22 Attraction

Noise is also potentially the key to gravitational effects. We are all familiar with our inability to fly or float in the air. The clearest indication that wave noise might be the mechanism for all gravitational effects comes, not from the effect of gravity on matter, but on light. Light bends as it passes the Sun, and this is a gravitational effect and well studied. It is another indication that calling light ‘electromagnetic’ may be inappropriate.

This is a mathematically simple phenomenon and sometimes referred to as gravitational refraction. It is well known to be equivalent to a rather non-relativistic suggestion, that the speed of light is dependent on its gravitational environment, with light moving slower in a stronger gravitational field.

In 1911, before Einstein had the mathematics to fix the velocity of light near matter by postulate, he wrote, in a Richard Nixon[i] moment: ‘The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity. … From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of position…’[ii]

To see how this might work, we need to look first at sound.

‘When a sound wave propagates through a material, it acts as a force that creates localized pressure changes. The speed of sound in a compressible material increases with pressure because the molecules transmitting the energy are closer. As a result, the wave travels faster during the high-pressure phase of the oscillation than during the lower pressure phase. This affects the wave’s frequency structure; for example, in a plain sinusoidal wave with one frequency, the peaks of the wave travel faster than the dips, and the signal becomes more like a saw-tooth wave. In doing so, other frequency components are introduced, as Fourier analysis will show. This phenomenon implies a non-linear system, since a linear system cannot output frequencies that were not a part of the input signal.

Additionally, waves of different amplitudes will generate different pressure gradients, contributing to the non-linear effect.’[iii]

This quote comes from a popular online encyclopaedia, and so is subject to change in its detailed wording. It is also a simplification, as temperature, pressure and density are all relevant and interrelated, and this happens in a dynamic way with a wave. However, it does express with commendable clarity an effect well known to science and important to the wave-noise model for light.

It is unexpected that sound waves create their own environment. Yet it is quite logical, as the quote shows, and well established.[iv] The aethereal fluid we have been detailing appears quite mundane in nature, far from the ideal or incompressible fluid discussed around the time of Maxwell and earlier. It is not unreasonable to expect it to have a similar non-linearity.[v]

In the new model we take this argument a little further. If the speed of light is affected moment to moment by changes in pressure, as we know occurs with waves of sound, then the non-linearity that this involves might also be expected to create a further phenomenon, at a lower level of effect. The suggestion is that the continual noise generated by vortex ring particles has a non-linear effect on the transmission of further waves, light signals, that travel through it, and that this affects the overall speed of travel of those signals. In order to fit with what we observe, we also suggest that the greater the level of noise, the slower the speed of light.

Gravitational refraction is another good indication that light is a wave. As light passes a gravitational object, that part of the wavefront closer to the planet or star travels more slowly than does the neighbouring part, slightly further away. There is therefore a slight slewing of the wavefront and an associated change of direction of travel.

Even for our Sun, the effect is small, but well studied. During a solar eclipse, stars that are visually close to the Sun are displaced in position. It was this phenomenon that was famously studied by Eddington on the island of Principe in 1919. The simple explanation above has long been known to work as mathematics. With the new model it also works physically.

We can, even more speculatively, suggest some part of the mechanism for matter-on-matter gravitational effects. A hoop particle in a gravitational field has a finite size and, in this model, experiences a slightly different noise environment on each side. This may well be the key to the gravitational mechanism, but there are no doubt other options, other possible effects of inhomogeneous noise on material particles.

What we do know, and will look at in more detail shortly, is that atomic clocks at higher altitudes run faster and at a greater frequency of vibration than those at lower altitudes. A lesser frequency generally means a lower energy, and we know in mechanics of many situations where objects tend to move from a position of higher energy to a lesser one. This provides, if not a mechanism for gravitational falling, at least a reason, consistent with known physical laws.

One aspect of this that is apparently well studied, and seems to run counter to our model, is something called ‘light pressure’. A radiometer is a device for measuring this and there are two well-known radiometers in the literature. The most common and popular of these is the Crookes radiometer, containing several vanes, painted black on one side and white on the other, set together on a spindle.

When light is shone on this device it rotates, and the direction – if we could take it as a genuine effect of light ‘pressure’ – is counter to the standard model. It is now generally accepted that the effect is due to differential heating of the two sides and a convection effect in the imperfect vacuum. Also that light pressure is far too small to rotate this device.

Better respected is the Nicols radiometer. Reports suggest that there may to be only one in existence, held in the basement of the Smithsonian. It dates from the work of Ernest Fox Nichols and Gordon Ferrie Hull[vi] in 1901, but the air pressure in the original equipment led to errors that meant the experiment had to be repeated in 1933.[vii] At the time of writing all web references to the Nichols repeat the error (they are all clones of a single flawed report) and appear unaware of the repeat.

One solid contrary observation defeats the most beautiful theory, but in this case it is not entirely clear that the observation is solid. There is also the possibility that hydrodynamic analysis will show different effects for wave noise and coherent signals.

Even if the model being created here does fall at this hurdle, it has served its dual purpose of exposing the failings of current theoretical ideology, and of showing that physics’ abandonment of the physical was premature.

There are theoretical precedents for this hydrodynamic approach. Those of Madelung and Korn were mentioned in chapter 19; the work of Heaviside, Gibbs and Tait is also relevant.  McVittie in 1965 recognised that, in Einstein’s gravitational equations, ‘what is being sought is a description of the motion of a fluid under the action of its internal stresses and of gravitational forces, based on equations far more complicated than those of classical mechanics.’[viii]


[i] Nixon once famously said that previous statements were ‘inoperative’.

[ii] On the Effect of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light – A Einstein (Annalen der Physik 35, p898, 1911). In: General Theory of Relativity – CW Kilmister (Pergamon Press, 1973), from page 129.

[iii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_acoustics, in 2008

[iv] Search for ‘acoustic non-linearity’ or ‘sound on sound’.

[v] Similar ‘light on light’ effects are more controversial, but heavily debated in hyperspace.

[vi] E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull, A Preliminary communication on the pressure of heat and light radiation, Phys. Rev. 13, 307-320 (1901). Also: The Pressure due to Radiation, The Astrophysical Journal,Vol.17 No.5, p.315-351 (1903)  Pyotr Lebedev made a similar demonstration in the same year: Untersuchungen über die Druckkräfte des Lichtes (The Experimental Study of the Pressure of the Light), Ann. Phys. 6, 433 (1901).

[vii] Mary Bell and SE Green, On radiometer action and the pressure of radiation, Proc. Phys. Soc. 45 320-357 (1933)

[viii] G.C. McVittie: General Relativity and Cosmology (2nd edn.) – (Chapman & Hall, 1965), page 122

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.