Continuum Theory: physical nature viewed from a deeper

level; a rewarding replacement for SR/GR and its mortal

inconsistencies

Miles Osmaston

E: miles@osmaston.demon.co.uk

Web: http://osmaston.org.uk

PIRT XII, 10-13 Sept 2010 Imperial College, London 1

Private viewers are invited to do so in ‘normal view’ to enable them to read the notes below many of the slides, including this one.

Copyright © Miles Osmaston 2010 – 29 pages

Three disastrous inconsistencies lie in RT’s foundations

1. Embracing the function of transverse e.m. (TEM) waves as perfect messengers (hence the Lorentz transformations) but denying the presence of a Maxwell’s equations aether, essential for their existence. (It was like saying “I want the ripples but not the water”)

This enabled Einstein to avoid any possibility of transmission effects, associated with the aether, and to postulate the physically unrealistic “c is an absolute constant of physics”

2

2) Failing to recognize that in any electromagnetic theoryRT mass increase

If, nevertheless, one asserts that what we observe in accelerators must truly be the RT prediction, this would mean that the force communication does not deteriorate with speed increase, implying infinite communication velocity – clearly unacceptable.

3

force communication between two electromagnetically defined objects is progressively velocity-limited to being zero at c (e.g. Heaviside 1889), so this is what we observe with electromagnetic accelerators, not mass-increase.

So why do the resulting particles detected add up to much more mass than the particles we put in?

The CT answer, as will become clear, is that the accelerating field doesn’t distinguish between the charge of the particle and the (many orders greater) charge all around it in the form of the ultrahigh charge-density aether. All is set in motion and the resulting vortical disturbances are the particles we observe – indeed, have created. Cosmogony in action. We will return to this.

4

Particle size

3. Failing to recognize and accommodate in physical theory the evidence (although only available more recently) that fundamental particles are NOT the mathematical singularities upon which GR is based.

This evidence is primarily of two kinds.

(a) Electron-positron scattering (e.g. LEP at CERN) shows they do have an effective size, otherwise scattering wouldn’t occur. (The unpopular spin-off here is that unlimited mass compression in black holes is then an impossibility, but I see mass annihilation as the result.)

(b) Incisive application of Ampère’s Law to generating internally the magnetic fields of fundamental particles instead of inventing ‘intrinsic magnetism’ as a new law of physics. These fields have major practical uses.

Singularity also underlies the many “diseases of infinity” (and the need for the ZPF?).

CT as a rewarding replacement The two-fold basis of CT

(1) Implementing Maxwell’s aether as a massless, all-pervasive, elastic quasi-superfluid continuum of negative electric charge and (2) following Maxwell (1861a,b, 1864, 1873, 1878), W. Thomson (Kelvin)(1867), J.J.Thomson (1883), Larmor (1894, 1897, 1904) and Milner (1960) in making finite-sized particles out of it, as vortical constructs of aether motion.

5

To provide electrons and positrons with opposite relative charge, we suppose one to contain more aether and the other less, like this:-

From the scattering-observed sizes and the known (relative) charge in each we find the aether mean charge density is at least 1030 coulombs/cm3 !! This huge density gives it immense force potential and may well provide the irrotational reference frame on which our directional devices depend.

6

Taking a look inside a finite-sized fundamental particle

Mass and mutual gravitation as the result of vortical action

Inside a particle – gravitational action

On the right side is a cross-section of the central image. The mass of a particle or particle assemblage is measured by its (aether-sucking) ability to attract others. Two quarks (= mesons) are unstable (<10-7 sec) because aether short-circuiting is poor (strong nuclear force is insufficient), but three (protons) are stable.

Mutual attraction predominates statistically over repulsion because of the inverse square law (or steeper) force gradient. That’s why we only have positive gravitation – no negative.

Gravitational action – generation of the radial Gravity-Electric (G-E) Field

Generation of the G-E field

In a gravitationally retained assemblage, all its aether-sucking particles are ‘busy’ sucking aether out of the interior. This creates an aether (charge) density gradient – an electric field (the G-E Field), whose intensity is directly linked to the gravitational potential at that point.

I’ll show that the action of the G-E field is and has been astronomically ubiquitous throughout the Universe; ranging from its presence in the Earth’s ionosphere (a few 100mV/m) to playing a dominant part in the dynamics of spiral galaxies, where it dispenses with the need for CDM.

So Newtonian gravitation is an incomplete description of the forces at work. The G-E field is a discriminatory force, only producing enough radial repulsion on sufficiently ionized plasma and other entrained material.

7

G-E field action – seven major examples

1. Inside stars it is an additional radial support force, reducing the required rate of nucleosynthesis. Solar neutrino deficiency and longer stellar timescales (OK in a no-Big-Bang Universe – see later).

2. Outside stars, its charge density gradient affects c – gives lensing.

3. Planetary system formation. Essential for driving our protoplanets outwards to give their material >105-fold higher a.m. relative to solar. Has a detailed spin-off that the Earth’s internal evolution has been dominated by the water acquired (see http://osmaston.org.uk).

4. Energy source for the solar corona and for driving the solar wind.

5. Building massive stars. It is impossible if radiation pressure is the principal agent of their subsequent prodigious rates of mass loss.

6. Accelerating the high-end cosmic rays (1019 eV) from the surfaces of neutron stars, where G-E field may attain 1012 V/m, and driving pulsar beams by synchrotron radiation from the radial currents.

7. In spiral galaxies, driving axial-infall material outwards at constant tangential velocity, removing the need for CDM to explain this near-ubiquitous dynamical pattern. (Same pattern as for planets (3)) 8

Planetary system formation: the dynamical problem

Jeans 1919,1929 pointed out, endorsed by Lyttleton 1941, Jeffreys 1952, Woolfson 1960,1964,1984,1996 and Gold 1984, that the single contracting solar nebula (SCSN) model of Kant and Laplace is untenable and requires a dynamically distinct source for the planetary material, on the grounds of its huge (>130,000-fold) mean specific a.m. compared to solar.

Efforts to overcome this within a broadly SCSN paradigm have met with little success. A main problem is that it requires a.m. transfer by shearing, which heats the nebula a lot more and would inhibit planet condensation. Another is to get their prograde spins (vorticity in a Keplerian disk is retrograde).

The CT scenario which follows has the additional benefit of explaining why >20% of the 470+ exoplanets found so far are orbiting within only 12 solar radii of their star. (Mercury is 83 solar radii away) 9

The G-E field in planetary system formation

Principal features of the planet-forming second stage of the CT scenario for the solar planetary system (and others).

The proto-Sun formed in one dust cloud, and became an already-dense H-burning star. Later, perhaps a lot later, it flew into and through another cloud, with high dust-opacity, setting up a quasi-equatorial disk from which the planets were formed and the outer 2.5% of the Sun’s mass (above the tachocline) was added to and not mixed in, so its composition appears to match. This ‘contamination’ of the outer Sun explains why the Sun and more than 60% of exoplanet-harbouring stars have higher metallicity [Fe/H] than other members of the same stellar class. The second cloud would have had a typical initial temperature ~10K or even lower. 10

The G-E field in the heliosphere

1) Coronal energy support generally, and the acceleration of the Fast Solar Wind (FSW) particle streams from coronal holes suggest the action of an electric gradient upon ions.

2) Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) - bunches (>109 tonnes) of ions seen to accelerate outward to 400 - 600km/s. Some ion speeds attain ~2000km/s.

3) In coronal streamers, FeXIII and SiXII ions are often abundant (in emission) and maintained there for months, implying electrical support, whereas gravitational settling time is of the order of a day.

4) The coronal emission line spectrum shows hugely stripped ion species e.g. FeXXIV (helium-like). This implies impact by other high-velocity ions - very high excitation temperature; probably not LTE.

5) The solar visual 'surface', the photosphere, is due to the strong absorption and opacity of the negative H ion (Wildt 1939), which has a very low ionization potential (0.75 eV); its abundance needs a source of electrons. Apparently many electrons left behind by solar wind ions have returned to the Sun, due to the electric gradient; they cannot have come from H (IP=13.6 eV).

6) Solar wind ions (IP mostly 4.5-8.2 eV) arise at low chromosphere temperature level (7kK+). Their extraction and differential acceleration requires an electric field.

7) Strong light-isotope enhancement in frequent wind events (>1000-fold for 3He/4He) (Lin 1994) all the way to Mg. Selection for charge/mass ratio is the property of an electric field.

A small selection of the effects

11

Two more G-E field examples

1. Beta Pictoris. In our CT scenario, exoplanet/star relationships are seen not long after emergence from their dust-opaque cloud. It appears that we see Pic while radial clear-out of the protoplanetary disc is in progress. The pair of IR streaks shows where it has got to, leaving the inner part empty of warm gas.

2. Planetary nebula Fomalhaut & planet Fomalhaut b. The ‘nebular’ ring consists of many 100s of radial comet-like streaks whose tails are plasma driven by the G-E field of the star. By contrast, the planet Fom b, a neutral object, is in a CCW orbit under Newtonian gravitation.

1 2

12

Absil & Mawet AARev (July 2010)

What else does CT aether do that proves its existence? It has random motion, both particle-tied and primordial, that produces

five wavelength-independent effects, all observed:a. on transmitted TEMwaves 4 effects, all path length.(T/m)½a

redshift -- transverse aether motions stretch the waves – cosmic, galaxy intrinsic, solar, ground-level path experiment (Sadeh et al

1968)

line broadening – along-path motions – disparity with excitation or colour temperature of stars; nuclear fusion expts UK 1958; sharp ‘stellar rotation’ drop at F5.

scattering – brightened patch around antisolar sunlit sky at >6000m height; gegenschein, also seen by Pioneer in interplanetary space.

attenuation – due to the scattering

b. TEMwave generation – random motions must include accelerations, and accelerated charge radiates TEMwaves – CMB is the result.

c. particle creation/cosmogony – random motions imply particle-scale rotational motions – result is particle-antiparticle pair creation (incl. protons) and, by extension, ongoing creation/cosmogony of the material Universe from an infinite, primordial, randomly moving aether (no Big Bang, see cosmic redshift (a), and the next slides). 13

Experimental observation of transmission redshift in 1968

In May-June 1968, 2 sets of caesium clocks, on trucks, were progressively separated by distances up to 1500km, sitting at each location along a NE path for a week. The ticks received from the immobile one were compared at the other. Further comparisons from the base at C. Fear were also done with the US master clock in Washington (a NW path) and on a much warmer SW path to Florida.I interpret these results as ground- level experimental verification of CT's predicted redshift.

Extrapolation of the line-slope to the cosmic redshift is possible. Taking reasonable Earth atmospheric parameters, and neutral atomic hydrogen at an extragalactic path temperature 2.75K and density 10-25kg/m3, I got a Hubble parameter Ho = 60km/s/Mpc. Unfortunately this density is at least 10 orders too high for the mostly-void paths involved. But ionization, an up to 36-order effect for total ionization, should cope with this. So my conclusion stands. 14

A continuous autocreation cosmology for CT: the Electric Universe

15

I propose that the Universe ‘began’ an indefinably long time ago as a truly infinite volume of randomly moving aether and that all its currently observable energy density, both as true mass and as TEM-waves, has been drawn from the ‘unfathomable’ energy resource represented by that primordial random motion. The energy level represented was likely higher than its present 2.73K.

E.m. coupling between its random motions will inevitably produce

rotational disturbances. I infer that all particles in the Universe are

ultimately more or less complex forms of aether rotational and/or

vortex motions. Some very specifically sized configurations (e.g.

electrons) confer stability, so are ubiquitous, but others not, and fade

back into the plethora of motion. This is autocreation.

No Big-Bang; so what?

Autocreation, positive feedback, and the build-up of mass concentrations

When the separations of the earliest-created particles had, in places, decreased to the point where H atoms had been built and mutual gravitational interaction and encounters began to occur, this release of gravitational energy would have raised the temperature and particle velocities, and the related aether random motion, thereby accelerating the rate of auto-creation. This positive feedback would inevitably result in big spatial variations in the rate of auto-creation, and I see the presence of galaxy clusters as the end product.

Granted the presence of an embryo cluster of galaxies, I now suppose that the principal source of autocreated neutral hydrogen is in the vast surrounding aura/corona-like space, not in the much smaller volumes of the stars themselves, where the energy levels may be counter-productive. So now I show how the infall of this primitive material evidently dominates the growth and dynamical evolution of spiral galaxies. Lots of HI (21cm) from it is likely.

16

Tangential velocity profiles of spiral galaxies; G-E field vs CDM

17

Comprehensive observations of spiral galaxies show that, after an initial rise, related roughly to the optical bulge, the tangential velocity commonly stays nearly constant out to well beyond the visible limit. A disk under Newtonian-Keplerian control would exhibit a markedly decreasing tangential velocity at increasing radius, so the surrounding presence of huge amounts of similarly-acting Cold Dark Matter (CDM) has been proposed and widely accepted, with big implications for Big-Bang cosmology, (but giving a big a.m. problem too).

But, just as in planetary formation (slide 10), this is precisely the profile to be expected when the G-E field is in control and pushing polar-infalling but now-ionized material outward in the disk. Here, this is the infall of cosmogonically young material that we expect. Critical support for the G-E field as the cause of the flat tangential velocity profiles comes from the observations (Romanowski et al 2003) that typically plasma-poor Ellipticals do show a Keplerian-type drop in velocity at increasing radius.

How does this relate to actual images?

M51/NGC 5194

M101/NGC 5457 18

1.The constant tangential velocity automatically means that the arms trail as they move (are driven) outward (G-E field action). So they are unwrapping, although the direction of rotation is the same as if they were winding up.

2.Dust and less ionized material, seen as red lanes (M 51), has less G-E field drive, and has to rely on aerodynamic push, so it accumulates along the insides of arms – an ubiquitous and diagnostic feature of spiral arms. Star formation active here.

3.Meanwhile the finer, ionized, G-E-driven material /plasma filters through it and is seen as outwards-trailing streaks and ‘fur’ on the outsides of arms.

4.Moving the arms outward, without changing tangential velocity, requires them to extend over greater length of arc, so they rupture abundantly and obliquely – opacity creates ‘dust lanes’. M 101 shows well how this rupturing has enabled the G-E driven disk wind to drive chunks of the arms out to great distance. There seems no way that this galaxy could be treated as the product of gravitational shrinkage.

Transformation of Spirals into Barred Spirals

19

NGC 1300, often seen as the ‘type’ barred spiral

Interpretation of bar formation with specific reference to NGC 1300. The polar infall streams (see inset) are here supposed to have been deflected and misaligned by the gravitation of other galaxies in the cluster (so will only happen inside clusters). This sets up a couple which forms a rotating bar, more clearly referred to as a ‘roller-bar’, whose length propagates outward (G-E field) until it encounters and engages lightly with a spiral arm. The orientation of the roller-bar’s axis is fixed by the external influences, so it does not rotate with the spiral arm structure, which continues to rotate about the original axis. Non-ionized material, such as the dust lanes which line spiral arms, is able to gravitate along the bar towards the centre, being twisted into a weak spiral by the faster bar rotation at the centre, where the infall rotational torque is being applied. In this manner the spiral arms are ‘consumed’ as they continue to rotate past the ends of the bar. Close examination of the image shows that NGC 1300 has already started to do that, though not reproduced on my sketch.

Evolution of Barred Spirals; the route to giant plasma-poor Ellipticals in cluster interiors

20

NGC 2685. Inferred here to be a much under-exposed Barred Spiral. White lines

mark possible faint arms seen in the negative image also given by Sandage 1961. In more-exposed images the arcs show radiance, so

are not seen against the bar.

NGC 2523. Bar with independently rotated arms, leaving a ring of ionized material (which may be collected next

time around?).

What happens when cosmogonically young infall from outside is shut off in a cluster interior? Ionization will fall, the along-axis G-E field force which maintained its length will fall, and the bar will undergo end-wise axial collapse under gravity, conserving the a.m. of the bar’s rotation and augmenting the bulge. The result will be a fat plasma-poor Elliptical. There are many such in the interiors of dense clusters.

No Big-Bang; so what about the light elements? For this we will go to my quasar (QSO) model, based on velocity-dependent inertia (VDI). I will show that in high-mass cases VDI could result in runaway rotational shrinkage due to positive feed-back, precipitating mass annihilation in the interior – particles need space in which to exist – and a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) which distributes into the cosmos the light elements made at the super-high PT in the interior.

The logic of VDI. Mach’s Principle formulations of inertia involve gravitational communication with ‘the rest of the Universe’, which, due to the ultrahigh charge density of the aether, may I think be quite local, thus avoiding the communication delay. But in CT the aether is the agent for all forms of communication – e.m., gravitational, inertial – so it’s logical for inertial communication to be velocity-limited to c, like the others.

21

Consequences of VDI for spinning masses In the ‘normal’ (low-velocity) circumstance, the force balance on an orbiting body is between the gravity of the central body (stable if the orbit radius is constant), and the (inertia-dependent) centrifugal force upon it. But the orbital velocity is with respect to ‘the rest of the Universe’, so under VDI the centrifugal force will decrease as the orbit speed increases, making a further increase of orbit velocity necessary in order to bring the forces into balance. If that speed-up is achieved by orbit shrinkage, while conserving angular momentum, the force from the central body will be increased, possibly precipitating a runaway shrinkage sequence of velocity increase and inertia (centrifugal force) reduction.

Whereas RT imposes an absolute velocity limitation to c, the only limitation in CT is with respect to the local aether, as transmitting medium, so in the above situation the orbital velocity may build inwards to greatly superluminal values. 22

Aberration-related (A-R) redshift

The vector >c in Bradley’s velocity triangle for stellar aberration was rejected by Einstein but it is acceptable in CT and its stretching is the basis of the random transverse velocity (e.g. cosmic) redshift already discussed. In that case, v is <<c and the redshift increment very small, but is repeated many times along a path. Here, in the VDI product, if v is superluminal the A-R redshift in a single action may be very large.

v

c>c

23

A CT model for quasars and the ‘Lyman

forest’ absorptions

Features to be explained

Diminutive, star-like image size.

Very broad Lyman emission line, redshifted (z = ) in the range <0.2 - >5.5.

Numerous (up to >100) Ly absorption lines - the so-called "Lyman alpha forest" - extending along the shortward flank (less redshift) of the main Ly emission (+ some corresponding CIV and NIV absorptions, implying ionization temperatures of several 104 K).

24

The Lyman alpha forest looks like this

25

Ly alpha emission from QSO central body

Lyman forest

Position of broad absorption lines (BAL) – high ionization

Image from:- http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr2030_05/qso/hs0105+1619.gif

Quasar model (contd)

to observero

representative

velocity nc

nc c

source pointnear limb

c(n + 1)2 ½

emission level

n

numerousshear-inducedshells at lowerrotational

absorption by

aberration angle =

1. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the body, is of aberration-related (A-R) type, and amounts to z = (n2 + 1) - 1. Thus z = 4.89 would require n = 5.8 and , so the received intensity falls rapidly as z increases further, but will never drop to zeroThis CT-predicted (1996) drop-off beyond z = 5 has later been well noted observationally.

2. Uniquely, the aether within the core body is in high-speed rotation, whose intense magnetic field must have big radiative potential linked to axially expelled jets.

3. The "Lymanforest", and the high-ionization C and N lines, is intrinsic absorption in shells that are integral to the object, the hotter and denser ones, very reasonably, being closer in. It is not due to clouds in intergalactic space, whose temperature can thus be the 2.73K indicated by the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

4. Quasars are not at the cosmological distances inferable from their redshifts, but are probably near that defined by the shortest member of the forest (outermost shell).

n is the superluminal factor

26

MFO 1996

Principal Conclusion I

Three inconsistencies are mortal to the validity of SR/GR

1. Rejection of the aether – “ripples, Yes; but no water”

2. Mass increase – an electrodynamical blunder.

3. Fundamental particles are of finite size (mutual scattering, magnetic moment) not the singularities basic to GR.

27

In the light of these……..

Principal Conclusion II..CT is indeed a rewarding

replacement for SR/GRBy implementing Maxwell’s aether both qualitatively and

quantitatively, and by making particles out of it, those rewards include a Universe free of the absurdities of a Big-Bang, CDM, Dark Energy and unlimited Black Holes, and appear to offer a fuller understanding of:-

a) How the external properties of fundamental particles arise;b) The physics of gravitation;c) The astronomically ubiquitous action of the Gravity-Electric

field – including star formation, stellar evolution, planetary formation, heliosphere observations, gravitational lensing, acceleration of cosmic rays, evolution of spiral galaxies.

d) A non-expanding autocreation Universe and its relevance to the formation and development of galaxy clusters.

28

And there’s already a lot more in the oven

29

See also my previous PIRT papers – London 2000-2008 – at

http://physicsfoundations.org

Thank you for your attention

Including the stochastic electrodynamics-like effects upon atomic and nuclear structures of random electromagnetic

excitation by the all-pervasive aether