Hi Hans, in the ladder analogy where the ladder appears stretched, wouldn't the person carrying the ladder also gain mass and in theory his perspective of the size of the ladder remain the same WRT to the size of the ladder? I imagine he would see himself carrying the same size ladder he picked up while he is moving towards and at the 90% speed threshold. Is this incorrect thinking? It's okay if it is, I have my thick, learning skin on today. Just curious and wonder what you think! Great writing BTW, always a fan of your work.
Thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad you're enjoying my story.
In the farm hand's inertial frame, the ladder is at rest, and everything else, the farmer, the barn, and the ground on which they stand, are all moving at 90% the speed of light. As far as the farm hand is concerned, he and the ladder moving with him are the same size and mass as they were when at rest.
From the farmer's perspective, the farm hand and his ladder have gained a great deal of mass, but the farmer knows better than to get in the way of his farm hand while he's working and suffer the consequence of trying to stop him.
Relativity is wrong because the speed of light is not constant as once thought. A new experiment has just been done that proves the speed of light is not constant. An EM pulse was observed to propagate with no propagation delay in the nearfield, less than one wavelength from the source. The effect is predicted by electromagnetic theory. This experiment proves that the front speed or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield, and clearly shows that the speed of light is not constant. Both the experiment and the theory supporting these results were peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM journal IRECAP, and will be published in about a month.
The results clearly violate Relativity, which is based on 2 postulates, Galilean Relativity, and that the speed of light is constant for all inertial frames. If the speed of light varies with distance from the source, then it disproves the 2nd postulate, and what remains is just Galilean Relativity, where time and space are absolute and not flexible. So if a moving body is observed with instantaneous nearfield light, then no Relativistic effects will be observed, but they will be observed if farfield speed c light is used. Since the nearfield is controlled by wavelength, which is then controlled by the frequency, then by simply changing the frequency of the source, Relativistic effects can be turned off and on. Since time and space for the moving object are real and cannot be affected by the frequency of the source observing it's motion, then one has to conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
These results affect all of modern physics.
If Relativity is wrong, so is General Relativity which is based on it. It will also affect Quantum theory, because light is fundamentally quantum. Due the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because photons are emitted by a source, their position in complelty known at the source, and consequently their momentum, and hence their velocity is completly unknown or infinite near the source. In the farfield the wavelength begins to become more clearly known, and as a consequence the speed of the photon reduces to about speed c, due to the relation that wavelength x frequency =c. But the wavelength is only exactly known at infinite distance from the source, due to Fourier Theory, so the speed of the photon is never exactly speed c.innthis universe. Quantum theory currently has many interpretations. The current accepted Copenhagen interpretation says particles are not real, and are in a superposition of states until measured. This interpretation, as well as all the other interpretations, except the pilot Wave interpretation, does not support Galilean Relativity, which assumes particles have a real position and velocities at all times. In the Pilot Wave interpretation, particles are always real and have real positions and velocities at all times, and are guided by a Pilot Wave. But it is known that the Pilot Wave interacts with the particles instantaneously. This is clearly not a problem since instantaneous interaction is compatible with Galilean Relativity. Pilot Wave theory makes a lot more physical sense than the other interpretations, needing no magical effects like particles not being real until measured, or infinite universes, as in the Many Worlds interpretation.
Lastly a better model for gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which is based on 4 Maxwell like equations, but with other constants. The theory is known to predict all observed gravitational effects for weak gravity, which is all that we observe. It also predicts instantaneous nearfield gravity and speed c farfield gravity, and can easily be quantised as the graviton, enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. For more information see my short YouTube presentation and the paper it is based on.
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Totally correct. Relativity is wrong - about 25 reasons exist why it is wrong, including the variant speed of light. Never taught of course. Kuhn's paradigms, money, power and all that.
I read the paper. It is quite interesting, but in my opinion a seriously flawed experiment. (Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof, and all that.) For example, you pass the signal directly over and in close proximity to the o-scope (which has a 1ns sample speed and 50MHz bandwidth, so that's good). Did you try running the experiment with the leads detached from the receiving capacitor (air gap)? From the o'scope? Did you try aligning the receiving capacitor 90 degrees from the transmitter? Did you try attaching the receiving leads to a bare wire as an antenna? To an insulator? To each other? You are using a 2.2MHz low-pass filter, which should seriously attenuate the ~20MHz initial signal at the receiver. I looked through the samples, and several of them show the receiver obtaining a signal *before* the transmitter. The receiver wave forms bear little resemblance to the transmitter wave forms. Theoretically speaking, if the transmission is instantaneous, wouldn't the voltage potentials on either side of the receiving capacitor maintain balance (setting aside the 1.5V induced bias)?
Just to be clear - The DS1052E has a plastic casing and vent holes all over the place. There's *nothing* to prevent it from collecting transients like from, say, a 40 kilovolt spark generator sitting less than 1 meter from it. (Look up the old US Army MOS 98K and 98J, TSCM, and TEMPEST, and you'll understand my background.)
Your research will be much better if you account for all the possibilities I mentioned above, plus a few more imaginative ones, like selectively removing just one lead, shielding the o'scope, using a 5 meter cable on one channel and then the other, changing the orientation and position of the o'scope, etc.
I have passed your comments to the physicist that did the experiment. In the meantime, I should mention this is the 2nd time this experiment has been done with the same results. this was mentioned in the paper. Any experiment can be challenged and that is why experiments must be reproduced by other researchers to verify the findings. This experiment is very easy and inexpensive to reproduce, all you need is a 50MHz scope with 1ns sampling and an inexpensive Wimshurst machine 30kV spark generator. If you have the equipment, you can do it yourself and report the results.
I have, many times, picked up nearby signals with an o'scope or spectrum analyzer using nothing more than a paperclip, or nothing at all, as an antenna. A very sensitive oscilloscope can passively pick up emanations from nearby equipment, and even its own internal wiring. You can use one to trace the electric wires in the walls of your home or office.
Even a very poor oscilloscope (which the one in the experiment is not) should be able to passively detect a 40-70 kilovolt spark generated a couple feet away. And I notice you haven't attempted to explain the anomalous fact that the receiver in the experiment detected a signal *before it was sent* at least three times. And that the received wave forms bear little resemblance to the transmitted ones.
As mentioned above, I did read the paper, and noted that it recreates, in a slightly different manner, a previous experiment. To which I reply with this quote from Cyrano Jones: "Twice nothing is still nothing."
The scope was set in one shot mode and clearly captures the received signal from the pulse event. And the the signal received is of the same form and was verified to have the same Fourier content. In addition, the experiment was repeated hundreds of time over a period of months with same results shown in the paper.
NewFile 84 and 84 (correlated). Sample rate 500MSa, which means you have 2ns resolution. Note the probes are set to 1M resistance - not ideal for short wavelength, short duration signals, but understandable given the high voltages involved with using a spark generator. Note that the probes are balanced, each with a 10x attenuator. This is good. (Many later (higher numbered) tests used a 100x attenuator on the received signal and a 10x attenuator on the transmitter, for no apparent reason.)
Now, the heart of the matter. Depending on how you look at it, the received signal arrives either 5ns before the transmitted one, or 15ns after. And in either case, the received signal bears no relation to the transmitted. (The wavelengths being 17ns and 21ns, with completely different shapes.)
One other interesting anomaly: The experiment specifies a Rigol DS1052E two channel oscilloscope. These were apparently first produced in 2008. And yet the data files say they were "last modified" December 31, 2005.
I will also add my personal opinion on the experiment: If I were trying to prove faster than light propagation, I would have used a 4 channel oscilloscope with three receivers at different distances, in addition to the antenna at the transmitter. And it would have been a better oscilloscope. And the oscilloscope would have been both shielded and farther from the spark generator. And I would have made some attempt to explain how an instantaneous signal can create a voltage differential over a few centimeters. And I might not have explained in my setup that the leads were different lengths to account for the time it took the signal to get from the spark generator to the "transmitter" antenna.
For the viewers at home: Go read the paper, and examine the supplementary materials, especially 83/84 and 92/93. And then look at all the other samples, and notice the other discrepancies appearing over the series. Notice the flat peaks on some samples (97)? That happens when the hardware is overdriven. Now notice how the receiver probe in 97 is set to 100x attenuation, while the transmitter is only set to 10x, while the display settings are both 20V per division. Ask yourself why would anyone set up an experiment to attenuate the received signal ten times more than the transmitted? (The 2.2MHz low-pass filter here acts as a 20 - 30 db attenuator at the frequencies being received in this experiment, a wise precaution given the power of the spark generator.)
Now ask yourself how, theoretically, an *instantaneous* signal would create a voltage *differential* across a 2mm gap. Because that's what this experiment was set up to measure.
But what gives the experiment even more credibility is that the effect is predicted by electromagnetic theory. Maxwells yield a wave equation that must include a source term, since light is created by a source. Solving this homogeneous wave equation and calculating the phase and group speed, show that both are instantaneous in the nearfield, and reduces to about speed c after propagating about 1 wavelength into the farfield. After that the speed continues to asymptotically reduce toward speed c, but is never exactly speed in this universe. This result has been calculated by numerous researcher arriving at the same result. See my video and the paper it was based on for details.
This is very interesting. Though I now wonder first, why does using the speed of light as c works in calculations for earth bound and near earth purposes (especially in determining orbits and movements of things within our solar system), and second, what ramifications does this have for calculations based on locations and distance of far away objects within the universe?
The effect occurs in the nearfield, much less than one wavelength. For most measurements we use light in the farfield, where speed c is a good approximation. So this nearfield result will not affect most measurements. Nevertheless it is there in the nearfield, and can be observed by designing an experiment to look for it. But keep in mind the nearfield can extend to astronaumical distances for very low frequencies. So the effect is not limited to regions necesarily close to the source. For example, the stable orbit of the planets requires the speed of gravity to be instantaneous in the nearfield, otherwise forces tangential to the orbit would result, causing the planets to accelerate and spiral away from the sun. Note that Newtons gravity formula, which is compatible with GR for weak gravitational fields, is not a function of time, neither is Coulombs law, for the electric field, or the Biot Savart law for the magnetic field, which means they are instantaneous nearfield forces.
for an exact circular orbit there would no variation in the distance from the sun to the earth, so the wavelength would be infinite. But the orbit is eliptical, with a yearly periodicity, so distance from the earth to the sun varies creating a wavelength that is probably much larger than the solar system. The planets are clearly in the nearfield where the speed of gravity is infinite, otherwise forces tangential to the orbit would result, causing the planets to spiral away from the sun, and this has not happened.
Ah, so the wavelength of a transmitted signal depends entirely upon the distance to the receiver? Or possibly the difference in distances over some arbitrary period of time?
How does your theory account for the orbit of Mercury, which is only possible if the speed of gravity is finite? Notice that Mercury is much closer to the sun than Earth is, it it MUST be in the nearfield. Or does the eccentricity of 0.2056 times its perihelion of 46 MKm give a nearfield of 9.45 MKm, but 14.39 MKm at the 70 MKm aphelion? How does the sun keep track of where Mercury is in its orbit, to determine the instantaneous nearfield distance (at any point in Mercury's orbit) based on the difference between aphelion and perihelion? Or do we need to invert the proportion, making the nearfield ALWAYS further out than any possible orbit? This is all so very confusing. It's almost like it doesn't make any logical sense.
I believe that this horse has also been thoroughly beaten now.
The wavelength is dependent on the vibrational frequency of the plannet/sun distance. The speed of the field is only instantaneous at the source and rapidly reduces toward speed c in the nearfield (less than 1 wavelength from source), and after that the field slowly reduces toward speed c, and never becomes exactly speed c. Mercury is in the hyper nearfield and there is a bigger difference in the speed at apogee than parigee, where it almost instantaneous. At apogee the finite speed of the field causes a force component tangential to the orbit, which causes the orbit to precess. Planets further away, like the earth see less difference in the speed of the field at appogee and perigee, so the effect is more uniform and rsults in no observable precessing.
Thank you for the explanation! I admit I struggle with the deeper concepts in physics, especially the quantum theoretical realm, but I find this fascinating all the same!
I was just wondering to myself while reading, with how far we have come since so much time has passed and technologies evolved since the original discovery, how much of that still holds true. Great points all around!
The entire concept of space-time, as an analogous concept to electro-magnetism, never made any sense to me. I don't mean to say that means it is wrong, just that my mind baulks at it like a stubborn donkey refusing to move.
What works better is describing not spacetime, but a potentio-kinetic field. Just like electromagnetism, it has a scalar (potential = "time") with discrete and conserved values +, 0, and -; and a vector (velocity = "space"). However, where the magnetic and electric portions subtract to zero (balance), the kinetic and potential portions subtract to one (total). This all jives with first semester physics, except that potential energy is real, and is what we perceive as time. There's more to it, of course, but those are the basics.
I'm critical of the concept, too. There are a couple of major Chekov's guns I've planted in this installment that will pay off in the next couple of posts. The TLDR is that there are some serious problems with relativity and with the conventional narrative about Einstein. I'll be going through them in the rest of the posts.
Hi Hans, in the ladder analogy where the ladder appears stretched, wouldn't the person carrying the ladder also gain mass and in theory his perspective of the size of the ladder remain the same WRT to the size of the ladder? I imagine he would see himself carrying the same size ladder he picked up while he is moving towards and at the 90% speed threshold. Is this incorrect thinking? It's okay if it is, I have my thick, learning skin on today. Just curious and wonder what you think! Great writing BTW, always a fan of your work.
Thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad you're enjoying my story.
In the farm hand's inertial frame, the ladder is at rest, and everything else, the farmer, the barn, and the ground on which they stand, are all moving at 90% the speed of light. As far as the farm hand is concerned, he and the ladder moving with him are the same size and mass as they were when at rest.
From the farmer's perspective, the farm hand and his ladder have gained a great deal of mass, but the farmer knows better than to get in the way of his farm hand while he's working and suffer the consequence of trying to stop him.
"It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving." - Scotty, USS Enterprise.
Ha! Love it. Way to make "Light" of a great example. Thanks Hans!
Relativity is wrong because the speed of light is not constant as once thought. A new experiment has just been done that proves the speed of light is not constant. An EM pulse was observed to propagate with no propagation delay in the nearfield, less than one wavelength from the source. The effect is predicted by electromagnetic theory. This experiment proves that the front speed or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield, and clearly shows that the speed of light is not constant. Both the experiment and the theory supporting these results were peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM journal IRECAP, and will be published in about a month.
The results clearly violate Relativity, which is based on 2 postulates, Galilean Relativity, and that the speed of light is constant for all inertial frames. If the speed of light varies with distance from the source, then it disproves the 2nd postulate, and what remains is just Galilean Relativity, where time and space are absolute and not flexible. So if a moving body is observed with instantaneous nearfield light, then no Relativistic effects will be observed, but they will be observed if farfield speed c light is used. Since the nearfield is controlled by wavelength, which is then controlled by the frequency, then by simply changing the frequency of the source, Relativistic effects can be turned off and on. Since time and space for the moving object are real and cannot be affected by the frequency of the source observing it's motion, then one has to conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
These results affect all of modern physics.
If Relativity is wrong, so is General Relativity which is based on it. It will also affect Quantum theory, because light is fundamentally quantum. Due the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because photons are emitted by a source, their position in complelty known at the source, and consequently their momentum, and hence their velocity is completly unknown or infinite near the source. In the farfield the wavelength begins to become more clearly known, and as a consequence the speed of the photon reduces to about speed c, due to the relation that wavelength x frequency =c. But the wavelength is only exactly known at infinite distance from the source, due to Fourier Theory, so the speed of the photon is never exactly speed c.innthis universe. Quantum theory currently has many interpretations. The current accepted Copenhagen interpretation says particles are not real, and are in a superposition of states until measured. This interpretation, as well as all the other interpretations, except the pilot Wave interpretation, does not support Galilean Relativity, which assumes particles have a real position and velocities at all times. In the Pilot Wave interpretation, particles are always real and have real positions and velocities at all times, and are guided by a Pilot Wave. But it is known that the Pilot Wave interacts with the particles instantaneously. This is clearly not a problem since instantaneous interaction is compatible with Galilean Relativity. Pilot Wave theory makes a lot more physical sense than the other interpretations, needing no magical effects like particles not being real until measured, or infinite universes, as in the Many Worlds interpretation.
Lastly a better model for gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which is based on 4 Maxwell like equations, but with other constants. The theory is known to predict all observed gravitational effects for weak gravity, which is all that we observe. It also predicts instantaneous nearfield gravity and speed c farfield gravity, and can easily be quantised as the graviton, enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. For more information see my short YouTube presentation and the paper it is based on.
*YouTube presentation of above arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0s
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Totally correct. Relativity is wrong - about 25 reasons exist why it is wrong, including the variant speed of light. Never taught of course. Kuhn's paradigms, money, power and all that.
You’re going to enjoy my next post on how the relativity sausage was made. Judging from your writing, you’re probably already aware of most of it.
I read the paper. It is quite interesting, but in my opinion a seriously flawed experiment. (Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof, and all that.) For example, you pass the signal directly over and in close proximity to the o-scope (which has a 1ns sample speed and 50MHz bandwidth, so that's good). Did you try running the experiment with the leads detached from the receiving capacitor (air gap)? From the o'scope? Did you try aligning the receiving capacitor 90 degrees from the transmitter? Did you try attaching the receiving leads to a bare wire as an antenna? To an insulator? To each other? You are using a 2.2MHz low-pass filter, which should seriously attenuate the ~20MHz initial signal at the receiver. I looked through the samples, and several of them show the receiver obtaining a signal *before* the transmitter. The receiver wave forms bear little resemblance to the transmitter wave forms. Theoretically speaking, if the transmission is instantaneous, wouldn't the voltage potentials on either side of the receiving capacitor maintain balance (setting aside the 1.5V induced bias)?
Just to be clear - The DS1052E has a plastic casing and vent holes all over the place. There's *nothing* to prevent it from collecting transients like from, say, a 40 kilovolt spark generator sitting less than 1 meter from it. (Look up the old US Army MOS 98K and 98J, TSCM, and TEMPEST, and you'll understand my background.)
Your research will be much better if you account for all the possibilities I mentioned above, plus a few more imaginative ones, like selectively removing just one lead, shielding the o'scope, using a 5 meter cable on one channel and then the other, changing the orientation and position of the o'scope, etc.
I have passed your comments to the physicist that did the experiment. In the meantime, I should mention this is the 2nd time this experiment has been done with the same results. this was mentioned in the paper. Any experiment can be challenged and that is why experiments must be reproduced by other researchers to verify the findings. This experiment is very easy and inexpensive to reproduce, all you need is a 50MHz scope with 1ns sampling and an inexpensive Wimshurst machine 30kV spark generator. If you have the equipment, you can do it yourself and report the results.
I have, many times, picked up nearby signals with an o'scope or spectrum analyzer using nothing more than a paperclip, or nothing at all, as an antenna. A very sensitive oscilloscope can passively pick up emanations from nearby equipment, and even its own internal wiring. You can use one to trace the electric wires in the walls of your home or office.
Even a very poor oscilloscope (which the one in the experiment is not) should be able to passively detect a 40-70 kilovolt spark generated a couple feet away. And I notice you haven't attempted to explain the anomalous fact that the receiver in the experiment detected a signal *before it was sent* at least three times. And that the received wave forms bear little resemblance to the transmitted ones.
As mentioned above, I did read the paper, and noted that it recreates, in a slightly different manner, a previous experiment. To which I reply with this quote from Cyrano Jones: "Twice nothing is still nothing."
The scope was set in one shot mode and clearly captures the received signal from the pulse event. And the the signal received is of the same form and was verified to have the same Fourier content. In addition, the experiment was repeated hundreds of time over a period of months with same results shown in the paper.
A single counterexample proves to refute an assertion. From your own study:
Measurement samples and OSC settings
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wgcSqhSQT53MWzPsejpzCNxcqQnD9IqM
NewFile 84 and 84 (correlated). Sample rate 500MSa, which means you have 2ns resolution. Note the probes are set to 1M resistance - not ideal for short wavelength, short duration signals, but understandable given the high voltages involved with using a spark generator. Note that the probes are balanced, each with a 10x attenuator. This is good. (Many later (higher numbered) tests used a 100x attenuator on the received signal and a 10x attenuator on the transmitter, for no apparent reason.)
Now, the heart of the matter. Depending on how you look at it, the received signal arrives either 5ns before the transmitted one, or 15ns after. And in either case, the received signal bears no relation to the transmitted. (The wavelengths being 17ns and 21ns, with completely different shapes.)
One other interesting anomaly: The experiment specifies a Rigol DS1052E two channel oscilloscope. These were apparently first produced in 2008. And yet the data files say they were "last modified" December 31, 2005.
I will also add my personal opinion on the experiment: If I were trying to prove faster than light propagation, I would have used a 4 channel oscilloscope with three receivers at different distances, in addition to the antenna at the transmitter. And it would have been a better oscilloscope. And the oscilloscope would have been both shielded and farther from the spark generator. And I would have made some attempt to explain how an instantaneous signal can create a voltage differential over a few centimeters. And I might not have explained in my setup that the leads were different lengths to account for the time it took the signal to get from the spark generator to the "transmitter" antenna.
For the viewers at home: Go read the paper, and examine the supplementary materials, especially 83/84 and 92/93. And then look at all the other samples, and notice the other discrepancies appearing over the series. Notice the flat peaks on some samples (97)? That happens when the hardware is overdriven. Now notice how the receiver probe in 97 is set to 100x attenuation, while the transmitter is only set to 10x, while the display settings are both 20V per division. Ask yourself why would anyone set up an experiment to attenuate the received signal ten times more than the transmitted? (The 2.2MHz low-pass filter here acts as a 20 - 30 db attenuator at the frequencies being received in this experiment, a wise precaution given the power of the spark generator.)
Now ask yourself how, theoretically, an *instantaneous* signal would create a voltage *differential* across a 2mm gap. Because that's what this experiment was set up to measure.
I believe this horse has been beaten enough now.
But what gives the experiment even more credibility is that the effect is predicted by electromagnetic theory. Maxwells yield a wave equation that must include a source term, since light is created by a source. Solving this homogeneous wave equation and calculating the phase and group speed, show that both are instantaneous in the nearfield, and reduces to about speed c after propagating about 1 wavelength into the farfield. After that the speed continues to asymptotically reduce toward speed c, but is never exactly speed in this universe. This result has been calculated by numerous researcher arriving at the same result. See my video and the paper it was based on for details.
This is very interesting. Though I now wonder first, why does using the speed of light as c works in calculations for earth bound and near earth purposes (especially in determining orbits and movements of things within our solar system), and second, what ramifications does this have for calculations based on locations and distance of far away objects within the universe?
The effect occurs in the nearfield, much less than one wavelength. For most measurements we use light in the farfield, where speed c is a good approximation. So this nearfield result will not affect most measurements. Nevertheless it is there in the nearfield, and can be observed by designing an experiment to look for it. But keep in mind the nearfield can extend to astronaumical distances for very low frequencies. So the effect is not limited to regions necesarily close to the source. For example, the stable orbit of the planets requires the speed of gravity to be instantaneous in the nearfield, otherwise forces tangential to the orbit would result, causing the planets to accelerate and spiral away from the sun. Note that Newtons gravity formula, which is compatible with GR for weak gravitational fields, is not a function of time, neither is Coulombs law, for the electric field, or the Biot Savart law for the magnetic field, which means they are instantaneous nearfield forces.
Curious - what would be the wavelength of the sun? Of Earth? Is there a simple formula for this? It would be fun to compute for various objects.
for an exact circular orbit there would no variation in the distance from the sun to the earth, so the wavelength would be infinite. But the orbit is eliptical, with a yearly periodicity, so distance from the earth to the sun varies creating a wavelength that is probably much larger than the solar system. The planets are clearly in the nearfield where the speed of gravity is infinite, otherwise forces tangential to the orbit would result, causing the planets to spiral away from the sun, and this has not happened.
Ah, so the wavelength of a transmitted signal depends entirely upon the distance to the receiver? Or possibly the difference in distances over some arbitrary period of time?
How does your theory account for the orbit of Mercury, which is only possible if the speed of gravity is finite? Notice that Mercury is much closer to the sun than Earth is, it it MUST be in the nearfield. Or does the eccentricity of 0.2056 times its perihelion of 46 MKm give a nearfield of 9.45 MKm, but 14.39 MKm at the 70 MKm aphelion? How does the sun keep track of where Mercury is in its orbit, to determine the instantaneous nearfield distance (at any point in Mercury's orbit) based on the difference between aphelion and perihelion? Or do we need to invert the proportion, making the nearfield ALWAYS further out than any possible orbit? This is all so very confusing. It's almost like it doesn't make any logical sense.
I believe that this horse has also been thoroughly beaten now.
The wavelength is dependent on the vibrational frequency of the plannet/sun distance. The speed of the field is only instantaneous at the source and rapidly reduces toward speed c in the nearfield (less than 1 wavelength from source), and after that the field slowly reduces toward speed c, and never becomes exactly speed c. Mercury is in the hyper nearfield and there is a bigger difference in the speed at apogee than parigee, where it almost instantaneous. At apogee the finite speed of the field causes a force component tangential to the orbit, which causes the orbit to precess. Planets further away, like the earth see less difference in the speed of the field at appogee and perigee, so the effect is more uniform and rsults in no observable precessing.
Thank you for the explanation! I admit I struggle with the deeper concepts in physics, especially the quantum theoretical realm, but I find this fascinating all the same!
I was just wondering to myself while reading, with how far we have come since so much time has passed and technologies evolved since the original discovery, how much of that still holds true. Great points all around!
The entire concept of space-time, as an analogous concept to electro-magnetism, never made any sense to me. I don't mean to say that means it is wrong, just that my mind baulks at it like a stubborn donkey refusing to move.
What works better is describing not spacetime, but a potentio-kinetic field. Just like electromagnetism, it has a scalar (potential = "time") with discrete and conserved values +, 0, and -; and a vector (velocity = "space"). However, where the magnetic and electric portions subtract to zero (balance), the kinetic and potential portions subtract to one (total). This all jives with first semester physics, except that potential energy is real, and is what we perceive as time. There's more to it, of course, but those are the basics.
I'm critical of the concept, too. There are a couple of major Chekov's guns I've planted in this installment that will pay off in the next couple of posts. The TLDR is that there are some serious problems with relativity and with the conventional narrative about Einstein. I'll be going through them in the rest of the posts.