THE INFINITE UNIVERSE (Part 2, Chapter 2-1)
© Eit Gaastra
CONTENTS of this website (bottom of this webpage)
PART 2 THE RELATIVITY PARADIGM
Part 2 (chapters 2-1 and 2-2) presents the following hypothesis: Light is related to the gravity/ether field it is in and therefore light appears to be constant to an observer.
CHAPTER 2-1: ETHER THEORY
For a real good understanding of Part 2 it may be important to have read the first 2 chapters of professor J.A. Coleman's book Relativity for the Layman10 (first published in 1954, commented on and recommended by Albert Einstein).
Important pages of Coleman's book (Penguin Books version of 1990) are: 17-20 (Bradley's stellar aberration), 30-31 (out-of-focus effect) and 39. Page 39 shows how things went wrong in the end of the 19th century: the “earth dragging the ether” was rejected because of Bradley's wrong explanation of stellar aberration in 1727. Check the Great Dilemma (end of this chapter) and you will get a good impression of these pages. I think 1727 was the year of the Historical Mistake, which led us to the (inevitable?) special theory of relativity.
[May 2003: I know now that many others have suggested the same alternative for the theory of relativity: an ether theory.
If you want to check other peoples ether ideas I recommend Ronald Hatch4, he is a specialist on satellite navigation. Or check out the work by the physics professors Marmet11 and Selleri74.
Everybody agrees on:
[November 2003: Not only the observations concerning (the speed of) light need to be explained when Einstein's theory of relativity is to be replaced, also gravity and inertia need to be explained. This is done very well by Assis2 and Ghosh3. They bring back the old discussion between Newton with his absolute space and absolute time on one side and Leibniz on the other side saying that absolute space is meaningless and that forces can not act at a distance unless conveyed by a material medium. Assis and Ghosh favour Leibniz and his successors Berkeley and Mach (where Einstein's spacetime can be seen as a follow-up of Newton's absolute space). In essence there is no difference between an extended Leibniz/Berkeley/Mach concept2,3, an ether concept4,11,74 and a pushing gravity concept5 (3-2) in the sense that all concepts work with very small particles/waves conveying forces, thus explaining observations in a simple causal crystal-clear way without needing vague concepts like absolute space or spacetime.
The Indian Institute of Technology held an international conference about Mach's principle in India from February 6 to February 8, 2002321. End November 2003]
[December 2003: So far I found 3 different ways that lead to alternatives for the theory of relativity. One is finding an explanation for the apparent constancy of light, which leads to an ether theory (Hatch4, Marmet11, Selleri74 and this chapter of this website). Another way is finding an explanation for the famous bucket experiment by Newton without using Newton's absolute space (Assis2 and Ghosh3) and a third way is finding an explanation for gravity (Edwards5 and chapter 3-2). All 3 alternatives can be joined by embracing Leibniz/Mach in favour of Newton/Einstein, thus explaining ether/inertia/gravity as a product of (all or at least much, 4-2) mass in the universe, a product caused by minute particles (or waves). (Leibniz: “There is no such thing as absolute space, forces can not act at a distance unless conveyed by a material medium.” Mach: “There is no such thing as absolute space, inertia can be caused by all the matter in the universe.”) End December 2003]
In 1800 it was known that sound waves are propagated by setting the air into vibration and it was believed that light had to have a carrier different than air. Scientists created a special word for the hypothetical carrier of light waves: ether (sometimes called aether).
The ether was the material that existed everywhere that light waves travelled, it filled the vast emptiness of the universe and was present in all substances in greater or lesser degree.
(See also chapter 3-2 where I describe gravity particles as possible building blocks of matter and how gravity particles may flow in and out of matter [May 2003: which is also thought up by others5 End May 2003].)
The idea of the existence of the ether seemed so logical that it quickly gained widespread acceptance as one of the materials in the universe and effort was directed to the detection of the ether. The search for the ether was done by trying to measure so-called ether effects: physical effects that would prove the existence and nature of the ether.
But the search for the ether ended in a big frustration called the Great Dilemma: the ether was firmly believed to exist, but all efforts to detect it failed and the reasons advanced for the failure were contradictory and insecure10.
One of those reasons was the Earth dragging the ether (with the velocity the Earth orbits the Sun) like the Earth drags air too. This reason was rejected because of the way stellar aberration was (and still is) explained10.
It was at the stage of scientific Great-Dilemma-frustration that Albert Einstein offered a way out by presenting his special theory of relativity in 1905, which had two fundamental postulates10:
This is how professor Coleman presented the postulates in 1954. Today12 the 2 postulates are presented as:
1. All inertial observers are equivalent.
2. The velocity of light is the same in all inertial systems.
Today study books about the theory of relativity ignore the historical experiments and ways of thinking that have lead to the theory of relativity. Mathematicians have taken over relativity where physicists have turned themselves away from relativity because the mathematics have become to complicated. Science locked up itself by no longer seeing how things originally initiated.
[May 2003: If you want to know where things go wrong in the “official” Einstein–relativity–books like the one by professor D'Inverno12 then take a look at the very beginning (chapters 2.7 and 2.8) of D'Inverno's book and notice that the fabrication of the k–factor with space-time figures is wrong. End May 2003]
Here comes the idea that, once I had it in my head, led to the Parts 2 and 3 of this website.
The Earth orbits the Sun with 108,000 km/hour. Where scientists thought it was perfectly normal for molecules in our atmosphere to “ride” along with the Earth at such a high speed because of gravity no one thought of photons riding along as well because of gravity.
If we take gravity as the ether then:
If we want to understand gravity as the ether we have to forget about the theory of relativity, length contraction and Lorentz transformation and look at light the way it was done in 1890.
With gravity field I mean the area in which a certain mass (like the Sun or the Earth or the Moon) dominates gravity.
[May 2003: On this website I speak of gravity fields instead of gravitational fields or gravitational potentials and I speak of gravity particles instead of gravitons. It is just that I like the sounds of “gravity fields” and “gravity particles” better. End May 2003]
A gravity field has no boundary, but its dominance has. For example: our Solar System is dominated by the Sun, therefore the area of the gravity field of the Sun is larger than the Solar System and finds its boundaries in “battles” with gravity forces from other stars. But within the Solar System certain areas are dominated by smaller masses like the Earth and the Moon.
The gravity field of the Earth is larger than the area bounded by the orbit of the Moon, but in the gravity field of the Earth the Moon has its own gravity field.
[May 2003: I know now that this is something that has to be worked out in the future: how gravity forces from different mass objects (like the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, other stars, the center of the Galaxy, other galaxies, other clusters of galaxies, etc.) exactly “battle” with each other, thus bringing photons to certain velocities, is something that needs, of course, much more consideration for a good understanding.
It remains to be seen if the dominance of the gravity field of the Earth is larger than the area bounded by the orbit of the Moon in the case of photons. A mass like a photon may have a very high density and therefore a photon may relate different to the Earth's gravity field than a mass like the Moon (I come back on this subject in 3-2).
Dr. James DeMeo's website13 about Miller's experiments points out that: the null result of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment may not be null at all. Dayton Miller did the same experiments for decades and got very different results. [September 9 2005: Or perhaps rather: he interpreted the results different. See a paper by Reginald Cahill358. End September 9 2005]
Whether gravity or another (smaller-than-gravity-particle) ether medium is needed by light to propagate itself is, of course, an open question, see for instance Van Flandern in Pushing Gravity5. (I come back on this subject in 3-1.) End May 2003]
With gravity is the ether I mean: light is related to the gravity field it is in (see Fig. 2-1-I).
When light waves (from a star) enter the Earth's gravity field (the light waves come from the gravity field of the Sun) the speeds of the light waves may adjust themselves to the (speed of the) gravity field of the Earth. (In 3-2 you can find a reason why this may happen at Fig. 3-2-VI.)
Light wave A then decelerates with 30 km/s (= the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun) in QA relative to an observer on Earth and it decelerates with 30 km/s relative to an observer on the Sun.
Light wave B accelerates with 30 km/s in QB relative to an observer on the Earth (or rather an observer in the gravity field of the Earth) and it accelerates with 30 km/s relative to an observer on the Sun (or rather an observer in the gravity field of the Sun).
Light wave C changes its direction in QC and by doing so light wave C's speed changes relative to observers on the Earth and the Sun.
Light waves entering the gravity field of the Earth (= the area within the dotted circle; in reality the gravity field of the Earth is oval, i.e. smaller towards the Sun; the area outside the dotted circle, where the light waves are drawn, is the gravity field of the Sun).
[May 2003: Whether or not light wave C too is dragged with the Earth is an open question. I think so and this needs an alternative explanation for stellar aberration, which you can find in 2-2. Other dissident scientists, like Hatch4, say: light wave C is not dragged with the Earth because we have such thing as stellar aberration.
Van Flandern5 writes that stellar aberration is entirely due to: 1. the finite speed of light, and 2. the much higher speed of gravity (like 1010 c). I have a different explanation for stellar aberration than Van Flandern, but I agree with him that the speed of gravity may be much faster than the speed of light, see 3-1. End May 2003]
Illustration of gravity is the ether by people walking over a moving plate.
Perhaps the best way to understand the adjustment of light waves is (see Fig. 2-1-II): imagine a circular horizontal plate moving slowly across the floor. You walk over the plate (after coming from the floor) and you keep walking the same tempo (first 5 km/hour relative to the floor, then 5 km/hour relative to the plate). Persons A, B and C will change speed relative to observers on the plate and on the floor the moment they step on the plate.
As soon as the light waves A, B and C (see Fig. 2-1-I) are in the gravity field of the Earth their velocity is 300,000 km/s relative to the gravity field of the Earth. Before the light waves entered the gravity field of the Earth in QA, QB and QC, their velocities were 300,000 km/s relative to the gravity field of the Sun.
Of course: the Earth turns around its axis and so things are more complicated. Also: hence all objects move on bended paths (like our Earth around the Sun and our Sun in the Galaxy) the path of a light wave is bend for someone who is not in the same gravity field as the light wave.
In December 2001, 20 months after I had thought up gravity as the ether, I discovered that someone else had an idea in 1990 that was the same in a certain respect:
J.L. Gaasenbeek14 thought up electromagnetic frames of references (EFORS) to which photons adjust themselves.
[May 2003: I know now that tens or perhaps hundreds of people thought up photons–adjusting–to–Earth ideas.
You may wonder why in January 2002 (when I opened this website) I had only found three websites with alternative ideas: the photon-adjusting-to-Earth website by Gaasenbeek14 (2-1), Gelman's website on the subject of pushing gravity15 (3-2) and the website with Reber's infinite universe16 (4-1), where there are and were so many websites (and books) by dissidents to be found on the internet.
Friends of me found the websites. In May 2002 I bought a modern computer myself and from that moment I could go on the internet myself. End May 2003]
For a good understanding of ether it may be important to know a little more about the Great Dilemma, i.e. how scientists originated the Great Dilemma in the 18th and 19th century: because of too much awe for one of the founders of modern astronomy, James Bradley.
In 1727 James Bradley, an Englishman, noticed that certain stars appeared to be in a different direction in the sky when looked at 6 months later10 (see Fig. 2-1-III).
Explanation of stellar aberration by Bradley (this picture has been taken from Coleman's book10)
Bradley called the phenomenon aberration and explained it as follows: while a light wave travels from B to C with 300,000 km/s the telescope moves from A to C with 30 km/s. In Fig. 2-1-IV this is pictured in a slightly different way.
Explanation of stellar aberration as in today astronomy and physics: the light wave travels from B to C while the telescope moves from A to C.
Scientists in the 18th and 19th century thought that the same explanation should go for a star with light shining not exactly perpendicular to the direction of the Earth's velocity, like it is shown in Fig. 2-1-V: when the light travelled from B to C with 300,000 km/s the telescope would move from A to C with 30 km/s.
Stellar aberration as it was seen in the 18th and 19th century (today it is still the same with the exception that something is added: length contraction for the horizontal component).
And, finally, there could be the situation where AC and BC are on the same line (like in Fig. 2-1-VI): again scientists reasoned that while the light wave travelled from B to C the telescope would move from A to C.
Stellar aberration as it was expected in the 18th and 19th century with the Earth moving towards a light wave (from A to C while the light goes from B to C).
If the Earth would have moved in the same direction as the light wave then it would have been as in Fig. 2-1-VII: while the light wave travelled from B to C the telescope would move from A to C.
Stellar aberration as it was expected in the 18th and 19th century with the Earth moving in the same direction as a light wave (from A to C while the light goes from B to C).
This is how scientists thought in the 18th and 19th century because they not only took Bradley's historic measurement of stellar aberration for the truth (= the fact that certain stars appear to be in a different direction in the sky when looked at 6 months later) but also Bradley's (historic) explanation of stellar aberration (= while the light travels from B to C the telescope moves from A to C as in the aforementioned figures).
Thus scientists reasoned that things were as it is shown in Fig. 2-1-VI and 2-1-VII and many efforts were made to measure this. But they didn't speak about stellar aberration in the case of figures 2-1-VI and 2-1-VII, instead of stellar aberration it was called: the out-of-focus effect.
I will now discuss the out-of-focus effect, duplicating the reasoning in the 18th and 19th century (which is the basically the same as what I explained with Fig. 2-1-VI and Fig. 2-1-VII).
This “18th and 19th century reasoning” has been taken from professor Coleman's book10:
Assume we have a telescope set up on the Earth. We focus it on a star which is in the direction the Earth is travelling in its orbit. Two of the light beams from the star have just entered the telescope in Fig. 2-1-VIIIa.
The expected out-of-focus effect (this picture has been taken from Coleman's book10).
These beams have been bent by the telescope lens so that they will come to focus at point P, which is a point in the space within the telescope.
Now since the telescope and observer are moving to the right with a velocity of 30 km/s, the observer's eyes will arrive at point P at the same time the light beams do in Fig. 2-1-VIIIb, and the observer will see the star in focus.
But now suppose the astronomer looks at the same star 6 months later and does not change the focus. The situation will be entirely different, since the Earth will be on the other side of its orbit. Whereas before it was travelling towards the star with 30 km/s, it will now be travelling away from it, with the same velocity. What was expected to happen in the 18th and 19th century is shown in Fig. 2-1-VIIIc. Since the telescope and observer are now running away from the incoming light wave, the observer's eye will no longer be at point P when the light beams arrive there, and as a consequence the observer will now see the star out of focus.
Scientists in the 18th and 19th century expected a telescope that was originally in focus on a distant star would be out of focus six months later. So this effect was looked for but was never observed.
Scientists did not measure the expected out-of-focus effect. Expectance based on Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration.
But instead of questioning Bradley's explanation and thus solving the problem they entered the era of the Great Dilemma, they couldn't grasp that the great man who discovered the aberration phenomenon could have made a mistake explaining the phenomenon, questioning Bradley would have been heretical.
Thus frustration started and became even bigger when Michelson and Morley did their famous experiment in 1881. Michelson and Morley tried to end the confusion with experiments that had light running along the direction of the Earth (in its orbit around the Sun) and light running perpendicular to the direction of the Earth10. They found that light always ran over the surface of the Earth in a way that is totally independent from the direction of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
The Michelson-Morley experiment did not show that the velocity of light is always constant relative to an observer no matter the velocity of the observer. What the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was: the velocity of light on Earth (or rather: close to the Earth) is always constant relative to the Earth.
In 1905 Albert Einstein presented a model that had incorporated Bradley's mistake too, but the model was worthwhile because the 2 basic postulates of the theory of special relativity could be used as a starting point for a number of equations and thus calculations could be made with it and by now the model is the most “proven” one we have, like the Sun-around-Earth model was before Copernicus came by.
The formula's derived from Einstein's postulates are based on velocity differences of moving objects. With gravity is the ether one also gets formula's based on velocity differences, therefore the gravity is the ether hypothesis brings the same type of formula's. Observations that are explained with the theory of relativity can be explained with gravity is the ether too, see 2-2.
[May 2003: Unlike me Assis2 and Ghosh3 and many others4, 5, 11 have derived formula's with which they can calculate all experimental facts that “prove” relativity. Experimental facts like: gravitational redshift, advance of the perihelion of Mercury, bending of light, “time delay” of light, solar oblateness, etc. End May 2003]
Einstein used the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction10 (he turned the Fitzgerald contraction into length contraction, which is a little different) to explain the contradiction between Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration and the not measured out-of-focus effect. Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration and not measuring the out-of-focus effect can not coexist, seeing that is (solving) the heart of the problem.
Part 1 The expansion redshift paradigm
Part 2 The relativity paradigm
Part 3 The quantum mechanics and Newtonian gravity paradigms
Part 4 The big bang paradigm
Part 5 The black hole paradigm
Part 6 The neutron star and degenerate gas paradigms
Part 7 The star formation and solar system formation paradigms