Michael Harney: WSM Physics: Cosmology

[haselhurst]

Michael Harney: Wave Structure of Matter: Cosmology

Hi Mike,
I have pasted in (below) your last two emails sent to me at my yahoo mail address. Please reply here in future. Thanks.
I have added a few comments below, but it would greatly help me if you could read the Einstein relativity article;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm

and also the Cosmology page is probably relevant to this;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

and tell me what you;
i)agree with,
ii) disagree with,
iii) don't understand.

My further comments below, but they are brief as i don't entirely understand your work yet (I am a simple philosopher! not a maths physicist). But it is very interesting and intelligent, i will continue to study it.
Geoff

---------------------

Mike Harney (mharney@signaldisplay.com) wrote:

Hello Geoff,

I am thoroughly impressed with your concepts on spherical matter waves. I am going to read more papers from your site but from the beginning of what I have read I know you are on the right track.

From my own research I have found a resurgent interest in matter wave theory from several scientists. I was first shown an equation by a Physics professor in 1987 that stuck with me throughout the years and finally forced me to come to terms with Mach's principle which appears to be correct and very simple (back to Occam's razor on this one).

Geoff - Do you agree with Milo Wolff's deduction of this in Cosmology / Equation of the Cosmos? It is very simple (as my dots on balloon argument shows).

The equation is the one I published in the attached article (equation 1) from a couple of years ago - I never could pin down the source of it but I finally found it attributed to Vasily L. Yanchin in Gravitation and Quantum Mechanics (Editorial-Publishing Center of Novosibirsk State University, 2000. p. 10.).

I have been searching for matter wave theorists like yourself that have found derivations of Einstein's SRT/GRT from matter wave theory. I currently have a site that I update occasionally

http://www.signaldisplay.com/debroglie.html

that discusses some derivations of GRT from matter-wave theory such as a result similar to that of Schwarzschild that shows the same time dilation from a gravitational source.

I first came across this last September and my first assumptions that the spacetime fabric was composed of primordial singularities (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Comments/c6-5.pdf)
which produces an exact result to the Schwarzschild solution was soon replaced by the theory of a spacetime fabric that just has a fixed mass/unit density based on it's own gravitational compression from Mach's principle currently described in;

http://www.signaldisplay.com/debroglie.html

which produces a numerically equal result as the Schwarzschild solution without the singularity of a blackhole being required.

Geoff - I am wary of 'black holes' and whether they exist, as I am wary of mathematics being applied beyond its empirical limits. Are you suggesting a modified version of 'black holes'?

The singularity solution of the latest theory produces only one Schwarzschild radius - that of the Universe. I believe that as a result, matter does not warp space time but is the result of warped space time (which energy does warp - through motion or stretches in the fabric from other mass sources).

Geoff - My understanding of 'curved space-time', is that space with more matter has a higher wave density, and the velocity of waves is slower (property of space), thus causing light to curve past the sun, wave centers to naturally move towards one another due to slower in-wave velocity. This is explained in Einstein relativity page.

I have recently seen a paper by some theorists (this is an older paper and JP Vigier was one of the coauthors) about building a matter-wave sagnac interferometer. I believe this and other experimental proposals will lead us to verification of matter-wave concepts in SRT/GRT.

Geoff - We desperately need experimental verification, so that would be good!!

I am finding WSM more interesting as I read more about it. In particular, you mention

"By realising that Matter is formed from Spherical Standing Waves in Space (rather than discrete particles & forces in Space-Time) we connect the many things (Matter, Time and Forces), back to One thing, Space and its Wave Motions. It is this wave motion of Space that causes matter's activity and the phenomena of Time."

which is exactly what I have discovered as well.
The wave motion of space governs mass interactions (what we call gravity) and is just simply space-fabric interactions or waves interacting.

Geoff - As above, I see mass as due to changes in wave velocity relative to wave density of space (higher density, slower waves). Perhaps this is the same as space being more compressed or stressed.

Time is a relative concept that relates to how fast your local rest-energy waves (standing matter waves based on rest-energy of your mass) are moving relative to the standing waves produced by the overall mass of the universe. This defines time dilation and other effects.

Geoff - I think we have same idea of time, as due to finite wave velocity, and that matter (electrons) act as universal spherical resonators / cosmic clocks.

Black holes are artifacts of Einstein's invalid assumptions that mass warps space instead of the other way around, warped space (specifically standing wave amplitudes) is what defines mass.

Geoff - I think that Wave Amplitude interactions cause charge (wave density cause mass). Higher wave Amplitude waves travel more quickly. This seems to explain why electrons repel, electron / positrons (opposite phase) attract. Search website for more on this. Your thoughts!?

Once this approach is taken, the experimental results of time dilation and gravitational redshift are validated with simple formulas that do not require the approximation to non-linear differential equations. These simple formulas do not have singularities such as those in the Schwarzschild solution, and their simplicity is based on mass being defined as a scalar, instead of a vector quantity.

Geoff - I think this is correct, wave density is a scalar quantity, thus gravity (slower wave velocity in higher wave density space) is scalar.

Again, your writings resonate with what I have been thinking and seeing - everything in physics can still be analyzed with Newtonian mechanics and wave motion.

Geoff - Not sure about Newtonian mechanics (being founded on 'particles' acting instantly across universe). But I think i know what you mean in terms of basic equations (rather than 'probability waves, vector e-m waves, etc.).

A little background on the papers I mentioned - the comment in Journal of Theoretics in Oct. 2004 was my first attempt to bring this elastic space concept in with GRT, and I assumed space-fabric was composed of primordial black holes and that this could be analyzed successfully in one dimension because of the scalar nature of mass.

I was able to reproduce the Schwarzschild solution exactly with this approach but part of this I believe was due to the fact that I started with the Schwarzschild radius in my derivation.

Geoff - I think in philosophy we call this 'begging the question'. Good to be aware of this fallacy.

In my latest update on
www.signaldisplay.com/debroglie.html,
I changed this derivation so that the composition of space-fabric is general with no assumptions about it's composition made, just a value for mass/unit-length given based on the diameter of the known universe and it's known mass.

Geoff - What you call mass I think refers to what we call wave density of space. Again, see Cosmology / equation of the Cosmos.

The equation for velocity of waves in space-fabric produces the same values numerically as before, and the time-dilation results are numerically the same as the Schwarzschild solution except the singularity doesn't exist (no blackholes). What's more, this approach allowed me to derive Hubble's law and Hubble's constant comes out as sqr-root(K/M) where K is the universal elastic constant and M is the mass of the universe.
The elegance of this solution is amazing, after thinking about the solution to a mass-spring system and the vibration frequency that results.

Geoff - If WSM is correct, then ultimately the maths solutions should be pretty simple / amazing. So this is encouraging!

The single-axis, scalar analysis made me uneasy at first, as I was trained like everybody else to analyze the situation in three dimensions. I tried to incorporate this spring-concept in three dimensions but it was completely unsuccessful and I realized that the equations would only be valid in one axis as mass is a scalar and the previous analysis I had done with standing waves in a two-dimensional plane, first part of www.signaldisplay.com/debroglie.html
now fits in well with the whole theory.

The two-dimensional plane defines the matter-wave propagation and the third axis perpendicular to the matter-wave plane is the axis of acceleration of the mass. This also relieves a worry I have had about the matter-waves in a two-dimensional plane because this too only produces the correct values (photon mass as predicted by Vigier, mass of Universe for highest quantum numbers, etc.) if the Schrodinger solution is evaluated in two dimensions. My worry about this can be seen in where I first came across this Schrodinger solution for rest-energy in equation 10b of (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-6/sh1.pdf) where I basically admit I don't have an explanation at the time why the solution works for only two dimensions.

Geoff - This is beyond me. Sorry. But I will try to understand over time.

I was also shocked to realize later that I had treated the Schrodinger solution exactly the way he wanted it to be treated - as a real physical wave and not a probability distribution. You mention this as well on your site under the QM section. I do believe this is part of the problematic stance society has taken - to accept fuzzy interpretations as solutions instead of concise values.

Geoff - Yes, it was an unfortunate aspect of the Wave Structure of Matter that the square of the Schrodinger waves gives a probability function for where you find the Wave Center 'particle' (Max Born).

This follows with the development of modern mathematics in the 20th century - Dirac functions and other physically questionable constructs that may suit a mathematician in an idealistic development but will do little to help the physicist understand nature.

Geoff - Yes, mathematics can be very deceptive, even though it be logically true. Einstein writes well on this (and he was ultimately deceived by his maths logic too - in using continuous spherical fields in space-time, rather spherical waves in continuous space).

In any case, I do enjoy the work of yourself and the WSM group and I look forward to learning more about it. Thanks again, Mike.

Geoff - I enjoy your intelligence and enthusiasm. Wish i could better understand your work and help more! But I will keep reading it over time (very busy for a while still!)

Look forward to your further thoughts.
Geoff

[mharney]

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for opening up this discussion. I am still in the process of reading all the details of WSM but I have scanned the fundamental sections on the cosmological equation (relates size of particle to size of Universe) and the fundamentals of spherical wave interactions. I don't have all the answers on this as I am still learning WSM but here are some of my answers:

Geoff - Do you agree with Milo Wolff's deduction of this in Cosmology / Equation of the Cosmos? It is very simple (as my dots on balloon argument shows).

Mike - Milo Wolff's deduction assumptions about spherical wave matter interactions seem correct. I did follow the cosmological equation and one of my questions would be - how does one assume only electrons for all the mass of our spherical-mass universe? If this is just a close approximation to fundamental particles I can understand, and the geometry does agree so I can see validation for the theory based on theoretical calculations. The assumptions about spherical waves forming a pattern on the outer surface of the known Hubble sphere and relating from this the 1/r^2 law and interactions of the waves to create space-density is completely logical as far as I can see. I am interested in the aspect of how Mach's principle applies - just like the principle of old instead of fields we have interacting waves. This is how it must be because we know that fields will act over infinite distance by definition and waves must have a common area of interaction to define a mass. This eliminates Einstein's fear of infinite gravitational fields. I believe this is totally correct - no way to eliminate matter from beyond the known Hubble sphere but at the same time it must not present a problem of infinite gravity because this doesn't exist. Of course, one could argue that the pull from an infinitely receding mass source grows infinitely smaller with distance, but even the center of such a system would experience enormous gradients when perturbed from it's inertial frame.

Geoff - I am wary of 'black holes' and whether they exist, as I am wary of mathematics being applied beyond its empirical limits. Are you suggesting a modified version of 'black holes'?

Mike - I have always been suspicious of singularities but know with an understanding of matter-wave interaction, black holes just look plain silly. The formula I produced based on compressible space-fabric suggests that the point where time is the absolute reference inside our Hubble sphere is at the radius of our Hubble sphere - and that is the only way I would remotely define it as a black hole. The easiest way I can define it is from a Newtonian perspective even though this perspective should replace fields with wave interaction: the known Hubble sphere is a black hole in the sense that light from our Hubble sphere cannot escape beyond it . I infer this by taking the known mass of the universe (10^53 Kg) , the known radius (10^26 meters) and finding the escape velocity of the universe from work-energy relation which produces a velocity of very closely the speed of light. That is the only sense I defined our Hubble sphere as a blackhole, and it is different for spherical waves interacting from the outside because of the fact that the wave interaction only exists inside the sphere. Still need to think more about this and how wave interaction affects the outside, but we know already that wave interaction can explain and produce the same formulas from Newtonian gravity, so I don't think this is a problem for WSM.

Geoff - My understanding of 'curved space-time', is that space with more matter has a higher wave density, and the velocity of waves is slower (property of space), thus causing light to curve past the sun, wave centers to naturally move towards one another due to slower in-wave velocity. This is explained in Einstein relativity page.

Mike - My explanation of this is as follows. Wave density is greater in areas of higher mass because compressed space is what creates rest-energy (mc^2) of a particle and the more space is compressed the higher the rest-mass (and rest energy, mc^2). Therefore, higher wave density means higher space-fabric compression, and higher mass. From a less intuitive viewpoint, but one that seems mathematically valid as I have shown, the energy eigenvalues from Schrodinger's solution for a an area of space shows that the wavelength goes down for higher rest-energy that resides in that space. Thus for photon the wavelength is Hubble radius, and for larger mass the wavelength is very small, which also corresponds to higher wave density (must be smaller wavelength for wave-number density to go up). So in short - I agree with this principle of wave density being proportional to rest-mass. Time dilation is a result of slower waves relative to a background reference of wave velocity (which I define as wave velocity equal to speed of light).

Geoff - We desperately need experimental verification, so that would be good!!

Mike - Thanks to the chaotic state of physics with things like zero point energy which has enough energy to boil all of Earth's oceans in a cubic-centimeter (which is really quite naturally, just wave interactions that also describe gravitational potentials),, I think scientists outside of route academic circles (such as in NASA , DOE, and private entities) are willing to try new experiments to determine what's really happening. Eventually we will get real answers and technology to back it up (which is hard to explain away with experimental error). Case in point is matter-wave sagnacs used to possibly image molecules and atoms more accurately.

Geoff - As above, I see mass as due to changes in wave velocity relative to wave density of space (higher density, slower waves). Perhaps this is the same as space being more compressed or stressed.

Mike - I believe this is exactly true as described above in my second to last answer. I think higher wave density results from compressing the fabric - the Schrodinger solution is also available as I mentioned but I believe the fabric compression is the same thing, just more intuitive. It also may be the other way around - my compression model may be a simple wave interaction model. It's hard to tell - I just know the spring constant equation works so well it's hard not to think of it as compression.

Geoff - I think we have same idea of time, as due to finite wave velocity, and that matter (electrons) act as universal spherical resonators / cosmic clocks.

Mike - I like this and the more I think about it, it solves some problems I have been having relating the compression theory with electromagnetic fields. I did find that in order to equate the electric potential (from the classical standpoint) equal to the compression in space-fabric, I had to introduce a numerical constant equal to Avogadro's number multiplied by the electron charge. Dirac also indicates that the electron mass is of great importance in his large Number Hypothesis.

Geoff - I think that Wave Amplitude interactions cause charge (wave density cause mass). Higher wave Amplitude waves travel more quickly. This seems to explain why electrons repel, electron / positrons (opposite phase) attract. Search website for more on this. Your thoughts!?

Mike - I need to think about this more - the charge aspect of compression has been real puzzling to me but this sounds closer to the solution. I like the aspect of charge being described by wave interaction - I know it happens but I have to visualize this some more. I will ponder this and read more. One thing is for sure - higher wave amplitudes travel more quickly. I believe this because the equation I found for wave velocity in a compressible, single-axis medium is velocity = sqroot (Force/mass-unit length). Higher amplitude waves in compression theory correspond to higher compression force, which as the equation shows, produces a higher velocity.

Geoff - Not sure about Newtonian mechanics (being founded on 'particles' acting instantly across universe). But I think i know what you mean in terms of basic equations (rather than 'probability waves, vector e-m waves, etc.).

Mike - my reference to Newtonian mechanics is only in reference to wave mechanics. Fields and potentials are out - very difficult to handle intuitively and how does one deal with the singularity of the potential? It's much better to analyze this as classical wave mechanics.

Geoff - I think in philosophy we call this 'begging the question'. Good to be aware of this fallacy.

Mike - good point!! I believe we are really begging the question in today's standard model.

Geoff - If WSM is correct, then ultimately the maths solutions should be pretty simple / amazing. So this is encouraging!

Mike - the fact that the cosmological equation is very simple and straightforward coupled with accurate results leads me to believe it is correct as well.

Geoff - I enjoy your intelligence and enthusiasm. Wish i could better understand your work and help more! But I will keep reading it over time (very busy for a while still!)

Look forward to your further thoughts.
Geoff

Mike - Likewise, I enjoy your thoughts and comments. You definitely have the heart of a philosopher and I look forward to hearing more about your ideas and those of other WSM theorists.. I will read more too and answer on some more of these questions in the next little while.

Take care and thanks again!

Mike

[haselhurst]

Bloody Fantastic

Hi Mike,
I am so excited by your reply (yes! logical philosophers still get excited by new knowledge!). Absolutely bloody fantastic. Very rare!

I am away next week - first holiday for some time, Karene and I are going exploring along the SW coast of Australia which is very wild and beautiful (we live very isolated, 500 meters from a lovely long sandy beach below Conspicuous Cliff, with big granite outcrops where we go fishing).

I will print out your articles and take them with me - i find i need to read things a number of times and think about them, slowly my mind adjusts to new knowledge / slightly different language.

I hope that you will do the same with some of our work on WSM and also check out Milo Wolff's stuff which is closer to your mathematical analysis.

You should also read Chris Hawkings paper that deduces de Broglie wavelength and relativistic mass increase with relative motion due to Doppler shifts.

This is important as they are slightly different and I do not completely understand why (though an obvious difference is that Chris works with e-m vector waves, Milo with scalar waves of QT). I think / hope you will be able to explain it to me better. I am pretty logical, so though i am ignorant of much maths, i can follow the logic of the language over time as i better understand it.

Do you have a web page up that that explains a bit about yourself, your education and knowledge, the work you do, how you came to your ideas on the Wave Structure of Matter. I would like to better understand you / your background and motives!

Will reply to your above post in another 10 days, when my mind has adjusted more to all this. But it's great!
Thanks for such a detailed and careful reply - just perfect.
Geoff

PS - Links to relevant sites / pages referred to above;

http://www.quantummatter.com/ (Milo Wolff)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/chris-hawkings-wave-theory.htm

http://www.egtphysics.net/Index.htm
(Ron Hatch - ether gauge theory. Not sure about all his ideas, as he seems to work from tension of space, and no In waves, but smart, has shown that Einstein's relativity can be deduced from Lorentz and absolute Space. Should make more sense to you!)


PPS - You wrote;
"One thing is for sure - higher wave amplitudes travel more quickly. I believe this because the equation I found for wave velocity in a compressible, single-axis medium is velocity = sqroot (Force/mass-unit length). Higher amplitude waves in compression theory correspond to higher compression force, which as the equation shows, produces a higher velocity."

I have had this idea in mind for 7 years now, always based on logic that all forces are caused by a change in velocity of Spherical In-Waves (from one direction, as they interact with other matter). This just seems to me to be necessary to explain how the wave centers (particles) can move around and interact with other matter. When you think about it you realise that it is necessary that higher wave amplitude waves must travel faster to explain charge.
To have you write your comments above, and show this is mathematically true - well I am just stunned. Do you realise how profound this is. The source of all forces, all matter interactions, Newton's law of Inertia, etc. Just mind blowing!

---------------
A few nice relevant quotes;

To begin with our knowledge grows in spots. ..What you first gain, ... is probably a small amount of new information, a few new definitions, or distinctions, or points of view. But while these special ideas are being added, the rest of your knowledge stands still, and only gradually will you line up your previous opinions with the novelties I am trying to instill, and to modify to some slight degree their mass. ..Your mind in such processes is strained, and sometimes painfully so, between its older beliefs and the novelties which experience brings along. (William James, Pragmatism)



The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.
(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)




Although as a rule the absurd culminates, and it seems impossible for the voice of the individual ever to penetrate through the chorus of foolers and fooled, still there is left to the genuine works of all times a quite peculiar, silent, slow, and powerful influence; and as if by a miracle, we see them rise at last out of the turmoil like a balloon that floats up out of the thick atmosphere of this globe into purer regions. Having once arrived there, it remains at rest, and no one can any longer draw it down again. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what no body yet has thought about that which everyone sees. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

But life is short, and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

[haselhurst]

Calculations for Non Expanding Universe

Hi Mike,
I just read your Journal of Theoretics article. It is based on an expanding universe. I am quite certain that the Big Bang theory is wrong (I do not write that lightly) and thus your calculations are not valid (there is no expansion). However, there are elements in your article that are very interesting, as you relate the photon to the size of the universe. I think this is correct, because matter is the size of the universe (all other matter creates in-waves for each wave center). So light, as resonant coupling between two bound electrons in atoms / molecules, is really the resonant coupling of two spherical standing waves the size of the universe.

This is why I think there is a redshift with distance, as the further apart matter is, then it shares less of a common finite spherical universe (the two sphere's overlap less) thus less wave interactions, thus less energy exchange which we see as a redshift with distance.
Does this make sense to you!?

I would love to see you re-do the calculations based upon the WSM Cosmology and a non expanding finite spherical universe within an infinite space.

Hope I am not too blunt! Look forward to your further thoughts.
Geoff

------------------------

Journal of Theoretics
Volume 5-6, Dec 2003/Jan 2004

Derivation of Hubble’s Constant and the Quantization of the Gravitational Field

Michael Harney mharney@signaldisplay.com

Abstract:
It is shown from Mach’s principle and matter-wave theory that the speed of light is decreasing at a rate equal to Hubble’s constant and from the matter-wave derivation a prediction is made for the mass of the photon as 5.81 x 10-69 kg. The mass-transformation equations of special relativity are also shown to be a result of Mach’s principle. A formula for the quantization of the gravitational field is found by setting both matter wave and potential energy equations equal to each other through Hubble’s constant.
Keywords: Hubble’s constant, photon, Mach’s principle, special relativity.


Summary:
The derivation of Hubble’s constant has been shown by using concepts of Mach’s Principle and Special Relativity (gravitational potential energy = rest-mass energy), and from Quantum Mechanics (matter-wavelength formula) and by assuming in the derivation a change in the speed of light as the radius of the Universe increases. A very close match to the measured Hubble’s constant was found in both cases and a decay rate for the speed of light was determined to be the same by both cases. By setting the equations for Hubble’s constant in both energy and matter-wave forms equal to each other, a relationship between gravitational potential energy and Planck’s constant is found, resulting in the quantization of the gravitational field.
It is hoped that the developments in this paper will inspire investigations into the speed of light decay and measurement of gravitational potential energy at quantized levels. The predicted mass of the photon as suggested herein is also cause for more investigation, as current upper limits

[mharney]

Hi Geoff,

Wow - it sounds like you live in a great place! I hope you and Karene have a great vacation - catch some fish for me! Australia is a choice land for sure. I will definitely be reading up on Both Milo Wolff's papers and Chris Hawking's - it's great to see two thinkers approach a problem from different perspectives and arrive at similar solutions - it usually means they are on to something. I personally feel much more comfortable with scalar waves but I have wondered how it looks in vector form. Fascinating stuff - the same answer from many directions -that is why the truth is so simple! I will read their works and see what I can find between them. I just finished reading the basics of Hatch's EGT theory - it looks similar to Weyl's guage invariant geometry in GRT., but without the tensors. His suggestion at the end about an experiment to measure the gravitational field between Earth and Sun should be interesting.

I don't have a page on myself but here is my Bio:

I grew up learning about physics and astronomy, looking at stars and planets through a simple telescope I made from a kit. When I was 13 I tried to measure time dilation with a clock attached to my bike while I biked around the neighborhood at high speed. I was amazed when I arrived home and compared it to my stationary clock - it had moved by 5 minutes! Even though I didn't undestand the values and the small change in even large velocities accroding to Lorentz transformation, I knew my clock must be wrong and finally found that the second hand was bouncing around too much on my bumpy ride! That was what hooked me on relativity - just truly obscure and begging for an explanation.

I wrote a paper when I was 18 about using superconductors in space - the advantages of not neediing liquid Hydorgen in some cases. It was a year later that the High Tc superconductors were discovered and some of these will actually superconduct on the dark side of the moon! The paper helped me get a place into the Get Away Special program at Utah State University where I worked on an experimental payload for a future space shuttle flight. It was right after the Challenger accident so my experiment of measuring neutron fluxes aboard the shuttle wasn't destined to fly until a couple of years after I graduated. The work was exciting though and it funded my education. I studied physics at first, but then finished in Electrical Engineering in 1990. I found engineering more challenging at the time (most of the meat in a physics education seems to be at the graduate level) and I was interested in designing gadgets but I had the equivalent of a BS in Physics after all the undergrad physics classes I completed.

I grew wary of cold Utah Winters so I moved to San Diego and started graduate school at the UC San Diego while working at the Naval Ocean Systems Center at the time. I did research at work on acoustic modeling, fiber optic communications and electrochemistry. Between work, sandy beaches in California and a really hard cirriculum at school I dropped out part way through my Master's program. After learning things in my grad classes about Quantum Mechanics that were absolutely ridiculous (like the annhilator operator and virtual particles - a quackery that breaks the conservation of energy without any remorse!) and seeing newly matriculated Ph.Ds struggle to get tenure after putting in ten years of poverty, I decided engineering would be a better track to stay on so I worked on interesting inventions in optics and magnetcs for the next few years. I have since been working on video compression schemes, fiber measurement systems and methods of tracking EM sources.

About 3 years ago I had resurguent interest in relativity and started thinking a lot about Mach's principle and the recent experiment (1998) that had suggested a neutrino mass by the oscillation between different flavors of neutrinos. I wrote a few papers and started really researching where modern physics was going. I decided that academia was spiraling into its own black hole and that truth would most likely be found in the writings of modern day philosphers that don't answer to a tenure board or peer review committee. I am happy to be doing this!

Again, I hope you have a great vacation and I look forward to discussing WSM more with you when you get back.

Mike

[mharney]

Hi Geoff,

I have read the part on WSM cosmology and redshift. I can understand how this fits in with interfering spherical matter waves- the less they interfere or interact, the lower the density and the lower the energy we observe from light (hence the redshift). This makes logical sense.

Geoff - There may also be other factors that affect redshift (I think Halton Arp suggests that matter from newly formed galaxies has high redshift). Nonetheless, it seems to me that we should calculate how the overlapping volume of two spheres changes with distance as you move one sphere away from the other. Once they are a radius apart (the center of one is on the surface of the other) then that should be the limit of what we see in our finite spherical universe. So if this is main cause of redshift with distance this relationship of decreasing overlap of spheres should correspond to this. Can you do this calculation?!

Mike - I would ask a few questions as well:

1) Does this imply that our solar system (and galaxy) are at the center of our Hubble sphere so that every direction we look is redshifted with respect to us?

Geoff - Correct. Any 'particle' is at the center of its finite spherical universe within an infinite space.

Mike - If we were not at the center of our Hubble sphere (which is the same as our matter sphere), then we should look in some directions and see blue shift, right?

Geoff - I agree, and as we don't it supports above idea of WSM that matter is always at center of it own universe.

Mike - Of course, expansion solves this problem by making all of us expand but I will grant you this - creating new space with expansion doesn't make a lot of sense and what is it we are really expanding into?

Geoff - I agree. And how is all this space and matter created from no space and matter (seems like a magical creation theory to me, and i suspect religious instincts have led to its universal acceptance)?
Further, Doppler redshift applies to matter moving apart, whereas in big bang it is actually space expanding, thus their foundations are not empirical, there is no observation of space expanding causing redshift, it is purely theoretical assumption (and thus poor science to apply Doppler shift to justify Big Bang Cosmology)


Mike - I have had issues with both of these points but I also don't like the fact that we are at the center of our Hubble sphere - it seems a little too convenient.

Geoff - The Wave Structure of Matter requires this to be true, as it is all this other matter around us that creates our In-Waves. Thus it is necessary that each wave-center 'particle' is at the center of its own universe.

Given that, if we are in fact at the center and seeing light closer to the edge of the sphere that is just reduced in energy because of fewer interactions with distant matter outside our sphere, I can accept this interpretation of redshift if we are in fact at the center. I just don't know how to prove that we are at the center.

Geoff - Please think carefully about this, as it is obvious to Milo and I that this must necessarily by true - no opinion here.

Also, we know that Doppler shift is correct for objects on earth and in space, so moving galaxies in space would be expected to give a Doppler shift one way or the other because they are probably moving somewhat relative to us (gravity as we see it based on matter wave interaction should still be moving things around relative to mass).

Now here is the clincher: We know that Newton produced a theory that produced correct experimental results up to a point. Then Einstein filled in a few more details with a different theory. We know then that any theory can have somewhat incorrect principles and still produce correct mathematical results for many cases and the cases where it is not correct show the problems with the theory. Mathematics can be very deceptive, so what I believe may be valid is that my assumptions of an expanding universe may produce correct results even though it's not expanding but the math introduces the same effect as energy loss at a distance by assuming an expansion.


Geoff - I am really impressed that you wrote this - that you are aware that maths can be misleading. Assuming photon is a 'particle' is an example of this, when empirically all we know is that light energy is in discrete amounts (which WSM explains as due to standing wave interactions and resonance). Another example is assuming light reflects of surface of glass which gives correct results for partial reflection, yet light does not reflect of surface, it is absorbed and emitted by electrons in glass. I am also very pleased that you have an open mind about your own ideas - most people don't!

This may not be a correct principle but still seems to validate the effect with numerical results. If we assume an energy loss per unit distance as WSM prescribes by spherical matter waves that interact less with distance because the overlap is less, this appears to be constant based on Hubble's constant and this then says that the energy/unit-length across the universe is constant. Energy/unit-length corresponds to [Kg(meter^2)/sec^2] / meters = Force so there is a constant force across our Hubble sphere from the distant matter. This is what I refer to as the Universal tension - the elastic constant of the Universe x radius of the universe produces a constant force (see Oct 2004 JOT comments section that I referred). In addition, based on the equation I previously mentioned for matter wave velocity in space fabric, velocity = sqroot (Force/mass-unit length), the constant force produces a constant velocity of matter waves (assuming mass/unit-length is constant) and this appears as a recession at the edge of our Hubble sphere of c. If it is an energy decrease in light it will appear the same way as a constant expansion which would correspond to a constant pulling force.

Geoff - I basically get your point, that two different ways of seeing things give same results. I really encourage you to pursue the non-expanding finite spherical universe within Infinite Eternal Space path. I am now convinced it is correct - it explains so many things not just in Cosmology but also in Metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality).

At this point I will have to think some more about what I have derived and how it may appear to us as a decrease in energy per unit length . I have seen some pretty good evidence for the speed of light decreasing in our local reference frame (solar system for instance - my mention of lunar laser ranging data and both pioneer probes accelerating at the same rate which is hard to explain when they are leaving our solar system from different trajectories - my assumption as others have made is that the round-trip radio signal is showing speed of light decrease). There is also some pretty good evidence that the fine structure constant is changing and so either c, h or electron charge is changing. The have several estimates from a few people on the deceleration of light which match mine pretty close (1 cm/sec per year) and the pioneer probes show the same apparent acceleration so I have to see how this fits in with energy loss of light per distance. My derivation for the speed of light decrease came originally from assuming expansion but it may be valid based on energy loss per unit distance as this appears as an expansion. I will look into this further and read more of Wolff's work. Do you know of an energy loss per unit time in WSM theory? I like the solution it presents for what would exists beyond our Hubble sphere - there has to be something. Thanks, Mike

Geoff - I don't have any knowledge on this. One thought though, according to WSM we are moving through absolute Space, see;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Michelson-Morley.htm
Clearly the wave density of space is not exactly uniform, e.g. will be higher nearer massive bodies / galaxies. Thus it is possible that the earth is moving through space where the wave density of space is slightly different and thus velocity of light changes over time.
I admit that I don't like any absolute changes related to an expanding universe (which I think is wrong) and I believe that Space must be Infinite and Eternal, thus if velocity of light was always increasing or decreasing then over an infinite time it would either be zero or infinite (neither being attractive ideas).
Hope the above helps clarify a few things - please try and be patient with me / WSM. It takes time to solve the problems of the universe! - and for our minds to adjust to new knowledge.
I enjoy your ideas. Thanks for your time in writing them out so carefully.
Cosmos,
Geoff

[Geistware]

I don't look at the center of our Hubble sphere as being the same as the center of space. We can only see as far as the horizon. Does that mean that matter does not or cannot exist past what we can see.

Geoff - According to WSM Cosmology Space is Infinite, and matter exists everywhere in this Infinite Space. But we only interact with a finite sphere of this matter (our finite spherical universe). And an Infinite Space has no 'center'. Only our finite spherical universe within Infinite Space has a center, which is the Wave Center 'particle' for each piece of matter.

The analogy here is that if the only matter that existed was what we could see, then due to gravitational attraction, it would collapse in on us. The reason it doesn't is that the forces that act upon the matter in our Hubble sphere is being countered by all of the matter outside of our Hubble sphere.

Geoff - Spot on. You have just explained why Einstein's Cosmological constant (antigravity force) is largely correct solution to why finite spherical universe does not collapse (rather than Friedman's expanding universe). But it is not antigravity of matter in our finite universe (never observed), just normal gravity from matter in space outside our finite spherical universe as you suggested. Well done!

My final thought is that if we are in an expanding universe, then how could galaxies collide. Some where they have to blue shift before they hit! Think about it. Why are we in a position where only red shift is possible. That is absurd. What I can't understand is why people with a LOT more education that I have can sit back and adopt a principle that is inherently flawed.

Geoff - You come to accept that the evolution of Human knowledge does not generally follow rules of science / reason, but more human emotions, ego, self interest, religious beliefs, etc... We Humans are really primitive monkeys in many ways, we delude ourselves if we think we are smart, its just that we have inherited thousands of years of knowledge from a small number of people who stumbled upon certain truths (as i and other philosophers see things).
Geoff

[Brian Johnston]

I was perusing the discussions, but I am not sure about several points. My own work is based upon observations mostly and so I have a little different perspective on the structure of the universe and what needs to be addressed before we can proceed anywhere. The first being the harmonic and holographic orders that are the basis of existence. We know from the work of David Bohm that everything in the universe is in communication with everything else. What my research has shown is that the planets change the seismic dynamics of the earth at a rate that is millions of times more powerful than gravity alone can account for. What I propose is that virtual "particles" of dark matter are created during certain precise points in the planets orbits and this balances out the harmonics of the system in much the same way that the W and Z bosons do in nuclear reactions. This would also explain why the spacecraft are being displaced in their orbits and why a pendulum swings wildly during a total eclipse of the sun. These observations are at the basis of my own harmonic cosmology.

Geoff - I did not understand what you mean by;

"What I propose is that virtual "particles" of dark matter are created during certain precise points in the planets orbits and this balances out the harmonics of the system in much the same way that the W and Z bosons do in nuclear reactions."

Can you post in top 'Say hello' section and explain this more, and give us links to your work.
Thanks,
Geoff

[mharney]

Hi Geistware,

Mike - I believe that it's possible we only see to the horizon and then there is matter beyond that - this is the basis of matter beyond the Hubble sphere.

Geoff - As above, that's how the WSM sees things. This is also necessary when you consider matter on the edge of our finite spherical universe. For it to exist it must have matter all around it to create its In-Waves. This logic applies to Infinity (Infinite Space).

Mike - But because we see redshift everywhere and the redshift is linear with distance in any direction from us ( i.e., one direction doesn't have a different Hubble constant than any other direction - it is the same constant per unit length in all directions), this is a good indication that if there is no expansion and it's decreasing wave density per unit distance.

Geoff - Correct.

Mike - But because it's the same in all directions doesn't it stand to reason that we are at the center? If we were offset from the center of the sphere by say, 1 million light years or even 1000 lys, the redshift as a function of distance would be different in the direction towards the center of the sphere (which should show some blueshift as you look closer to the center and then redshift again beyond the center) as opposed to 180 degrees from the vector to the center.

Geoff - Correct.

So the question still stands - why do we see exactly the same redshift scale in every direction?

Geoff - As above, it is necessary according to WSM that each Wave-Center 'particle' is the center of its own finite spherical universe, as it is the matter around it that creates its In-Waves (i.e. Huygens principle).

Mike - Also, why is the microwave background so uniform in every direction? Shouldn't it also be redshifted as a function of distance from us?

Geoff - I assume that CMBR is caused by temperature of hydrogen gas in space. And you do get a slight difference in temperature with direction that correctly corresponds to our motion through absolute space. See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Michelson-Morley.htm

Mike - On the case of colliding galaxies my response would be: can't galaxies attract each other even if they are moving away from each other? Wouldn't two large clumps of matter (if they are large enough) overcome their kinetic energy moving in slightly different directions so that they come back together? In explosions there can be shock waves in the material exploding (indicating collisions between the slower and faster pieces) because of density changes and temperature changes.

Geoff - I agree, on the small scale galaxies can move together. And as WSM requires there is no expansion of universe / Big bang then this is quite reasonable.

Mike - I know all of this may sound like I am an advocate of the Big Bang but I am not - I am just being the devils advocate so that all the questions are answered. As such, I can raise some tough questions for the Big Bang like: what started it and how did mass/energy come into existence? If it already existed then we are back to steady state and matter/energy has already existed. Also, if we are expanding what are we expanding into? How does one actually "create" space for expansion? The space that is created is certainly curved to a certain extent and based on the ideas of quantum physics and relativity it must have energy (if nothing else zero-point energy). Creating energy from nothing isn't good - I would much rather have steady state and be at the center of the sphere than violate the long-held (although often now abused) conservation of energy. It's amazing how we can accept a little withdraw from the energy bank account if it gets returned in time before Heisenberg let's anybody look for it. But I certainly agree there are huge gaping holes in the BB theory - there just has to be an explanation for the redshift measurements.
Mike

Geoff - I agree, Big bang has many problems. See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm (good article from Bill Mitchell, plus stuff from Halton Arp and Eric Lerner)

And as I see it the WSM deduces redshift with distance correctly due to decreasing wave interactions with distance, which relates to the equation of the Cosmos. See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

NOTE: I wish to emphasise that while i put links to lots of 'my' pages here (and through this forum), I don't have any ego for them, in fact I am embarrassed about how bad parts of some of them are written (from 5 years ago when I was 'young and stupid'). Its just that no one else has really explored the WSM much yet (excluding Milo Wolff) and applied this knowledge to current problems - these pages are a start, they have some good quotes and knowledge, but they need re-writing in more professional, matter of fact style. I think I now have better knowledge and writing skills to do some of this, but also need help (part of the reason for this forum). This will happen over next two years - there is a lot to be done, but I am determined to get this knowledge of WSM well written and visible to world, which means getting pages on it ranking in top ten in Google for main keywords / relevant subjects (thus the links everywhere!). Geoff

[haselhurst]

Hi Mike,
I have gone through several posts above and used my 'Administrator' privileges to post in comments (rather than quoting you here and replying).
This post is getting long, and really belongs in Cosmology section of forum. (At some stage in the future i will move it there).
So if you want to discuss any of above on Cosmology can you start a new post in Cosmology section of Forum. (You are now a Moderator so you should be able to post / edit in entire forum).
I check for new posts each day - so i will find it!!
Thanks.
Geoff

PS - While adding comments to above posts I also used Google Toolbar to spell check and correct spelling errors (I do recommend all users of this forum download it and use it).
(http://toolbar.google.com)

[Heusdens]

[haselhurst]

Hi Rob,
I wonder if you have read the WSM cosmology page?
The universe is defined as other matter that we can see and interact with, and it is a finite sphere within an infinite Space (i.e. universe is not infinite as you write above). Only this matter's Out-Waves (in finite sphere) contribute to our Matter's In-Waves as per Huygens' Principle. This explains Mach's Principle perfectly (mass of a body is determined by all other matter in universe)
See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm
and in particular the Equation of the Cosmos, which is calculated with mathematical precision (quantitatively) in two different ways (by Milo Wolff and I).

"- Explanation (mathematical proof) that in WSM the universe is stable and not collapsing on it self."

Matter in an Infinite Space cannot collapse. Matter in a finite spherical universe cannot collapse as it is surrounded by other matter in infinite Space (cause of Einstein's Cosmological Constant).

"And as a question on this issue:
i) How do the modified laws of gravity look like in WSM?
(expected is that the force of gravity drops off more quickly as in the
case of Newton/GR)"

Imagine two sphere's of same size in same location / concentric. Then move one sphere away from the other till the center of one is on the surface of other (they are a radius apart). Calculate how this overlapping volume of sphere's changes as they move apart and that is the relationship as to how gravity forces must decrease with distance. If you move them any further apart then effectively the center of one is outside the sphere of the other, they no longer share finite spherical universes, and the gravity force is zero. This explains how we can have a finite spherical universe within an infinite space, and thus how matter's mass can be finite within an infinite Space.
So yes, gravity is not proportional to inverse of radius squared, but drops of more quickly, to zero at edge of finite universe.

Basically each wave-center 'particle' is at the center of its own finite spherical universe. i.e. Matter and universe are same thing, as matter is a finite spherical standing wave in infinite space which determines size of its finite spherical universe (it only resonates / forms standing waves with a finite amount of matter in its finite universe).
This is explained in more detail in Cosmology page.
Hope this helps,
Geoff

[Heusdens]

Geoff,

Thanks for the explenation, but before I posted, I did of course read the website and the articles that relate to that issue.

But a few remarks. You say that matter cannot collapse on itself in an infinite universe. Sure it does. Newton also thought that in his universe (infinite in space and time) matter would not collapse on it self, because forces would balance. This intuition turned out to be wrong.
The exact explenation for this, I must confess, I do not know in detail, I only know that this kind of problem is known as a Dirichlet problem, and that boundary conditions (when working out the resultant force in the case of the limit to infinity) determine if the forces cancel out or don't.
Newton universe (assuming homogeneous distribution of matter everywhere) turned out to be unstable and collapsing onto itself.

Because of this historic example I asked the question, how are these things in WSM universe model. The intuition indeed indicated that it can not collapse onto itself, but sometimes ones intuition needs to be checked with mathematical proof.

Can such proof be delivered?

In terms of force of attraction, it can be said that masses distantiated less then the size of the universe (or in fact the radius) still attract each other. So, this still means that mass x1 is attracted by mass x2 at a distance - say - half that radius from x1, and x2 is attracted by mass x3 also at distance half the radius from x2, etc. Doesn't the force then accumulate to an infinite amount for the whole universe?

Of course, the force is balanced by an opposing force, but like the example of the Newton universe, unless one makes mathematical calculations showing otherwise, we could end up with a force that does not cancel out, but depends on boundary conditions: infinity minus infinity does not equal zero, but can be anything!

I assume that would not be the case in WSM context, but that is just intuition, and can be wrong. Mathematical proof is needed, I guess.

Hope this explains the problem I mentioned in the previous post, and which was not answered sufficiently on the website.

The other issue was the modification of the law of gravity.
The explenation WSM theory gives is that the force does not drop of inversely proportional to the square of the distance, but must be multiplied by a factor, which is 1 when the masses are near each other, and is less then 1 when the masses are more distantiated, and drops to zero when the center of one mass is not within the universe bubble of the other mass.

Firstly I would think that factor could be seen as the amount of shared universe volume of both bubbles, divided by the volume of one bubble, but that can't be right, since we would expext then that this term would become zero in the case that the bubbles don't share any volume.
But that happens not at a distance of one radius, but at two radii (a diameter).

How can that factor be calculated?

[haselhurst]

Hi Rob,
In Newton's model, he assumed an infinite space (correct) and that forces extended to infinity (wrong).
Thus Newton had to have a diminishing amounts of matter with increasing distance to prevent forces becoming infinite. Thus Newton's infinite Space model would collapse. (This is in Cosmology page).

In WSM Cosmology, we only interact with finite sphere of other matter, thus matter can exist to infinity without problems of collapse or of infinite forces / mass.
This is the beauty of WSM Cosmology as it explains the connection between finite and infinite (our finite spherical universe within infinite space).
The maths for this calculation has been done as i wrote above.

In terms of an infinite system where matter is uniformly distributed (at the infinite level) then it cannot collapse, this is logical.
The WSM also explains the quantum distances found in universe, due to standing wave structures of matter.
I thought this was all covered in Cosmology page, perhaps it is not explained well enough.
Anyway, i hope this helps a bit. Will be re-writing main pages at website over next 6 months so I will add your questions to page and hopefully better answer them.
Your skeptical approach is good, but as i wrote before, I also think it takes a while to digest new knowledge, then it starts to fit together in our minds better. (It makes sense to me at least!)
Cheers,
Geoff

PS - Would appreciate your comments on my Engels page in Politics section. I am away for 6 days till 11th November, 2005

[Heusdens]

Hi Geoff!

Yes, thanks for the explenation.

One thing remains however somewhat obscure. At what distance there is no more reaction between points in space?
As I see it, that happens when the distance is 2 radii, not 1, since at 1 radius (the center of the first point on the shell of the other point) there is still a "common" volume.

I hope I can write some stuff on Engels, but I need time for that.

Rob

[Harry Costas]

Hello All



The more I read the less I know

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm