Shadow Wraith

I think I should post some stuff from Sansbury's page. Here's the introduction. If this gets you interested, then click on the link I gave above and then click on the web page title to get the pdf. file.


<<INTRODUCTION

One could characterize this book as being about evidence for charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei and what that implies, particularly with respect to gravity and light and the effect of gravity on light. But it can also be characterized as being about the two most damaging mistakes in the history of physics.

The first mistake was Roemer’s so called measurement of the speed of light in 1676 and the second was Kaufmann’s 1903 measurement of the apparent increase of the mass of beta electrons as their velocity increased. The experts of the times in these specific sorts of measurements, in each case, were ignored. Preference was given to the opinions of a larger number of scientists whose expertise lay elsewhere

The damage caused by these mistakes continues to undermine our basic understanding of electromagnetic radiation, gravity and the atom. Recent advances in optics and electronics provide the necessary tools to correct these mistakes and put physics back on track.

When we do so, we shall see that gravity is a form of magnetism and that magnetism is a form of electrostatic force involving charge polarization inside electrons and inside atomic nuclei. We shall see also that the delay associated with electromagnetic induction and radiation is due to the reaction time of charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei of the receiver.

Let's summarize briefly the two mistakes. First, Roemer’s measurement of the speed of light required that light be a wave front or a group of moving particles while Bradley’s and Fizeau’s light speed measurements allowed light to be interpreted as the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance. That is, Roemer's measurement required that reflected sunlight, reflected from the surfaces of Jupiter's moons, traveled as a wave front or particle for about 40 minutes using Bradley's value (or 55 minutes using Roemer's value) until it reached the earth. By which time an observer on the earth would have moved with the earth a substantial distance, frequently from under clouds, to a location with an unclouded view of the night sky. That is Roemer's measurement did not require constant exposure to the light source.

However, recent light speed measurements suggest that constant exposure is required and that the cumulative effect interpretation is closer to the facts.

It is necessary to point out here that communications with distant satellites do not confirm Roemer's measurement as they would seem to at first glance. These communications involve so many repetitions of each faint bit in each signal so that the signal can be distinguished from noise, that comunications delay from such needed repetition is typically greater than the delay from the speed of light; so that the delay implied by the speed of light is assumed but not tested in these cases. Also the control of a distant satellite is based on just previous communication with the satellite. It is the difference in time between successive communications which is important not the time between when the signal is sent from the satellite to when it is received on the earth etc..

Someone with a GPS device, complained to me recently that signals received from several satellites at slightly different times by his GPS device which could then compute his position, was a conclusive argument against the cumulative effect interpretation.

I could only reply that in these cases the time differences were of the order of milli to nanoseconds; that during such small intervals of time the cumulative effect and the moving wave/particle interpretation of light give the same results.

He offered no counterargument but he would not be persuaded.

The cumulative effect interpretation makes Einstein’s valiant effort to save Maxwell’s theory from the Michelson Morely experiment, with dilations and contractions of space-time, unnecessary. In fact if we view light as the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance Maxwell’s premise of an invisible massless field conveying electric and magnetic influences from a source to a receiver is also rendered unnecessary.

The problems of the photon theory, of the wave photon duality or of the probabilistic photon are similarly avoided. The probabilistic photon theory begs the question of what actually happens in the process of emission and reception of a photon. Also and perhaps more importantly the photon theory does not explain how a photon can move like a particle and yet not have the other characteristics essential to the definition of a particle, like its mass (as measured by a mass spectrometer etc).

One might object that a cumulative instantaneous force theory does not explain how forces can occur between objects which are not touching. The response to this is that sure, human beings must touch things to move them. But the primitive human experience includes magnetic and electrostatic attractions and repulsions between things which are not touching.

Consider the force between charged particles such as leaves of tin foil on a simple electroscope. The leaves are fastened together at the top by say an aluminum paper clip. The aluminum clip and the top part of the leaves are charged. The bottom parts of the leaves are free to move apart and they do because similarly charged particles repel each other. The formula for this repulsion is an inverse square force similar in form to Newton's gravitational force. It is not necessary here to postulate a field or the movement of photons.

In fact if we were to postulate the existence of undefined entities unnecessarily we would stand in violation of the scientific method specifically of Occam's principle of parsimony.

Hence the cumulative effect interpretation of light would, having fewer assumed entities, be preferable to the present theory of light if we could show Roemer's so called measurement to be due to other causes. We will discuss these causes in the section on light speed measurements.

The second major mistake in the history of physics has to do with the apparent increase of mass of beta electrons as they approached the speed of light. Beta electrons (electrons emitted by nuclei of radioactive atoms) of various speeds near the speed of light were observed. Their increasing responsiveness to a magnetic field as their velocity increased was seen, unexpectedly, to slack off when the velocity increased beyond a specific amount. The rate of increase of the response, as the velocity increased, unexpectedly decreased. Instead of being attributed to changes in some previously unobserved quality of magnetic responsiveness, these changes were attributed to increasing inertia or mass. The force producing the velocity somehow after some threshold point produced an increase in mass also.

Kaufmann, the one person who had most familiarity with this sort of experiment objected that the data seemed to require different values for the mass in different directions. But his objections were ignored in favor of the simpler explanation offered by Special Relativity whose success in explaining the Michelson Morely experiment was in its favor.

We will discuss Kaufmann's reasons later and show that a better explanation is that there is a change in magnetic responsiveness as the speed of a charged particle increases to the speed of light. The explanation is better because it requires fewer assumptions and is consistent with new discoveries in nuclear physics.

The increasing number of premises and circumlocutions in modern physics are due to the mistaken interpretations of Roemer’s and of Kaufmann’s measurements. When Faraday and Maxwell first imagined invisible lines of force, wheels and ball bearings to help them understand electromagnetic induction and radiation as implied by Roemer's experiment, it was not inconceivable that such things existed. But even during Maxwell’s lifetime improbable implications of such entities became difficult to ignore. For example the invisible and perhaps vacuous field medium carrying light would have to have the rigidity of iron.

Despite such problems with field theories, the apparent lack of any alternative to explain the phenomena of radiation, e.g. Roemer’s measurement, has led to even more extravagant claims for fields.

Physicists like Witten at Harvard, for example believe that latent energy and mass may exist in a complete vacuum, in massless space; that the existence of fields implies such a possiblity. Witten calls these vacuous latent mass energy things, strings and they are somewhat similar to Wheeler's quantum foam. And other physicists like Kip Thorne at Stanford extending the ideas of John Wheeler, believe there are wormholes in space-time, since space-time near a large dense star could be severely bent out of shape; also perhaps, that these wormholes may lead to otherwise invisible universes. The mathematical complexity of the justification for these speculations confounds journalists who anyway have to be more concerned with catchy phrases and startling images than with scientific clarity.

But one doesn’t have to follow a lengthy mathematical argument to see the probable fallacy in such speculations. Regarding latent energy and mass in vacous space. Our only experience of latent energy and mass is in the presence of other mass and not far from such masses, in empty space. For example, radioactive nuclei produce charged particles of lesser mass that move at high velocities. These particles are visible as they move through cloud chambers and cause condensation around them in their successive positions in the moist vapor of the cloud chamber. But sometimes, uncharged particles may be ejected and soon break up into charged particles that seem to appear out of nowhere. But such things are not observed to occur in vacuous space far from the mass of an excited atomic nucleus and so may be the breakup of an ejected particle of net zero charge.

The small Casimir attraction between uncharged metal plates and the Aharanov Bohm shift of electron beam interference effects can be attributed to charge polarization inside moving electrons and atomic nuclei and not to latent energy in the vacuum. Similarly the zero point energy of electrons etc can be attributed to the orbital system within electrons etc.

Regarding wormholes, black holes, and other implications of the General Relativity assumption that mass distorts space-time and the premise that the density of imploding mass can increase beyond specific limits as implied by quantum mechanics:

The situation is analogous to a rubber band stretched to the limit. One cannot apply indefinitely a linear formula to describe the amount of stretching produced by a given force on a rubber band. At some point the band loses its elasticity and the relation between force and stretch loses its linearity. And at some point the band breaks but the formula keeps grinding out numbers. The linear formula alone is not enough to tell when the band breaks. When extrapolations claim the existence of stranger and stranger phenomena, it is time, isn't it, to question the validity of the extrapolation and the applicability of one' s basic assumptions and theory.

Necessary information is lacking in black hole and wormhole speculations based on the predictions of equations that are observed to be valid for some values of the independent variables. Will these same formula work for unobserved values of the independent variables? Probably not, especially if the predictions are counter to our previous experience of similar things and events.

Let us look more closely, also, at the assumptions required for black holes and wormholes. Regarding General Relativity: the effect of the sun’s mass in delaying slightly the time when the eye recognizes light from a distant star can be attributed to the effect of the sun’s mass on the eye or other receiver of the radiation; that is, we do not have to assume that space time is bent by large masses as assumed by General Relativity. Similarly the precession of the perihelion of the planets may be attributed to a torque interaction between the planets and the sun as dipoles; we do not have to assume that space-time is bent. By dipoles here I mean electrostatic dipoles and the evidence of such dipoles will be shown in a later section dealing with gravity.

Regarding how much a star can collapse given the forces of repulsion between atomic nuclei and parts of atomic nuclei, the evidence of neutron stars with densities one hundred trillion times that of water or of the sun may point to even greater densities and black holes and singularities. But as we have said, when limits are approached and extrapolations are made of things happening that are unlike anything we know, it is time to reassess the boundaries of the theory that leads to such extrapolations.

The reassessment involves observing evidence for charged orbiting particles inside electrons and atomic nuclei and what that implies, particularly with regard to accepted hypotheses regarding 1)Ampere's theory of magnetism, 2) the wave,photon and probabilistic photon theories of electromagnetic radiation, 3)the quantum theory of atomic energy levels and of magnetic phenomena, 4)exchange forces and the quark theory of Gell Mann, 5) Einstein's special theory of relativity and mass energy transformations 6) Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's general relativity theory.

No one after reading the evidence and the arguments in this book can avoid the conclusion that all the forces of nature including gravity, magnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces are derived from a single force, the electrostatic force.>>

Tim Thompson

<a href="http://focus.aps.org/v8/st34.html" target="_blank">Signs of the Quark-Gluon Plasma</a>.
This article from <a href="http://focus.aps.org/" target="_blank">Physical Review Focus</a>, dated 21 December 2001, reports on results that will be published in Physical Review Letters, 14 January 2002. They call it "the first clear indicator of conventional matter dissolving into free-roaming quarks and gluons, ...".

Quarks & Gluons are an integral part of the standard model of particle physics. one does not dismiss them without also dismissing a lot of the stuff that goes with them. So I think it's not just a matter of being skeptical about quarks & gluons, but about being skeptical of the whole framework of the standard model. Skepticism is a necessary part of life, but so is understanding the ramifications of skepticism. If we do away with quarks & gluons, and the standard model, with what do we replace them?

I shall be gone for a couple of weeks and unable to respond further until then. So consider this a well meaning hit-and-run post if you like.

Ernest Sparks

"Signs of the Quark-Gluon Plasma?
21 December 2001
Researchers have seen the first indicator of an exotic state of matter but can't yet confirm its presence.
PRL (14 January 2002)"

---&gt;

"Researchers ... can't ... confirm its presence."

I can hear it now:

"They've got nothing! The emporer still has no clothes! No gluon has ever jumped out and said 'Here I am!' The fact is that the combination of quarks in each nucleus give it a net positive electric charge, so they ought to blow themselves apart, and the nucleus with them. Only the Lord and Creator of all is powerful enough to make them stick together in peace. And nobody can prove whether what they've got now is made of quarks and gluons. It's all gone in less than a flash!"

CSEs go after the extreme long ago, extreme far away and now extreme real tiny to sow distrust in those "God-blind" professors.

"Genesis tells what really happened, where, when and how, and all those tensors, spinors, superstrings, P-branes, quantum loops and quantum foam aren't needed at all, just the good brains the Lord gave you."

Oooo, I'm getting carried away!!!

I need a break from this too.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ernest Sparks ]</p>

ohwilleke

This quote:
Is really just a case of arguing false inferences and deceptive spin. Saying that we don't know whether gluons is the correct explanation of what holds atoms together is a bit like saying that Newton's laws of physics or the proton-neutron-electron model of the atom are not the correct explainations of physical phenomena . . . There may be more accurate models of gluon phenomena, just as there are in the later two cases, but, any model that is sufficiently accurate in the vast majority of cases and is relatively simple, is a good model. Gluons explain lots of cases. No other model that produces significantly different results in a large number of cases will work.

Newton's laws do just fine for all sorts of purposes. Building bridges, designing cars, hitting baseballs, shooting artillery. The simple three part model of an atom does an excellent job at explaining a whole lot of chemical reactions and forms the basis for the periodic table which has lots of value.

As long as you know not to use Newton's theories to try to explain black holes or high speed space travel, and you know not to use a simple electron-proton-neutron model to explain nuclear reaction and particle accellerator collisions, life is good.

There may be conditions in which gluon theory doesn't work well. But, we haven't found them yet, so there is no need for a new theory.

Ernest Sparks

So Creation Science Evangelizers like KH feel free to gainsay deep theoretical entities and even commandeer the territory for their use. "See? God does this!" If the pros manage somehow to come up with a direct, graphic demonstration of gluons showing themselves, standing out, then they will just burrow deeper and make another claim. "Ha! The scientists can't prove Higgs particles for, ah, Ws and Zs.
Intermediate Vector Bosons get their masses directly from the Creator. QED."