Romun Nose

The Transmission of Gravity

Since the early 1980’s images constructed from data obtained by the technology of electron microscopy have provided a visual confirmation of the ultimate, natural division of matter. But, while this is acceptable empirical proof of the existence of atoms and of their structural arrangements in solid matter, these images show no sign of the motion, or of the separation of atoms in macroscopic matter that is a core assumption of current atomic theory. Instead these images give a clear impression of an ‘apparent continuousness‘ *(1) of atoms, as in the image below, courtesy of IBM Almaden.

Figure 1

The historical origins of this concept of the separation of atoms by a volume of ’empty space’ go back to Greek philosophers of around 2500 years ago, who invented the vacuum in order to be able to explain the fluidity of air and water with their oddly shaped atoms.

This concept was dismissed by Aristotle whose four elements model was accepted until 1644 when Torricelli was generally assumed to have created a perfect vacuum in his experiments with mercury, which contradicted the then generally accepted Aristotelian wisdom that this state was not possible in any circumstance. It can be no coincidence therefore that three years later, in 1647, Gassendi resurrected Democritus’ ‘kinetic’ atomic theory, which was dependent on its ‘existence’.

When Torricelli’s apparatus was later shown by Pascal to be an indicator of atmospheric pressure, this “supported the belief that the atmosphere is only a thin layer surrounding the earth, and that outer space is empty” *(2). This belief of space as essentially a vacuum perpetuated until the mid 1900’s – “Half a century ago, most people visualised our planet as a solitary sphere traveling in a cold, dark vacuum of space around the Sun.” *(3)

Of course Torricelli’s ‘vacuum’ was not a perfect one, but contained mercury vapour ‘boiled’ off in the low pressure created by the weight of the column of liquid mercury, however if one Googles images of barometers, virtually all indicate, without qualification, that the space above the mercury is a vacuum.

Continue reading →

The Propagation of Light

Analysis of the propagation of light today still uses Huygens’ principle, first published in 1678, which states that that “all points of a wave front of light in a vacuum or transparent medium may be regarded as new sources of wavelets that expand in every direction at a rate depending on their velocities”.

“Every point on a wave-front may be considered a source of secondary spherical wavelets which spread out in the forward direction at the speed of light. The new wave-front is the tangential surface to all of these secondary wavelets.” (Wikipedia)

And later in 1816, Fresnel showed that Huygens’ principle, together with his own principle of interference could explain both the rectilinear propagation of light and also diffraction effects.

To obtain agreement with experimental results, he had to include additional arbitrary assumptions about the phase and amplitude of the secondary waves, and also an obliquity factor. These assumptions have no obvious physical foundation but led to predictions that agreed with many experimental observations. (Wikipedia)

There are two important points here as highlighted, firstly “These assumptions have no obvious physical foundation” in other words it is assumed that there is no material or physical medium that can be a vehicle for the propagation of such wavelets, and secondly “in a vacuum”, which accordingly has to assume that such wavelets of light can actually propagate in a vacuum.

“Every point on a wave-front may be considered a source of secondary spherical wavelets” in effect this means that these are points on a wave front in a vacuum that are the origin of secondary wavelets.

But if Huygens’ principle agrees “with many experimental observations” then there must be a “physical foundation” the propagation of these wavelets, but in terms of current atomic theory there can be no such foundations.

Below is a copy of a textbook diagram of Huygens’ principle.

This diagram below shows Huygens wavelets propagating through a ‘kinetic’ gas, and it is clear that there can be no interaction with kinetic atoms (moving at average velocities of up to 900 metres a second) to facilitate the transmission of light, while the propagation of waves through the inter-atomic vacuum/empty space is also not possible.

However if the images of atoms at the surfaces of solid matter (as discussed here ) demonstrate that atoms are continuous, and this continuity extends to the gaseous state, as in the diagram below, then it is quite clear that such an arrangement can allow the transmission of waves of light.

The outlines of atoms in this diagram, as depicted by the hexagonal outlines, are of course idealised as in reality a plane cross section of atoms would not form such a regular geometric arrangement, but it is quite clear that such a continuum of atomic matter could transmit spherical wavelets of light directly from atom to atom, and that each wavelet or combination of wavelets impacting on an atom can stimulate it to generate another wavelet onward.

A physicist knows that gravity is transmitted between two massive bodies, as it is observed to do so.
A physicist believes that the gas separating these is composed of discontinuous atoms/molecules separated by a relatively large volume of empty space, a vacuum (or one of numerous speculative, ‘vacuum-filling’, zero-inertia media).
A physicist therefore believes that somehow it must be possible for gravity to be transmitted through this vacuum (or one of numerous speculative, ‘vacuum-filling’, zero-inertia media) between these bodies.

I also know that gravity is transmitted between two massive bodies, as it is observed to do so.
I also know that the transmission of a force through a vacuum, or zero-inertia ‘empty space’, is not possible, as such a space cannot sustain ‘action and reaction’.
I know that the only possible vehicle for the transmission of gravity are the component atoms of the intervening gases.
I know that the only possible way that these atoms could transmit a force to adjacent atoms is directly by physical contact and by the process of action and reaction.
I therefore conclude that the atomic matter of the gases separating such two masses cannot be discontinuous, and that the only possible vehicle for the transmission of any force is a continuum of atomic matter.