Gravity Chapter
8: Implications
It is clear that kinetic atomic theory is an unsound basis for atomic
theory and that an assumption that is fundamental to this theory, that
of the discontinuity of matter or the existence of a vacuum in all
states of matter, has not been proven, it is also clear that this prevents
the formulation of any sensible theory of the transmission of all natural
forces including gravity.
One problem for this assumption of discontinuity is the
absence of any empirical proof of the existence of a pure
vacuum in any circumstance, experimental or natural, and also the
fact that it is generally accepted that achieving this state by mechanical
or other means is humanly impossible.
The concept that the earth had an atmosphere that extended
to an (undefined) altitude whereupon the vacuum of space
began was generally accepted by scientists from the time of Torricelli
in the mid 1700’s to the 1970’s, when space exploration had shown
that the density of gases surrounding the earth progressively reduced
with increasing altitude from the surface up to thousands of kilometres.
As earlier discussed it is now known that the earth’s atmosphere
extends to an altitude of 80,000 km in the direction of
the sun, whereupon the sun’s gravitational field and atmosphere predominates,
and of course it follows that the density of the solar atmosphere
at any level from the surface is also dependant on and proportional
to altitude.
This knowledge has profound implications for current atomic
theory, as this assumption of a void is fundamental to
it, as it is to two of the principle assumptions about the nature
of light that underpin Einstein’s theories, the consistency of its
velocity in vacuo and its existence as a particle of matter.
Velocity of Light
Einstein has had an enormous influence on the direction
and the progress of science in the 20th century and his
paper on the photoelectric effect was fundamental to the
development of quantum theory and mechanics, and to the general acceptance
of the concept of wave/particle duality.
Einstein in 1905 published two other important papers,
on Special Relativity and on Brownian motion. These two
papers introduced or reinforced three basic concepts or assumptions.
Special relativity introduced the suggestion that light
travels through space at a constant velocity.
The paper on Brownian motion reinforced the, then still
not generally accepted, assumptions that kinetic atomic
theory was based upon, and in particular the concept of the ‘discontinuity
of matter’.
At the turn of the century it was widely, although not
completely, accepted that Michelson and Morley’s 1887 experiment
had demonstrated that the proposition that space was filled with
a medium that supported the transmission of light, the ‘aether’,
was invalid and accordingly that space was essentially a vacuum,
with perhaps some random dust and larger particles of matter (the
origin of meteorites) dispersed within it.
Fizeau, using observations of Jupiter as a yardstick, had
earlier calculated the velocity of light, through the interplanetary
space between it and the earth, to be about 300,000 km/sec.
Following this, the reasoning was that, if space is a vacuum,
and as light obviously travels through space, then light
and other radiant energy must be capable of transmission through
a vacuum. It would be then be logical to assume that such a vacuum
could have no characteristic that could inhibit the passage of light,
and that accordingly light would travel at this consistent, and maximum,
velocity through space.
As Einstein clearly accepted kinetic atomic theory and
the Maxwell - Boltzmann assumptions of the distribution
of atoms in a gas, this also meant accepting that the passage of
light on earth at sea level was through the predominant ‘empty space’
or vacuum component of air.
His paper on Brownian motion also included the statement
that ‘the concept of an ether is superfluous’, in other
words asserting his acceptance of the concept of space as a vacuum.
Thus one of the fundamental assumptions of Einstein’s theories
of relativity, the constancy of the velocity of light,
was based both upon the prior assumptions of the kinetic atomic theory
of gases as set out by Clerk Maxwell about 50 years earlier and on
the then current assumption that interplanetary space was essentially
a pure vacuum.
It is observed that when light traverses transparent matter
an increase in the density of the transmitting media results
in a decrease in velocity. Its velocity through water is about 25%
less than in air and through glass about 33% less and its velocity
is, in these circumstances, clearly reduced in proportion to the
density of the matter.
(It is also relevant to note that a ray of light that is
directed through air at and through a block of glass will,
on emerging from the glass, immediately accelerate to and resume
its previous higher velocity.)
While this velocity reduction in transparent solid and
liquid matter is well known, it has also been noted that
an increase in the density of gases also results in a
decrease in velocity and it is acknowledged that the velocity of
light in air is ‘3% less than in vacuum’ 24.
So, while it is still today generally accepted by physicists
that space is essentially a vacuum, it is also accepted
that the sun has an atmosphere and that the velocity of light is
dependant upon the density of the matter through which it is travelling.
If therefore the velocity of light is dependant upon the
density of the transparent medium and the density of the
solar atmosphere reduces progressively with altitude, then the velocity
of light emitted by and from the sun will progressively increase
with the reduction in density, in the same way that light emerging
from glass increases its velocity in air.
As discussed the densities of the atmospheres of the earth
and the sun vary with altitude, thus it must be concluded
that the velocity of light in passage through these various densities
changes proportionally, and that the same would apply to its velocities
through the lower and lower densities of inter-stellar and inter-galactic
space.
As these densities are substantially less that the average
density of the solar atmosphere then the velocity in these
spaces would be substantially greater. Further, as these inter-stellar
and inter-galactic spaces are of an incomprehensibly greater dimension
than that of the whole solar system, and have a far greater volume
than the galaxies themselves, this would have a significant effect
on the calculations of the dimensions of the universe that are wholly
based upon the current assumptions of the invariable velocity of
light.
If Michelson and Morley, in considering the results of
their experiment, had the benefit of the knowledge of the
existence of a solar atmosphere extending to, and beyond, the level
of the earth’s orbit and of the existence of a terrestrial atmosphere
that itself extends to and blends with it, together with the knowledge
that the velocity of light is dependant on the density of atmospheric
gases, then they would have drawn the obvious conclusion, in that
the motion of the earth in its orbit through the solar atmosphere
would not affect the velocity of light received from any direction,
and from any source, through gases of equal density at the earths
surface.
Light - Gravitational Influence On
The suggestion that light is a particle of matter (the
photon) led to the assumption and the prediction by Einstein
that light, in passing through a strong gravitational field,
would be deflected by it.
The Royal Society of London sent out two expeditions to
observe the 1919 eclipse of the sun. One to Sobral in Brazil
and one to the island of Principe, off West Africa, and the latter
was led by Sir Arthur Eddington, who was an enthusiastic supporter
of the new relativity theories.
Photographic plates were exposed at the time of the eclipse
in both places and later analysis showed that the position
of a star that was near to the sun’s surface was shown to deviate
from its true position by about 1.6" (seconds of arc) in Principe and 2" in
Sobral. Eddington interpreted these results as confirming Einstein’s
prediction of a deflection of 1.74".
The refractive effect of the passage of light through different
layers of density in the earth’s atmosphere was well known
then to both navigators and astronomers. Figure 53 below
is a copy of that in the Admiralty Manual Of Navigation, 1954 and
shows a ray of light from body X being refracted 25 by layers of
air of increasing density so that its position is viewed as being
at X’.
Figure 57
Eddington considered the possibility of gases surrounding
the sun having a similar effect and accordingly worked
out what would be the necessary density to produce the
required refractive index, but concluded: - ‘It
seems obvious that there can be no material of this order of density
at such a distance (an altitude of 400,000 miles) from
the sun’. 28
In other words he made an assumption, based upon the then
current beliefs at this time, that at this altitude above
the sun no atmosphere or gaseous matter existed that would have a
refractive effect on the passage of light.
I would suggest that it is now obvious that the density
of the sun’s atmosphere, like the earth’s, progressively
declines with altitude, and that accordingly in these circumstances
there is no question that light from an object whose physical direction
is tangential to the sun’s surface will be refracted in passing through
the differing layers of density of its atmosphere. Of course the
degree of refraction will be proportional to the altitude of the
tangent from the sun’s surface.
The figure below shows that the transit of light emitted
by a distant object, through the different layers of the
solar atmosphere, will result in an angular variation between the
true position and the observed position on the opposite side of the
sun.
Figure 58
The Precession of Mercury
The General Theory of Relativity, which was
published in 1915, presented the concept of space being
‘curved’ in the presence of a gravitational field and this effect was
said to be noticeable only in the presence of a very strong field such
as that generated in the vicinity of the sun.
It had been observed for decades that there was an anomaly
in the orbit of Mercury that could not be explained by
Newton’s theory of gravity. This anomaly was a small excess in the
precession of the orbit itself, in other words the elliptical orbit
itself was rotating around the sun at a fractionally greater rate
than predicted.
General relativity gave an explanation for this and this
success, together with the 1919 observations, sealed the
reputation of Einstein in the scientific world.
The elliptical orbit of Mercury is, of all the planets
(apart from that of Pluto which orbits over 4,000 million
km from the sun) the most accentuated, in that the nearest
point in its orbit, the perihelion, is 46 million km from the sun,
while the aphelion, the furthest point, is nearly 70 million km,
as indicated in Figure 59 below.
General Relativity suggested that the precession was a result of 'mass
dilation', or an increase in mass due to an increase in the velocity
of a body, leading to the suggestion that an increase in Mercury's
velocity in the region of the perihelion meant that it fractionally
overshot its position as predicted by other factors.
However the argument does not appear to view the orbit
of Mercury from the focus of its orbit, which is the centre of the
sun and if this were applied and taken to its logical conclusion
by starting from the basis of the average velocity/mass, applying
mass dilation to the planet's mass when in the hemisphere of the
aphelion would result in a reduction from the average and thus a
reduced velocity at the aphelion and an undershooting of its predicted
position. And as the time Mercury spends in this hemisphere is far
greater than that in the opposite, the result would be to more than
cancel out the suggested perihelion advance, which in turn would
have the overall effect of reversing the observed precession.
A more logical explanation for precession therefore would
be that Mercury's velocity is reduced in the perihelion
hemisphere due to friction imparted by the greater density of the
suns atmosphere at this altitude combined with an increase in velocity
to a greater extent in the opposite hemisphere by the reduction in
friction at higher altitudes that would result in an overall precessive
motion of the orbit.
Fig.59
Replication
The energy level of gases per atom increases
with progressive decompression; this is an undeniable fact
of nature.
We can therefore extend this to suggest that the atoms
in space have greatly expanded force fields, and accordingly
a large store of low-level energy, and that such atoms at varying
densities occupy all of ‘space’ in the universe.
As we have already pointed out the determining factor of
the state of matter, i.e. its energy content, throughout
the universe is the force of pressure, which is a direct result of
the force of gravitation and we have noted that the compression of
matter always results in it emitting energy and that the reverse
is true, the decompression of matter results in it absorbing energy.
The theoretical extreme state of maximum pressure results
in the compression of matter into non-existence in zero
volume, i.e. by reducing its volume to zero, which state is described
as ‘singularity’.
Accordingly, if singularity were possible, it can be suggested
that if we take a single atom of hydrogen and compress
this atom progressively, it will progressively emit all its store
of energy, including that of the nucleus, and occupy a proportionately
smaller and smaller volume of space, until the hypothetical point
of singularity is reached when it literally disappears.
However a volume of hydrogen atoms under extreme pressure
takes a different course of action in that instead of progressively
contracting into a smaller and smaller volume at some point
a number of hydrogen atoms combine or ‘fuse’ into a single helium
atom, with the necessary emission of a resultant surplus of mass
as energy. It is also assumed that a further increase in pressure
results in the fusion of helium into heavier elements and so on.
The opposite state to singularity, zero pressure, can only
result from the decompression of matter into non-existence,
or rather the state of the non-existence of matter in any volume
of space.
If a vacuum were possible, and we could decompress an individual
atom of hydrogen, it would progressively absorb energy
and occupy a larger and larger volume of space until the point of
zero pressure occurs where (the only logical assumption is that)
all the matter of the atom is converted into energy and this dissipates,
leaving an empty space. This process would, like fusion, involve
the conversion of matter into a large amount of energy.
Such a concept, of the decompression of matter ultimately
destroying matter in this manner, is as illogical and as
philosophically unacceptable as is the concept of pressure, generated
by matter itself, destroying matter, as the only decompressive force
that could be applied in the universe could only result from the
gravitational fields generated by adjacent matter. Again therefore
it would be a case of matter destroying matter.
A far more logical suggestion is that a progressive decrease
in pressure will ultimately lead to the reverse of fusion,
where a single atom of hydrogen, under extreme decompression and
accordingly having absorbed a large amount of energy, has acquired
sufficient to allow a division of the nucleus and the creation of
two atoms of hydrogen.
Back
to Gravity Contents >
|
