
Given the important role that relativity has played in the rejection of the aether concept by
mainstream science we examine here in some detail relativity from an aether perspective.
We argue that many of the contradictions of standard relativity, such as
the twin paradox, can only be satisfactorily resolved by assuming a medium that transmits light.
What is Wrong with Relativity?
When one looks into the matter
carefully one discovers that there many problems with Einstein's theory of
relativity, both at the conceptual level and experimentally.
In an outstanding piece of work, Milan Pavlovic has carefully examined
Einstein's original special relativity papers and found them to contain many
inconsistencies and questionable assumptions [1].
Further he looked at the experimental evidence used to justify the special
theory of relativity, such as the MichelsonMorley experiment, the Doppler
effect for light, Fizeau's light through water test, aberration of starlight.
He showed that most of these could be understood in nonrelativistic terms or
with the assumption that the earth entrains the aether.
Other objections to the theory have been raised by various scientists over the
years, see for example Burniston Brown's classic article
[2] that takes a critical look at the special and general theories of
relativity, as well as the Marcus Coleman article
[3] that catalogs objections by well known physicists and
mathematicians. See also the article by John A Hickli
[4].
Those who have looked into the matter
[5] have documented more than 3000 articles published in scientific
literature that criticize the special theory of relativity. Articles which have
been largely ignored or conveniently swept under the carpet.
Experimentally too there are disagreements with Einstein's relativity.
One of the postulates on which the special theory of relativity is based states
that the speed of light is constant for any observer. However a number of
experiments contradict this, for example Dayton Miller's
[6] and Yuri Galaev's [7]
MichelsonMorley type experiments that produced a definite positive result
under certain conditions. If the postulate was correct no MichelsonMorley type
experiment would produce a positive result.
Our Aether page discusses the 'null' result of the
MichelsonMorley experiment and how it can be explained within the context of
an aether.
As well there is experimental evidence emerging that the speed of
light might not be so constant after all,
[8].
Also the experiments of Eugene Podkletnov and Giovanni Modanese suggest that it
is possible to transfer a signal faster than the speed of light. They used a
high voltage discharge mechanism to generate what they refer to as a gravity
wave impulse
[9]. This impulse was found to travel through thick metal and brick
walls, and was able to affect objects a long distance away from the source.
More important to the present discussion is the fact that they measured the
beam speed to be more than 60 times the speed of light!
Chinese researchers have also shown experimentally that the quantum
entanglement's action at a distance acts at many times the speed of light [28].
See also the following link [10]
for a clear and concise description of the conceptual difficulties
inherent in special relativity. This site also provides a good description of
several experiments that are relevant to the aether versus special relativity
debate.
Other evidence exists that supports the existence of a medium that transmits
light, see for example Webster Kehr's [11]
work.
However, in the author's opinion, it is the unresolved contradictions around
the twin paradox and time dilation that provide the most compelling argument
against special relativity. They highlight contradictions that make the
precepts of special relativity untenable.
Relativity predicts that time slows down for a moving object relative to a
stationary observer.
That is, if a moving clock is brought back to its starting position it
should show a difference in the time registered compared to a stationery
observer.
The slowing down of travelling clocks has been confirmed by use of atomic
clocks, etc.
One cannot really explain it on the basis of the finite speed of light, or
issues of simultaneity, etc, because the traveling clock could easily retrace
its steps to end up in its starting position without any communication or
interaction between the two clocks.
And given that special relativity postulates that all reference frames
traveling at constant speed are equivalent as far as the laws of physics are
concerned, there is no real reason why the two clocks should move forward at
different rates.
There has to be something different about the traveling clock that makes it
'tick' more slowly.
One might suppose for example, as standard theory does, that the explanation
lies in the fact that the traveling clock has to first accelerate to reach a
certain speed and then decelerate to turn around and go back to the starting
point, and it is this acceleration which 'causes' the slowing down of the
traveling clock.
However this is inadequate as the total time difference is dependent on how
long the clock moves at constant speed and not on how that speed was reached
which is dependant on the acceleration. In other words, we could have two
moving clocks each of which receives the same acceleration and reaches the same
velocity but where one travels at that constant velocity for much longer than
the other before returning. This gives rise to the situation where the two
clocks would show different times relative to the stay at home clock even
though they underwent exactly the same acceleration.
Is time dilation caused by acceleration or relative motion? If the time
difference was due to the acceleration the relativistic formula should be
expressed as a function of the acceleration and not the velocity. The
relativistic time dilation formula being:
We can also consider a variation of the twin paradox thought experiment.
Suppose we have two identical twins, having identical rockets, who both
accelerate in opposite directions for the same amount of time and then return
back to their original positions. Special relativity predicts that each twin
will see his brother as being younger.
The standard twin paradox is explained away by pointing to the fact that one
twin is accelerating and the other is not. However in this example both twins
experience the same accelerations and velocities  the paradox still remains.
When the equations describing time dilation have no connection with its
supposed cause (acceleration) is it any wonder that we encounter paradoxical
situations?
Some people have argued that we cannot use special relativity in the above
examples because
special relativity only applies to reference frames that are moving at constant
velocity. The above examples involve acceleration so we should, the argument
goes, use general relativity instead.
However it is not too difficult to come up with time dilation examples where
the acceleration is taken out of the picture while the contradiction remains
[2] .
One of the best examples of this is the time dilation phenomenon observed with
high speed muon particles generated in the upper atmosphere. It is observed
that high energy collisions between cosmicray particles and nuclei in the
atmosphere generate muons, some of which travel towards the earth at close to
the speed of light.
Normally muons are unstable and decay with a half life in the micro second
range. However, because these are moving at a high velocity their half life
increases in accord with the time dilation formula so that a lot more reach the
earth than would be expected without time dilation. Experiment has confirmed
that the number that reach the earth is in agreement with the time dilation
formula.
Here we have an example of real time dilation with no acceleration effects. The
muons don't decelerate and turn around in order to get back to their
starting point. Note that the acceleration due to the gravitational attraction
of the earth acting on the muons is so small in this case that it can for all
practical purposes be ignored.
This example effectively proves that real time dilation is a velocity
phenomenon.
And given that special relativity uses relative velocities we are back to the
twin paradox scenario. The earth observer will see the muons moving towards the
earth and will conclude that time will slow down for the muons relative to
himself. However, according to the muon's perspective it is the earth observer
that is moving towards it and therefore the observer's time should slow down
relative to it.
So here we have a variation of the twin paradox where we cannot resort to
acceleration to resolve the contradiction.
We should also add that standard theory tries to resolve this difficulty by
resorting to length contraction arguments. However, if one looks at it
carefully there are serious flaws in this argument, as there are
in several aspects of special relativity.
In the next section we will look at time dilation from an aether perspective
and show that the twin paradox can only be satisfactorily resolved by assuming
a universal reference frame or a medium that transmits light.
The introduction of the aether brings back common sense to relativity, sparing
us the need to perform mathematical contortions to make the speed of light be a
constant for all observers.
Aether, Time Dilation and Special Relativity
Time is a consequence of the rate of
change of processes which are used to measure it.
The most plausible explanation of time dilation is that the slowing down of the
traveling clock is caused by it's interaction with its surroundings. In
particular a slowing down of these internal processes with motion relative to
an underlying medium such as the aether.
In a Caesium atomic clock for example it would be the emission frequency of a
particular electron orbital in the Caesium atom.
We should really be talking about clock dilation rather than the dilation of
time as is normally interpreted from special relativity. Time has no meaning
divorced from some cyclic process whose rate of change is used to measure it.
In deriving the time dilation effects for an aether case we will consider the
example that is often used in standard texts on relativity, the motion of a
light clock.
The light clock in its most simplified form consists of a source and detector
of light at one end of a rod and a mirror at the other, Fig 10.1(a).
The time it takes light to travel from the light source to the mirror and back
again will be our unit of time or 'tick' of the clock.
Fig 10.1 The light clock for two
cases. (a) The clock is stationary relative to the aether.
(b) The clock moves to the right at velocity v relative to the aether.
We consider the two cases where the clock is stationary, Fig 10.1(a), and when
it travels at velocity v relative to the aether, Fig 10.1(b), at right angles
to the clock axis.
Given that light will always travel at speed c relative to the aether we have
the following clock times (1 tick) for stationary and moving cases:
where
L = length of the clock,
c = speed of light
where
H = diagonal length given by
It can be shown that the above values lead to the following relationship
between the two clock times as a function of the velocity:
The proportionality factor being given by the standard relativistic factor  a
factor that has its origins in electromagnetism and was first derived by
Lorentz.
So for a traveling light clock, time as measured by each tick of the clock
would actually slow down compared to a stationary one. It is a real effect that
follows directly from the constancy of light speed relative to the aether
(independent of the speed of the source), and the fact that light has to travel
paths of different length through the aether to complete one cycle of the clock
(red lines in Fig 10.1).
The derivation of the formula is similar to the standard theory, the difference
being that in the present example the speed of light is constant relative to
the aether whereas in the standard theory it is assumed to be constant relative
to any observer. This assumption leads to the contradictions inherent in the
standard theory, such as the twin paradox example discussed in the previous
section.
In the aether model we have no such contradictions. Time dilations only occur
for the clock moving relative to the aether, so the twins will both agree on
the differences registered by their light clocks.
In the case where both twins travel equal amounts relative to the aether they
will both time dilate by the same amounts, so their clocks will show the same
time, which would be different to a stationary clock, when they get back
together.
The next question that arises is, will the time dilation derived above apply to
any type of clock, any type of process? Will the traveling twin actually look
younger, if enough time passes?
A clock can be anything that has a cyclic process.
Let us consider one of the simplest types of clock, a rotor consisting of a
ball (green) at the end of a rigid arm that rotates at a constant angular
speed, Fig 10.2.
Fig 10.2 The rotor clock for
two cases. (a) The clock is stationary relative to the aether.
(b) The clock moves to the right at velocity v relative to the aether.
Doing the same analysis as for the light clock, we have that the time it takes
for the ball to complete one cycle of rotation will be our unit of time
measurement.
Again we compare the case where the clock is stationary, Fig 10.2(a), with the
one where the whole unit moves at velocity v relative to the aether, Fig
10.2(b). The rate of rotation is assumed to be the same for the two cases.
For ease of analysis we will assume that v in (b) above is the same as the
rotational velocity of the ball (equivalent to cycloid motion), however a
similar argument will apply for any v.
For the (a) case, one tick of the clock will correspond to the circumference,
given by , divided by the velocity of
the rotating ball.
Given that the rotation rates are the same for both clocks, one tick for clock
(b) will correspond to the case where the clock moves a distance
, Fig 10.2(b), equivalent to the distance the rotating ball moves in the (a)
case.
We can see from Fig 10.2(b) that in the equivalent time the rotating ball of
(b) will have traveled a larger distance through the aether (red line) compared
to (a) case.
Therefore, if we had an equivalent condition as for the light clock that the
rotating ball moved at a constant velocity relative to the aether we would
again have time dilation. The larger the value of v the greater the ball path
compared to the stationary case (a).
However, clearly the ball will not travel at a constant velocity relative to
the aether. The rigid arm will sometimes pull the ball through the aether
faster and sometimes slower, depending on which part of the cycle it is on.
However we do not need to be concerned about these because the fact that the
rigid arm rotates at the same rate for both clocks means that the clock cycles
must also be the same for both. Therefore we can conclude that for a rigid
rotating clock there will be no time dilation.
What happens if the arm is not rigid, such as for an electron spinning around
an atom?
In that case there can certainly be a slowing down of the rotating electron, at
least in parts of the cycle, leading to time dilation.
It is difficult to determine exactly what should happen as we do not know the
details of what goes on inside an atom, however we would expect some type of
disturbance of the electrons when an atom moves through the aether.
This would seem to be supported by experiments
[12] which showed differences in the forces between strongly charged
bodies when moving as compared to the stationary case (see also
Magnetism page).
For a neutral object the effects of moving negative charges will be cancelled
by the positive charges on a macro scale. However at an atomic scale the
charges are separated and one would therefore expect small differences in the
forces within an atom for moving objects compared to stationary ones.
Various time dilation experiments involving such things as atomic
clocks, particle decay rates, etc, show that there is indeed time dilation
at the atomic level. Furthermore, that atomic time dilation seems to follow the
standard relativistic formula, as for the light clock discussed above.
Time dilation at the atomic level is in fact an additional argument for the
existence of the aether.
From the rotor clock arguments above, if there were no aether or medium there
would be nothing to affect the motion of the electrons and therefore the times
for each cycle of the clock.
Given that special relativity postulates that all reference frames traveling at
constant speed are equivalent as far as the laws of physics are concerned,
without something like an aether there could not be any time dilation at the
atomic level!
It also follows from the above argument that the reverse situation of a
stationary object and a moving aether should also produce changes in the
internal processes.
The aether movement through an atom should interact in some way with the vortex
motions that we are associating with charged particles.
One would therefore expect that motions of the aether relative to an object,
such as when surrounding objects are accelerated or decelerated (see
Inertia page), should have an affect on a stationary object's internal
processes and therefore time as recorded by that object.
There is support for this with the work of Dr. Kozyrev and other Russian
researchers
[13] which showed that the torsion fields, discussed in our Inertia
page, have produced changes in time measurements. In fact the torsion fields
were referred to as time flow energy by Dr. Kozyrev.
Relativistic Mass and E=mc^{2}
Probably the most recognized
equations in physics, and which have made Einstein famous, are the massenergy
conversion equations as follows.
where
E = energy content
m = relativistic mass
m_{o} = rest
mass
v = velocity of particle
c = speed of light
These state that mass and energy are basically the same thing  one can be
converted into the other. If a body gains energy its mass is increased and vice
versa.
However, Einstein was not the first to come up with these formulas.
Poincare derived the E=mc^{2} formula prior to Einstein based on
arguments relating to the way electromagnetic waves interact with particles and
conservation of momentum principles, which had little to do with relativity.
Also, Lorentz derived the mass increase with speed formula for an electron,
prior to Einstein. He derived this on the basis of electromagnetic theory and
the assumption of the existence of an aether.
The picture emerging at the time was that there were two components of the
electron mass, the rest mass (m_{o}) and an electromagnetic mass (m_{elec}).
m = m_{o} + m_{elec}
It is well known in electrodynamics that a moving charge creates a
magnetic field which then resists further attempts to increase its speed. It is
this resistance or inertia that was then considered to constitute the
electromagnetic mass. That is, this resistance was thought to be responsible
for the increase of the electron's mass with speed over and above the rest
mass.
This also makes sense from the perspective of our aether model.
We are assuming that when a charged particle moves relative to the aether it
creates a type of rotation of the aether around the direction of motion (see
our Magnetism page). It would make sense
then that this rotation would change the particle's ability to move through the
aether.
The kinetic energy of motion is converted into the energy of the rotary aether
motion, or the electromagnetic field in classical terms.
That rotary aether motion or energy can be converted back into kinetic energy,
or alternatively given off as light, when the electron slows down relative to
the aether.
The conversion of energy to electromagnetic mass and vice versa can be shown to
be consistent with the E = mc^{2} formula using classical arguments
having little to do with special relativity.
The question then arises  what about the rest mass?
Einstein's contribution was to assume that all mass, rest and electromagnetic,
can be converted according to E = mc^{2}. He presented a relativistic
derivation of these equations.
However, Milan Pavlovic has carefully analyzed Einstein's derivation in his
original 1905 paper and found many logical inconsistencies and even
mathematical errors, some of which were first pointed out by Ives [14] in the
1950's.
This makes it very doubtful that a purely relativistic argument can be used to
derive the energy conversion formulas. This is especially so since these
formulas can be derived nonrelativistically (as Milan Pavlovic has shown in
some detail [15]).
A further argument against Einstein's relativistic massenergy equivalence
principle is provided by electronpositron annihilation. That is, where an
electron and a positron combine to annihilate each other leaving a burst of
light energy that accords with the E = mc^{2} equation.
This is normally considered to constitute the best proof of the correctness of
Einstein's theory.
However, on closer examination we find that this is not the case.
Milan Pavlovic has shown [16]
that the kinetic/electromagnetic energy, resulting from electrostatic
attraction, of the electronpositron pair just before their collision (assuming
a nominal electron radius derived from electromagnetic theory) is close to the
energy of the emitted light given off after the annihilation.
This strongly suggests that the energy of the emitted radiation is due to the
electromagnetic mass component of the electronpositron pair rather than their
rest masses as is normally assumed.
Therefore, if both the electron and positron had their rest masses (2x~0.51MeV)
converted to energy we would expect the emitted light to have twice the energy
than is observed, equivalent to the rest energy plus the electromagnetic.
Certainly, it should be greater than is observed.
So we have to conclude that Einstein's theory does not apply to
electronpositron annihilation.
However, the notion that the energy of the emitted light in an
electronpositron annihilation is solely due to the electromagnetic mass
has its own difficulties. If that were the case the electron and positron
should not disappear from the scene!
In order to get around this problem Milan Pavlovic has postulated that the
electron and positron do not get annihilated but form a bound pair
that stays around until something like a high energy photon breaks them up
to liberate the original particles
[16] .
However, this model has its own problems which only get worse when one
considers the annihilation of a protonantiproton pair as there is more mass to
account for after the 'annihilation'.
An even more difficult problem with the protonantiproton pair is that the
energy of the emitted radiation from an 'annihilation' is about 2000 times
greater than with the electronpositron case.
Given that the proton charge is the same magnitude as for the electron, the
electromagnetic mass of the protonantiproton collision should be
about the same as for the electron positron one. Therefore, if the
emitted light energy is due solely to electromagnetic mass conversion, the
light energy should be about the same as for an
electronpositron annihilation.
Clearly, there is something else going on in these processes.
We would like to present an alternative explanation, consistent with our aether
model, that gets around these difficulties in a natural way.
Firstly, the electronpositron annihilation can readily be shown to be
consistent with our aether model.
As described in the Matter page, the electron is
viewed as a vortex into the 4^{th} dimension which creates a
preferential aether rotation around the direction of its motion in 3D  the
rotation being equated to the magnetic field.
The positron is the same as the electron but with the spin directions reversed.
Therefore, in an electronpositron annihilation we have the two particles
both creating magnetic type aether spins in the same direction. This is because
although their charges, and therefore spin directions, are normally opposite
they are moving in opposite directions with the result that they will both spin
the aether in the same direction around a line joining the two particles, Fig
10.3.
The electron and positron will accelerate towards one another under the
influence of the electrostatic force and will therefore create a rapidly
increasing rate of rotation of the aether just before the collision (bearing in
mind that there is a 4D component to the aether rotation).
Fig 10.3 Electronpositron annihilation.
In accordance with our model for the creation of a photon (see
Light page), this rotational aether disturbance should give rise to an
expanding photon ring, Fig 10.3.
Note that if our photon model is correct, the two photons moving in opposite
directions that are normally detected with electronpositron annihilation
experiments are not really two separate photons but the opposite ends of an
expanding photon ring, Fig 10.3.
Because the 4D aether vortexes are spinning in opposite sense for the electron
and positron, the two will simply cancel each other out when they meet, and
will in fact be annihilated from existence. Leaving nothing but the aether
rotational disturbance occuring prior to their collision.
Therefore, our model is consistent with the notion that it is the
electromagnetic mass component that is converted into the energy of the emitted
radiation.
What happens to the rest mass is not a problem in this model, the two particles
or 4D vortexes simply cancel leaving no excess energy. There is in fact no
electron rest mass as such. What are termed rest masses are really inertial
masses which only show up upon acceleration, or the effective vortex masses as
discussed in the Atoms&QM section.
The situation is a little different with protonantiproton annihilations.
In our aether model the proton is considered to be a condensation of the aether
particles into a solid like state, somewhat like a liquid to solid transition.
The antiproton would simply be a proton which has an electron type vortex
associated with it rather than the normal positive charge version.
The proton would therefore require some minimum energy input in order to
reexpand back to the normal more rarified aether state, somewhat like a solid
to liquid transition.
We postulate that the energy of the protonantiproton collision would be
sufficient to reexpand the two particles from a solid to the more rarified
state of the surrounding aether. The two particles would cease to exist.
We believe it is this sudden reexpansion of the condensed aether particles
that creates a disturbance of the surrounding aether giving rise to the more
energetic photon emission than can be explained by the electromagnetic mass
alone.
Unlike the electron, the proton does have a rest mass in the sense that there
is a 'substance' there that is converted to energy. Experiments with
protonantiproton annihilations suggest that this conversion process follows
the E=mc^{2} formula.
This in turn implies that there is some unifying principle behind all the
'mass' energy conversion processes that are described by the E=mc^{2} equation.
However, for reasons already discussed, we do not believe that special
relativity is capable of providing that unifying principle.
Aetheric Doppler Shift
One of the other arguments that
people use against the aether concept is the fact that the observed Doppler
frequency shift for light agrees with the relativistic formula rather than the
classical formula for waves carried by a medium.
We will show here that the Doppler shift for light is consistent with an aether
model if we add time dilation.
The standard formulas for the frequency shift of any wave carried by a medium,
such as sound carried by air, when the observer or source is moving relative to
that medium are as follows.
Classic Doppler formula:
source moving
observer moving
f = observed frequency
f_{o} = frequency when source and observer are both
stationary relative to the medium
v_{s} = velocity of source relative to the medium
v_{o} = velocity of observer relative to the medium
Where v_{s} and v_{o}
are assumed positive when the source or observer are receding and negative if
approaching.
Relativistic Doppler formula:
v = relative velocity between source and observer (+ve
receding, ve approaching)
c
= speed of light
Let us now look more closely at what one would expect for the case of light
being propagated through a medium.
Firstly the classical Doppler shifts should apply.
In addition, since we are postulating that atomic processes are slowed for an
object moving relative to the aether (as discussed in the above section), we
would expect that the frequency of the emitted radiation should also slow down
for a moving source.
In other words, the frequency of emitted radiation should be reduced by the
same relativistic factor that appears in the time dilation formula.
Therefore, we expect the complete Doppler shift formula for a light source
moving with respect to the aether to be:
or
the mathematically equivalent
Similarly, the internal processes for an observer will slow down if moving with
respect to the aether. Hence, the moving observer will see a slightly higher
frequency for the radiation relative to its own slowed down processes than
would be the case for an observer stationary with respect to the aether.
Therefore the complete formula for the moving observer case would be:
We can combine the above two formulas to give the Doppler shifts for the
general case where both the source and observer are moving relative to the
aether:
f = observed frequency
f_{o} = frequency when source and observer are both
stationary relative to the aether
v_{s} = velocity of source relative to the aether (+ve
receding, ve approaching)
v_{o} = velocity of observer relative to the aether (+ve
receding, ve approaching)
c =
speed of light
We will consider some consequences of this formula.
Firstly, we note that if either the source or the observer is at rest relative
to the aether (ie v_{s} or v_{o} is zero), the above formula
will be identical to the relativistic formula.
Since we are postulating that the aether is entrained by the earth, and is
therefore stationary with respect to observers on the surface of the earth, any
experiments where the observer is stationary on the earth's surface (v_{o}
= 0) and the source is moving (most experiments are of this type) will
therefore show a Doppler shift equivalent to the relativistic formula.
The aetheric formula will differ from the relativistic one if both the observer
and source move with respect to the aether. This would be one way the formula
could be tested.
We note also that for extraterrestrial Doppler shift measurements, such as the
red shift of stars, the aetheric formula will give values that depend on the
speed of the source relative to its local aether, which generally will not be
the same as the speed relative to the earthbound aether.
The difference between the two formulas will depend on how much movement there
is between the earthbound aether and the aether local to the source.
This could help explain some of the anomalies that have been observed with
astronomical observations, as discussed in the next section.
Big Bang and the Stellar Redshift
There are many discrepancies
between observation of the red shift of stars and the theory of the expansion
of the universe based on the Big Bang scenario. David Pratt
[17] and Roger Rydin [18]
have highlighted many of these [19], [20],
[21], [22],
[23].
It seems that the more we look the more inconsistencies we find (see
[24] for the latest problem) and we have to introduce adhoc factors,
such as dark matter and energy, in order to save the standard theory. Dark matter theories themselves have recently been contradicted by experiments
[27].
Apart from experimental discrepancies there are also conceptual and
philosophical difficulties with the Big Bang idea.
Current theory has it that the universe is expanding from an origin point as a
result of space itself expanding in all directions. However, for space to
expand there needs to be something like aether particles to define the
expansion. Without something to define space it becomes meaningless to talk
about its expansion.
However, this in turn leads to other difficulties with the Big Bang
scenario. If you run the expansion backwards what happens to these
'particles' at the singularity before the Big Bang explosion?
While solutions to these difficulties may be found in the future, it seems
to this author that a much simpler explanation would be that the Big
Bang never happened, the redshift can be explained in other ways.
According to standard theory, the amount that light from a star is redshifted
is proportional to the velocity at which it is receding away from us due to the
Doppler frequency shift.
The general picture is of a universe that resembles a balloon which is
expanding from a central point of the Big Bang, with the result that all parts
are moving away from each other. This is said to explain why there is a general
redshift rather than a blueshift or a mixture of the two.
An alternative explanation for the redshift is the so called Tired Light model.
This assumes that the frequency shift of starlight is caused not by recession
velocities but by the interaction of light with electrons that exist at low
densities in interstellar space. The further away the source the more
interactions light undergoes before reaching us and therefore the more
redshifted it is.
See Lyndon Ashmore's work [25] for a
more detailed discussion in support of this theory.
We would also like to present here an intriguing alternative theory for
explaining the general redshift of stars that does not involve an
expansion of the universe. The concept originates from master Hilarion (as
channeled by Maurice Cooke), [26].
This possibility is based on the idea that our universe forms a sphere
when viewed from the 4th dimension. That is, the thin (along the 4th dimension)
membrane containing our physical 3D universe curves around to form an enormous
4D sphere (see the discussion in our Matter page).
Fig 10.4 4D
hypersphere model, giving an alternative explanation for the redshift
usually attributed to the expansion of the universe.
If light from distant objects reaches us by going through the body of the
sphere rather than traveling along its surface, it will create an angle of
incidence for the light as it hits 3D space at our location, Fig 10.4.
This is because the tangent to the surface of the 4D sphere (red lines in Fig
10.4) along which 3D objects vibrate to create light will be at a different
angle in our part of the universe compared to that of a distant galaxy.
What we see when that light reaches us is not the original light wave but a
projection of it onto the 3D plane, giving rise to longer wavelengths.
The further away the source is the greater the difference in angle and
therefore the greater the redshift.
References
[1] Milan R. Pavlovic, “Einstein's Theory of Relativity  Scientific Theory or Illusion?",
Milan Pavlovic
[2] G. Burniston Brown, “What is wrong with relativity?", homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
[3] Marcus Coleman, "The Trouble with Relativity", www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm
[4] J. A. Hickli, "Reason Replaces Relativity", www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/someeternalphysics.pdf
[5] G. O. Mueller, "95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of
Relativity", www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf
[6] James DeMeo, "Dayton Miller's EtherDrift Experiments",
www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
[7] Yu. M. Galaev, “The Measuring of EtherDrift Velocity and Kinematic Ether
Viscosity within Optical Wave Bands", Spacetime &
Substance, Vol 3 (2002), No 5 (15), pp. 207224 www.mountainman.com.au/aether_6.htm
[8] Yahoo News, "Light can break it's own speed limit", Yahoo News
[9] Eugene Podkletnov, "Superconductors and GravityModification", www.pureenergysystems.com
[10] AntiRelativity website, www.antirelativity.com
[11] Webster Kehr, "The Detection of Ether", www.teslaphysics.com
[12] Charles R. Morton, "Velocity Alters Electric Field", www.amasci.com/freenrg/morton1.html
[13] David Wilcock, “Divine Cosmos", www.divinecosmos.com
[14] H. E. Ives, 1952, J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 42, 540—3
[15] Milan R. Pavlovic, “Mass and Energy", Ch. 23, Milan Pavlovic
[16] Milan R. Pavlovic, “Antimatter and the Annihilation of Matter and
Antimatter Do Not Exist", Ch. 26, Milan Pavlovic
[17] David Pratt, "Beyond the Big Bang",
davidpratt.info/cosmo.htm
[18] Roger A. Rydin, "Big Bang? Public Forum",
home.earthlink.net/~rarydin
[19] "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community", New Scientist, May 22 2004
[20] Donald E. Scott, "Redshift", www.electriccosmos.org/arp.htm
[21] Meta Research, "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang", see www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BBtop30.asp
[22] Paul Marmet, "Newton Physics", www.newtonphysics.on.ca
[23] Eric J Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened", www.bigbangneverhappened.org
[24] Physorg.com, "Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test",
www.physorg.com/news76314500.html
[25] Lyndon Ashmore, "Tired Light Model", www.lyndonashmore.com
[26] Hilarion (Maurice B. Cooke), “The Nature of Reality”, Marcus Books, PO Box 327, Queensville, Ontario, Canada L0G 1R0, 1990
[27] ESO, "Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?", www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/#3
[28] Juan Yin et. al., "Bounding the speed of `spooky action at a distance'", MIT Technology Review
Go to Top
