Electrostatic Gravity&Light Speed
ralph sansbury
One could characterize this argument 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.
(see also http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)
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.
Gravity,Magnetism&Light
Charge Polarization Inside Electrons & Atomic Nuclei
Click on the underlined book title to view the book as a htm file
or on GML to view as a PDF file It takes about two minutes to
download. If you do not have a PDF file reader, first download
the free Acrobat Reader program from Adobe
Other files on this web page directory are
http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Pockels2.pdf
A shutter in front of a laser is open and closed to produce
short light pulses that are
sent to a photodiode, 14 feet away, that has a shutter in front
of it which can be opened during the time of emission of a light
pulse and closed before the pulse is expected to arrive at the
photodiode.
The intensity of the light pulse on the photodiode is greater
when the photodiode shutter is opento the light pulse during the
time of emission though closed before the expected time of
arrivalthan it is when the photodiode shutter is not open until
the expected time of arrival of the light pulse.
http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Pockels Sketch.pdf
es dipole = current element
current - es dipole experiment
current - point charge experiment at MIT
current - point charge experiment 2
Bill Hobba
Ralph Sansbury wrote:
> 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.
Exactly then how do you account for the fact that mass and energy is the
source of gravity but charge is the source of electromagnetism? How also
do you account for the experimentally verifiable fact that neither magnetic
fields or electric fields exist by themselves but can, by suitable choice of
reference frame, be transformed from one to the other? Such transformations
have no effect on polarization inside anything.
Thanks
Bill
Harvey
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:vleen1f...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> One could characterize this argument ..........................
Oh dear, I'm going to regret posting this.
Ralph, for YEARS, I and others have been asking you the same question, and
never ever getting an answer.
Modern physics explains the world extremely well, & has been tested times
over in a multitude of ways. Further more it is the basis of a huge range of
engineering products, from mobile phones to GPS to CD players
to...................... WHICH WORK.
(Oh my the way GPS includes relativistic corrections..............)
If there is some discrepancy, of course we need to improve our
theories.............
BUT WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO EXPLAIN? What discrepancy do you remove? What
unexplained observation do you explain?
************NOT***************** twenty screens full of verbose ****** that
neither I no anyone else will read, just answer the question in one or two
sentences...................... (short sentences!)
> But one doesn't have to follow a lengthy mathematical argument to
> see the probable fallacy in such speculations.
Lengthy mathematical arguments? When you paste screen fulls of unread
diatribe?
Maths is the ONLY way you will ever convince ANYONE who matters, because it
is the 'language' of physics. Without it, there are no quantitative
predictions, & without quantiative predictions there is no science or
engineering. Maths is precise & unarguable, words..........are not.
Furthermore, the results have to be consistent with the ENTIRE body of
scientific knowledge, not carefully chosen sub sets.
For example, if the electron mass does not increase close to c, how come its
energy keeps increasing when its velocity clearly does not? Let alone the
multitude of devices & observations that depend on other relativistic
effects.
Oh, I give up.
harvey
Uncle Al
>
> One could characterize this argument 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.
Hey stooopid, what are the measured dipole and quadrupole moments of
an electron? Of a proton?
Hey stooopid, what are the dipole and quadrupole moments of C-12,
O-16, Si-28, and Fe-56? Does the sun that is mostly hydrogen plasma
with separated spin=1/2 electrons and spin=1/2 protons have different
gravitation/mass than the Earth that is mostly spin=0 nuclei and
paired electrons? Gee winkydinks, you are an insufferable jackass
before you make it into your next sentence.
You are an uneducated hopeless imbecile even before the starting gun
is fired.
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Tell us, stooopid ralph sansbury, do you speak for a "higher power?"
HA HA HA.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Stephen H. Westin
> "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:vleen1f...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
<snip>
> > But one doesn't have to follow a lengthy mathematical argument to
> > see the probable fallacy in such speculations.
>
> Lengthy mathematical arguments? When you paste screen fulls of unread
> diatribe?
> Maths is the ONLY way you will ever convince ANYONE who matters, because it
> is the 'language' of physics. Without it, there are no quantitative
> predictions, & without quantiative predictions there is no science or
> engineering. Maths is precise & unarguable, words..........are not.
Or, to put it another way, show us the mathematical expression of your
"theory" so it can be tested. If t ~= cd, what is the expression?
Until you can express such a relationship in a way that we can verify
it, you don't have a theory.
It's interesting that there are pages of math in your online "book"
that, as far as I can tell, don't lead anywhere.
<snip>
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Bilge
>One could characterize this argument 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.
Bilge
If you haven't run into ralph before, note that there are few if any
misconceptions you can point out that he won't supply other misconceptions
for answers, even when the misconceptions are circular with respect to
ones you've already pointed out. Ralph belives that light basically
propagates instantly, but hangs around in the detectors so that it only
appears to travel at a finite speed.
Bill Hobba
> >> 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.
> >
> >Exactly then how do you account for the fact that mass and energy is the
> >source of gravity but charge is the source of electromagnetism? How
also
> >do you account for the experimentally verifiable fact that neither
magnetic
> >fields or electric fields exist by themselves but can, by suitable
choice of
> >reference frame, be transformed from one to the other? Such
transformations
> >have no effect on polarization inside anything.
>
Bil;ge replied:
> If you haven't run into ralph before, note that there are few if any
> misconceptions you can point out that he won't supply other misconceptions
> for answers, even when the misconceptions are circular with respect to
> ones you've already pointed out. Ralph belives that light basically
> propagates instantly, but hangs around in the detectors so that it only
> appears to travel at a finite speed.
Probably have but don't recall. It is just my argumentative personality
that makes me even reply. Bad character flaw but I am too old to change
now.
Thanks
Bill
Ed Keane III
>
>
> 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.
>
Roemer noticed that the timing of Jupiter's eclipsing moons
fell behind in direct proportion to its distance from the earth,
suggesting that it took time for light to get here from there.
These types of eclipses happen more than twice a night
every night. I have watched and timed them many times
myself. I can't imagine how your theory could explain this.
> However, recent light speed measurements suggest that constant
> exposure is required and that the cumulative effect
> interpretation is closer to the facts.
>
I doubt that I would agree even if I knew what you
were talking about.
> 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).
>
I enjoy action at a distance theories and think that everything
that you claim in this paragraph could be true. Except a photon
is a particle by definition and it is hard to believe that you are
so ignorant as to not know this. I am guessing that I would
not enjoy your web page.
Bilge
>> If you haven't run into ralph before, note that there are few if any
>> misconceptions you can point out that he won't supply other misconceptions
>> for answers, even when the misconceptions are circular with respect to
>> ones you've already pointed out. Ralph belives that light basically
>> propagates instantly, but hangs around in the detectors so that it only
>> appears to travel at a finite speed.
>
>Probably have but don't recall. It is just my argumentative personality
>that makes me even reply. Bad character flaw but I am too old to change
>now.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that you not respond. I was just providing
a tip for attitude and strategy in case you hadn't encountered ralph
before, so when constructing your replies, you don't waste any time
based upon false assumptions about the receptiveness of the recipient.
Bob May
anything other that what he has thought up by himself. His time of flight
of light theory as a fatal flaw in that he didn't calculate or measure the
timing delay of his cables. Even worse is that he merely ran the test for a
few minutes and then wrote his nonsense, not even bothering to find out what
happens when things get moved about.
In other words, Ralphie IFS is a plain ol' crackpot. I'll also note that he
lives in crackpot heaven, New York City.
--
Bob May
Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less.
Works evevery time it is tried!
William H. Hathaway
> lives in crackpot heaven, New York City.
>
He moved? Shows how much attention I pay to him - I thought he
was from Joisey.
> --
> Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less.
> Works evevery time it is tried!
Whadaa' ya' all think? Will it be more or less than 18 months
before this "evevery" typo gets fixed or replaced by some other
silliness?
C'mon Bob, we know you are better than this.
Bob May
of like saying that you're from LA. LA is pretty much from Camp Pendlton on
the southwest to Santa Monica on the northwest to the upper reaches of the
San Fernando Valley on the northeast and San Bernadino on the southeast.
That is a really huge area!
--
There are more Democrats on the Calif. Special Election than Republicans!
Go count if you don't believe me!
Bob May
Geeman
> 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.
> (see also http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)
Do you say, "Yay?"
http://www.geocities.com/warpcore91/Warp_drive.html
William H. Hathaway
>
> Coming from the Left coast, NJ and NYC are pretty much the same place, kind
> of like saying that you're from LA. LA is pretty much from Camp Pendlton on
> the southwest to Santa Monica on the northwest to the upper reaches of the
> San Fernando Valley on the northeast and San Bernadino on the southeast.
> That is a really huge area!
>
> --
You are excused. Do be aware that if you ever have to comment on
right coast baseball, do not hint that the NY Yankees are pretty much
the same as the Boston Red Sox. We have two many wars running in
the US as it is. (Minor disclosure - I have lived in both NJ and
NY (State), have visited LA once, but have never been cursed with
being a fan of either of those two baseball teams mentioned above.)
Di Bright
> "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> wrote in message news:<vleen1f...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > One could characterize this argument 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.
> > (see also http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)
>
> Do you say, "Yay?"
> http://www.geocities.com/warpcore91/Warp_drive.html
This is Geeman's contribution to relativity. Well, here's mine:-
There was a young lady called Bright,
who could travel much faster than light.
She went out one day,
in a relative way,
and came back on the previous night.
Hoy!
Di Bright
Randy Poe
> And Lady Di silences ANOTHER thread.
It was dead already. Note that the guy who started it
(Sansbury) never posted a second message. Can you spell
"troll", children?
- Randy