Relativity There is a problem of logic right at the outset. Einstein's postulate states that the velocity of light is constant relative to the observer, or that the observed velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source. These two ways of stating the postulate are both ambiguous and Einstein never directly clarified them. However, the Lorentz transformation that Einstein used to mathematically express the postulate requires that the velocity of light be constant everywhere in the rest frame of the observer. In other words, that the velocity of light at the source or anywhere between the source and the eventual observer be constant relative to the eventual observer. The postulate is supposedly based on the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment but this experiment does not address the velocity of light anywhere except at the observer. Einstein then had no evidence about the velocity of light except at the observer and the use of the Lorentz transformation is purely speculative. There is other evidence about the velocity of light not at the observer. The aberration of starlight is a common problem for astronomers. When the observer is moving relative to a star, the telescope has to be aimed with an offset from the actual position of the star. This is commonly explained with the stovepipe analogy in which raindrops are falling in a straight line and a moving observer looking up through a stovepipe has to lean the pipe in the direction of his motion to have the raindrops fall through the pipe and not hit the sides. If Einstein's special theory is correct then the stovepipe analogy is not valid because the velocity of the raindrops is not constant relative to the observer. If we measure the changing angle of offset of the telescope as the earth orbits the sun, we can from this data calculate the velocity of the earth in its orbit. This is exactly the result that the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to achieve. This result with that of the Michelson-Morley experiment suggests to me that the velocity of light is not constant relative to the observer except at the observer. Another evidence is the apparent bending of light as it passes near a large object such as the sun. This was not "predicted" by Einstein's general theory, it was raised as an objection to his special theory and he developed the general theory in answer to that objection. In order to preserve the constancy of the velocity of light everywhere relative to the observer, Einstein could not allow the direction to change. That would have been a change of velocity. Instead he postulated that the time-space continuum is curved by the gravity of the sun. If the continuum is interpreted as an arbitrary rectilinear coordinate system then, being arbitrary, it cannot be altered by anything physical. If it is interpreted as not arbitrary but a physical "fabric of time-space" then it is merely a restatement of the luminiferous ether that Einstein's special theory rejects. Space is nothingness. It has no physical properties. It is only place in which physical existence can be. Electric fields are observed to attach to materials. The electric fields of a propagating electromagnetic wave extend instantaneously from the path of propagation without bound or until attached to (terminated on) some material. The field strength decreases away from the path by the inverse square rule but the field never terminates in space. An electric field (flux) intercepting some material will attach to it. The effect of this attachment is reflected back to the source of the field. Attachment of the field to some material will link the source of the field to the material. Field cannot attach to nothingness therefore is never attached to space. Electromagnetic wave propagation then is relative to whatever material is proximate to it such that the field is attached. The velocity of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment was constant relative to the observer because it was constant relative to the material of the apparatus, the observing persons, the atmosphere, the Earth and everything nearby which were all at rest relative to each other. Another experiment in which not everything nearby is at the same velocity is Fizeau's experiment. In this the light was passed through a moving material, water, inside a stationary pipe. The same kind of interference measurements as Michelson-Morley were made and showed that the velocity of light was not constant relative to the pipe or to the moving water but was intermediate. This suggests that portions of the electric fields within the water were attached to the water and the portions passing through and extending beyond the water to intercept the pipe were attached to the pipe. The effect of both attachments was reflected upon the propagating waves. The velocity of light, or any other electromagnetic radiation, in space is relative to whatever near or distant material some portions of its electric fields intercept. On approaching the Earth, and particularly on entering the atmosphere, the propagation becomes attached to the Earth and its atmosphere. This change of relativity is the cause of aberration of starlight. The velocity of light is C relative to the physical material of the source at the source and is C relative to the physical material of the observer at the observer and is C relative to the mean effective interception of proximate matter (and field) by its electric fields at all locations. If a single light wavefront existed alone in space and no matter or other field existed anywhere then the velocity of propagation would be C relative to absolute position in space not because of any attachment to space but because that would be all it could be relative to. The position of the wavefront at time t+dt is l+dl where dl/dt=C relative to its previous position. On passing a massive object in space, such as the Sun, a portion of the electric field on only one side of the wave intercepts the object. The material of the object has a larger value of permitivity (dielectric constant) than the permitivity associated with fields in free space, therefore the portions of field intercepting the object will vary more slowly than the rest of the field. Having the field variation retarded on only one side will cause the wave to change direction and curve around the object. Light entering, at a slant, a material such as glass, having larger dielectric constant from a material such as air having smaller dielectric constant, changes direction because the fields on one side intercept the glass and are retarded before the fields on the other side. The bending of light by the sun is not caused by gravity but plain old refraction. Particle-wave duality Particles of matter and electromagnetic waves do appear at some scales to have some properties in common but there is a clear cut distinction between them at all scales. Electromagnetic waves travel at a specific velocity within a specific medium (velocity C when there is no medium) while particles can be accelerated by external force to any velocity less than velocity C relative to their source of propulsion. The confusion of waves with particles arises from certain observations. Very short waves are detected by means of their interaction with structured matter. Only when wave energy is sufficiently concentrated on the structure will an energy absorbing structural transition occur, hence energy is absorbed by structures only in discrete amounts determined by the character of the structure. Likewise, energy is emitted from structures only in discrete amounts determined by the structure. Any waves are always dispersed geometrically, hence a short distance away from the source the emitted quantum is no longer discrete. In order for this radiation to again be absorbed by structures, portions of energy from several original emitted quanta must combine at a structure to provide sufficient energy there to cause a transition. When a detector is said to be counting individual quanta it is not counting chunks of energy that have crossed the universe unaltered. It is counting individual transitions in the structure of the detector. Particles appear to have wave properties with the wavelength decreasing (frequency increasing) with increasing velocity and hence kinetic energy. Again this is the result of interaction. Particles exert electromagnetic and gravitational forces on each other. When particles are in relative motion these forces are transient. Any transient may be analysed into a series of sinusoidal components. The frequencies of the components are determined by the time shape of the transient, increasing as the transient is shortened by increasing velocity. Hence, a particle passing by many other particles would appear to be traveling as a continuous wave having frequency a function of its velocity. Why quantum Modern quantum theory attempts to unify with classical field theory by quantizing the fields. I propose instead that quantum mechanics can be explained with continuous fields. The problem with the Rutherford atom was that the electrons orbiting the nucleus would radiate because they are charged and experiencing centripetal acceleration. Thus the system would lose energy and quickly collapse. Bohr answered this problem by postulating that the atom may have a series of discrete stationary states in which it does not radiate. This still leaves the question of why such states should exist. I propose, rather than stationary states, that the electrons are indeed orbiting. The radiation from orbital motion of a charged particle is confined to the orbital plane and perpendicular to the orbital path both outward and inward across the center (nucleus). The speed and acceleration of the electron in any particular orbit are determined by the mass of the electron and the forces acting on it in a manner similar to celestial mechanics. The frequency of the radiation is determined by the acceleration and charge. For certain orbits the time required for the electron to complete half its path and for the radiation emitted inward to travel across the center to the other side can match such that this radiation is in opposite phase to the radiation being emitted outward there. The two waves interfere and cancel. Thus, there can be certain orbits for which there is no net radiation loss of energy. When disturbed by external forces so that the current orbit is not maintained, the electron settles into another non-radiating orbit and the radiation emitted or absorbed during the transition is defined by the transient acceleration. Relation of Gravity and Inertia Einstein said that gravity and inertia must be different aspects of the same thing because in a closed system undergoing constant acceleration a force would be observed which could not be distinguished from gravity. This is an excellent example of Einstein's logic. A force is a force. Different forces may derive from different causes but if we disallow the means of distinguishing them, then obviously we cannot distinguish them. Gravity and inertia are both properties of matter and, under conditions appropriate to each, are both proportional to the amount of matter. They do not necessarily derive from the same principles. Inertia Electric current is a flow of electric charge. An element of electric charge in a state of motion is an element of electric current. An element of electric current is surrounded by a magnetic field. When the state of motion changes,the current changes and hence the magnetic field changes. The changing magnetic field induces an electric force which, according to Lenz's law, opposes the change which caused it. Lenz's law does not constrain direction of motion, direction of change or polarity of charge. Consider two elements of electric charge, an electron and a positron, spaced a meter apart. A force is applied to each to cause them to move in the same direction. Each, by Lenz's law, will oppose the change of motion. If they are spaced a millimeter or a micrometer apart, each still opposes the change of motion. When sufficiently close together, the pair will appear electrically neutral but each will still oppose any change of motion. An element of electric flux in a state of change is an element of displacement current. By the same application of Lenz's law electric flux resists changes in its state of change. When the state of change of electric flux is translational in space then this is equivalent to inertia. Hence, if we define mass by inertia then electric flux has mass. When two repelling charges are moved closer together or two attracting charges are moved farther apart the total electric flux of either system is increased and the total static energy is increased. The energy is added to the system in the form of electric flux. Since this added electric flux increases the inertia of the system then energy in the form of electric flux has mass. Permitivity Electric permitivity (dielectric constant) is defined by Faraday's law D=eE where D is electric flux density (coulombs per square meter), E is electric force (volts per meter) and e is permitivity. The dielectric constant of a material is a property of that material. Space has no physical properties. The dielectric constant associated with electric fields in space cannot be a property of space. It is a property of the field, that is, it is simply the ratio of flux density to electric force, e=D/E. As a property of field its existance is dependent on the presence of field and thus it might be expected to vary with field strength. I suggest that the permitivity for the case of free space is not constant but increases by a very small factor with increasing flux density. Gravity A point charge, which may be represented by an electron, is surrounded by an electric field. When the charge is isolated, the field is radially symmetrical and decreases away from the charge by the inverse square rule. When two such charges are considered, the field around each is no longer symmeterical. When the two charges are unlike, one positive and the other negative, the field pattern is experimentally shown to be more concentrated in the region between the charges and they are attracted to each other. When the charges are alike, both positive or both negative, they repel each other and the field is less concentrated between them. If the permitivity is not constant but increases by a small factor with increasing flux density, then the force is slightly enhanced where the field is more concentrated and slightly diminished where the field is less concentrated. The attractive force between unlike charges then is slightly greater than the repulsive force between like charges. A pair of unlike charges considered together from a distance appear electrically neutral since a third charge of either polarity would be both attracted and repelled. But the force of attraction would be slightly greater than the force of repulsion. There is then a small residual attractive force that is independent of the polarity of the third charge. Neutral particles, made up of equal numbers of positive and negative charges, then attract each other. Constitution of Matter The foregoing discussions of inertia and gravity suggest that positive and negative electrons consist of nothing but charge. They are not little chunks of matter which happen to also be charged but are condensations of electric flux. Larger particles are made of combinations of electrons and positrons. Protons and neutrons are made of a little less than 2000 electrons and positrons with neutrons having equal numbers of each and protons having one excess positron. With two excess positrons the strong repulsive force requires the helium nucleus to have nearly 8000 electrons and positrons (two protons and two neutrons) to provide enough gravitational attraction to produce complete stability. Abundance of antimatter When positive electrons were first discovered, a new class of matter came to be known as antimatter. It was defined as identical to normal matter except having opposite electric polarity. Negative protons were discovered and added to the list of antiparticles along with a lot of mesons. Somewhere along the line, quantum theorists expanded the meaning of antiparticle to include anti-neutral particles. The particles thus described may exist but to call them antiparticles is equivocal. There can be no such thing as an antineutron since the neutron is electrically neutral. If we stick with the original definition then neutral particles such as the neutron are constructed of sub-particles providing equal numbers of positive and negative electric charges. Then all sub-atomic neutral matter is made up of equal amounts of matter and antimatter. "Anti-Helium" would have a nucleus of one or two neutrons and two antiprotons and be orbited by two positrons. The question then is not "Why is there more matter than antimatter?" but "Why do not oppositely constructed atoms exist in nature?". The answer probably lies in the specific stability of the proton and neutron while the antiproton appears to be very unstable on its own. Energy and Matter It is said that when matter and antimatter come together they annihilate each other. This is not strictly true. Total conversion of matter directly to energy occurs only when an electron and a positron come together. Any other matter-antimatter combination (proton-antiproton) produces a shower of smaller particles, some or all of which may subsequently annihilate or disintegrate. When two or more electromagnetic waves of sufficient energy come together in constructive interference, a positive and negative electron pair will be produced. No other particles of matter are known to be produced directly from waves regardless of energy. As electric flux density increases, the electric permitivity (dielectric constant) increases. Increasing permitivity causes electric flux to condense resulting in further increase in flux density. When flux density reaches a very large value, this process becomes regenerative resulting in collapse of electric flux to a point charge. Such a collapse at the positive and negative peaks of constructively interfering waves produces a positive and negative electron pair. Redshift If the universe were expanding from a "big bang" then the material moving faster would now be farther away. The relative velocity between any two objects would be proportional to the distance between them. The Doppler principle causes any radiation to be stretched to longer wavelengths with increasing relative velocity. Observed radiation from distant objects would then be redshifted in proportion to the distance of the objects. But the converse is not necessarily true. Observation of redshift increasing with distance does not necessarily mean that the more distant objects are moving faster. The redshift could have another cause than the Doppler principle. Toss a pebble into a calm pond and observe closely the waves moving outward. Within the first few wavelengths, the distance between two adjacent crests increases by a small but observable amount as the waves move out. In this case, the shift is caused by an unsymmetrical medium. The wave crests do not have the same shape as the troughs. The dissymmetey is amplitude sensitive so that as the waves grow shallower the shift diminishes. Another form of nonlinearity could produce a wavelength shift with distance traveled and might not be affected by either amplitude or frequency. If the electric permitivity (dielectric constant) for free space is not constant but varies by a small factor with change of electric flux density then electromagnetic propagation in space is not linear. If we substitute a function of electric flux density for the dielectric constant in Maxwell's equations they become nonlinear. I suggest that a travelling wave solution of this nonlinear form of Maxwell's equations would contain a factor of distance (or time) in the expression for wavelength (or frequency). Continuous Spectrum (Thermal Radiation) Quantum radiation is charisteristic of specific materials and is the same for the same material at any temperature. Thermal radiation is charisteristic of temperature and is the same at the same temperature for any material. Quantum emission from structured matter cannot give rise to a continuous spectrum. Whenever an element of charge is accelerated, it radiates. A neutral particle is composed of equal numbers of positive and negative charges. As each charge radiates, when accelerated, its opposite also radiates in opposite phase. The charges being always separated by some small distance, these phases do not exactly cancel each other. There is always some residual radiation from accelerated neutral particles. Particles of matter are always in motion due to thermal agitation except at absolute zero temperature. Particles exert gravitational and electromagnetic forces on each other. As moving particles pass each other these forces cause acceleration resulting in radiation. The frequency of the radiation is a function of the acceleration. As the strength of force varies while particles approach and recede, the acceleration varies and hence the frequency sweeps through some range. The thermal motion is random and hence the swept frequency ranges are random and overlap resulting in a continuous spectrum. Dark Matter The lifetimes of visible stars are long because they are supplied with energy by nuclear fusion. Burned out stars, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars, are no longer supplied with fusion energy so their visible life is necessarily very much shorter. Indeed pulsars have been observed slowing down which shows their energetic lifetime to be almost infinitesimal in cosmic time scale. The abundance of observed burned out stars along with their short observable lives suggests there should be plenty of cold unobservable burned out stars to account for the missing mass in the observable universe. There is no need for exotics. Black Holes Time-Space is not warped by gravity. To stop the escape of light by refraction would require infinite density at a finite radius which is an absurdity. There are surely plenty of very massive cold dark objects. Quasars At the centers of galaxies where star density is great we should expect burned out stars as well as burning stars to coalesce to produce very massive objects. If Quasars depended only on the mechanical energy of collapse and the fusion energy of remaining fusionable material of coalescing stars they could not last long. At the observed brightness all the available energy in an entire galaxy would last only a few years. Observable Quasars would then be very rare and probably unknown. When the mass becomes sufficiently great the structure of nuclear material will begin to break down allowing positive and negative electrons to annihilate and release tremendous energy. This energy will thermally support the outer material thus regulating the annihilation. The result then is a Super Star of thousands to millions of solar masses which runs on annihilation instead of fusion. The Matter-Energy Cycle When electromagnetic energy is absorbed by interaction with matter, it enters a thermodynamic system. If it is radiated and reabsorbed within the same limited system then it effectively remains a part of the thermodynamics of that system. If radiated from one system and reabsorbed in another then it remains part of the thermodynamics of a larger system. If by creating new matter it is not reabsorbed, then it exits thermodynamics entirely and the energy will not again become part of any thermodynamic system until released by annihilation. Eventually all stars in all galaxies will coalesce into quasars and be annihilated. In the mean time, in the depths of space where there is little perturbation, new matter is continually being formed by the random interference of electromagnetic waves. Positive and negative electrons go into mutual orbit. Small orbital systems combine into larger orbital systems until stable atoms are achieved. All energy is eventually converted to matter and all matter is eventually converted to energy. Lawrence H. Kilgore A new experiment, with the light passing between the rims of rotating wheels in a vacuum chamber so that a portion of the path is surrounded by moving material, shows that the speed of light in vacuum is not constant in the rest frame of the observer. It is relative to surrounding matter.
![[IMAGE]](expmt.jpg)