconsistent.

(Yeah I know - it IS hard to believe. But it is true. At least, I suspect it is true.)

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  08:37:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Michiel "Curved space-time is more of a mathematical construction than a deep physics explanation, in my opinion."

This is more or less my impression as well. Many modern physicists (the character Sheldon Cooper in the TV series The Big Bang Theory is a stereotype of them) push things even farther, saying that physics is only concerned with producing equations that describe and predict. Once that is achieved, physics has no deeper interest in the issue. In particular, they have a tendency to scoff at the very concept of experimental verification. And to look down their noses at individuals who practice experimentation. But this is a tendency, not a necessity. Even Sheldon Cooper will cite experimental results when it suits him.

I'm not sure just how prevalent this idea is, and I know that many other modern physicists spend time trying to find out "why". But to me physics has always been, first and foremost, about answering the "why" and the "how" questions. They are frequently HARD to answer. And our first few attempts frequently turn out to be wrong. Remember Ptolemy? Or earth-air-fire-water? Or flat-earth?

We use math (the be-all and end-all of the Sheldon Coopers of the world) as a "mere" tool to help find those answers. Sometimes it actually helps.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  08:47:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Michiel] "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."

[LB] "And roughly a century of observaional evidence says that if there is a medium, it cannot have a velocity at the surface of Earth."


To be clear, I am talking about the light carrying medium here. I'm pretty sure you were too, but it seems prudent to state it explicitly to preclude the possibility of miscommunication.

===

However, the graviton medium (which is the primary cause of the entrainment of the light carying medium around each mass) must have a (net inward) velocity at the surface of each mass.

So your interpretation #1 works for the light carying medium and your interpretation #2 works for the graviton medium.

In his book Dark Matter ... Tom designed a universe from scratch, one particle at a time. (If you have not read AND THOUGHT ABOUT the first two or three chaptes, you are missing a rare treat.) When he got close to a complete universe, the need for these two separate particle fields just sort of fell out into his lap. Such is the power of deductive logic relative to inductive logic.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  09:05:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I take the assumption that the light carrying medium is part of what we call 'dark matter'. Considering the Solar System, this dark matter constitutes a significant mass (exceeding visible mass) that rotates around the Sun in the same way as visible mass (including the planets) does.

So planets do not really entrain the surrounding medium. The surrounding medium just happens to have the same speed.

We can measure the exact velocity of the medium relative to the surface of the rotating Earth through the Michelson Gale experiment.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M

The medium rotating around the solar system has the largest angular velocity in the plane of the solar sytem. If a planet moves away from the plane of the Solar System, then this planet will become subject to the Bernouilli effect thereby pulling the planet back towards the plane of the solar system. This mechanism explains why the planets are kept largely in a single plane.

The medium stops rotating at a certain distance from the sun (order of magnitude 50 AU). At the point where the rotating medium of the solar system connects with the 'static medium' of the galaxy, we observe turbulence in the form of magnetic bubbles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

For a galaxy, the rotating medium of the galaxy keeps the stars with the plane of the galaxy ...
(and explains why galaxies tend to be flat, except for the middle where the medium rotation speed is limited).

Rotating media exercise a force upon each other which is observed as Gravitomagnetism.
So a solar system, through it's rotating medium, acts as a giant gravitomagnet.

This gravitomagnet can be tilted through other gravitomagnets (e.g. other solar systems or variations in the medium flow of the galaxy).
If this happens, the planets will displace themselves and will seek a new alignment according to the new orientation of the rotating medium.
This explains why the plane of the solar system and the sun's equator are not perfectly aligned.
For exoplanets a much more pronounced disalignment as been observed.

On the topic of "planetary displacement angle" and "stellar displacement angle".
Using the word 'drift' to explain the effect suggests that light would bend along with the direction of increased medium velocity.
But the observed effect is the opposite: light bends towards the direction where the medium velocity is higher.

This effect is indeed counter-intuitive ... It looks like being pushed upstream while crossing a river.
So looking for the appropriate wording ...
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  13:03:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "I take the assumption that the light carrying medium is part of what we call 'dark matter'."

Yes. I've been thinking along similar lines. I wonder if both the light carrying medium and the graviton medium might be candidates for dark matter and/or dark energy. There appears to be something in a vacuum. We can't quite detect it with certainty and repeatability, but we keep seeing glimpses of it. These real-world observations are not usually associated with the more theoretical dark matter/dark energy memes by the main stream, but we are not obligated to operate under such constraints.

Keep in mind the likelyhood that the mainstream will mean something else when they use these terms. For example, in some versions of dark matter theory, the density of dark matter is highest in the voids of deep space, and decreases as you approach each mass. The more massive the object, the lower the density.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  13:32:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "Considering the Solar System, this dark matter constitutes a significant mass (exceeding visible mass) ..."

We actually have no data to either support or refute such a claim. Consider the following questions:


  • What is the mass of an average particle comprising the light carying medium?

  • What is the average separation between such particles?

  • How far out from a mass does static entrainment go?

  • What is the overall shape of the statically entrained portion of the medium - spherical, elliptical, disk, other?

We do know that the individual particles are too small to be detected with present technology. Either that or they do not exist ...

And we know that they are small enough to penetrate normal matter.

How far apart are they? For theoretical reasons I believe that each particle repels all others. (I'll go into the details of how this works, and especially how they manage to stay in a mass instead of dissipating, later.) But without some observational or experimental data, I cannot say how far apart they are.

Suppose they are as far apart, on aveage, as the centers of a bath tub full of ping pong balls, and suppose they have an average mass of 10^-9 elecron masses, and suppose the entrained volume is shaped like a disk. Then the total mass of all the entrained LCM near a star like Sol could be less than the mass of a small moon.

These are just guesses, intended to illustrate the lower regions of parameter space for this concept. I have no data that leads me to conclude they are either close to or far from whatever answers we eventually find. If we can find some observations that mesh with these ideas, said observations might allow us to answer some of the quesions.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  14:08:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "... that rotates around the Sun in the same way as visible mass (including the planets) does.

So planets do not really entrain the surrounding medium. The surrounding medium just happens to have the same speed."


It is true that the medium entrained by a star will rotate with that star. And it will do so whether or not the star has any planets.

It will also do so if the star is not rotating.

===

In other words, for the case of a non-rotating star the statically entrained medium will also be non-rotating.

===

If there happened to be any planets in orbit of this star, however, each of them[1] would entrain portions of the medium, and these entrained portions would be moving with the planet.

LB

[1]
Remember, we do not know how large a mass must be for static entrainment to occur. The best we can do now is a lower limit. We know it happens on Earth, so that limit is one Earth mass or larger. Perhaps it happens on moons or even asteroids. We do not know yet.

Dynamic entrainment should occur around any sized mass.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  14:54:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "We can measure the exact velocity of the medium relative to the surface of the rotating Earth through the Michelson Gale experiment. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M

This link points to an abstract only, and few members of the audience are likely to have access to the full paper.

I found this discussion ...

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm

... after searching for a few minutes. It is not likely to be as "authoritative" as yours, but it also discusses some related experiments and should give the audience a bit of understanding and some historical perspective.

If you find a reference that also lists the answer (speed and direction of the medium flow), I expect we would all be interested. Data for more than one location would also be of interest.

Thanks,
LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2207 Posts

Posted - 28 Jan 2012 :  17:17:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "On the topic of "planetary displacement angle" and "stellar displacement angle".
Using the word 'drift' to explain the effect suggests that light would bend along with the direction of increased medium velocity. But the observed effect is the opposite: light bends towards the direction where the medium velocity is higher."


To preclude any misunderstanding I will describe the phemomenon of drift more precisely. I'll use a sound analogy.

There are four hill tops, three in row about three sound-seconds apart and one off to the side about fifteen-sound seconds away.

I pick one of the three closer hill tops to send a signal (a firecracker). You must sit on the lone, far away hill top and decide where I was.

You hear the pop and are convinced that it came from the right most hill top. There is a very fast wind blowing through the hills, but you do not know it because your hill top is higher than mine, where the air is still.

I was actually on the middle hill top. As the sound waves from my firecracker crossed the valley between us they were blown to your right by the wind. Enough that when they arrived they seemed to be comming from the right most hill top.

You are experiencing an angular displacement in your obsevation, caused by medium drift.

We may not be sure that light travels as a wave within a medium, but we are posiive that sound does. And for sound, this medium drift effect is very real.

===

An actual flow boundary between parts of the medium between us is not necessary. Suppose the wind extends upward to an altitude that is also above your hill top. Nothing changes, except now you can detect the wind and understand why the sound waves seem to come from the right most hill top, instead of where they actually came from.

If such a boundary did exist it could certainly alter a wave passing through it. But that is really not what the medium drift effect is all about. In looking back through some of my recent writings on this topic I see that I may have suggested the boundary played more of a role than it does. My apology.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2012 :  04:46:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The "four hill top" analogy indeed explains the effect of medium drift.

But considering the effect of 'stellar aberration' : the light appears ahead of the direction the observer (and surrounding medium) is moving towards. It would be the same as hearing the sound as it came from the left most hill top (while being on the middle).

Medium particles (light carrying / gravition):
- I assume they are much, much smaller then the known particles
- I assume the known particles are (at least partially) build of medium particles
- Therefore, I assume that the medium particles are very close to each other
- A photon is not a particle a such but the combined momentum contained in many medium particles.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/1870

Entrainment is what was investigated through the Gravity Probe B experiment (validating Einsteins theory)
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html
Although the effect is real it looks to be a very weak.

The Michelson Gale experiment paper:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2582
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.05 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03