Longitudinal and Transverse Propagation, "Time Dilation"

[altonhare]

Observations of time dilation imply something simple about the motion of the fundamental constituent(s). Namely, that this fundamental stuff engages in both longitudinal and lateral/transverse motion.

If an atom propagates by longitudinal wavelike motion, then the light that encounters it propagates transversely and vice versa. It doesn't have to be this way, but "time dilation" demands that motion of both "kinds" take place. Which is longitudinal and which is transverse, however, "time dilation" and STR do not specify.

If light is a torsional/transverse/helical motion of the underlying fundamental stuff, and this motion always occurs at the same constant net rate (just like other wavelike motion we encounter), then when light encounters longitudinal motion of the fundamental stuff its transverse component will be slowed. Since light's net speed must always be the same, if it acquires a longitudinal component (say, while propagating through an atom), then it will have to slow its transverse propagation. Since we define transverse propagation as the propagation of light, the light appears to be slowed.

Since the light takes longer to move around the atom before it is emitted, a "light clock" will tick fewer times if it is in motion with respect to the underlying fundamental stuff.

And of course the ratio between the velocity of light with no longitudinal component and light with a longitudinal component u is:

C/sqrt(C2-U2)

i.e. the Lorentz factor.

So Lorentz's problem was that he proposed a light-carrying medium that was independent and disconnected from the atoms/matter/objects that the light interacts with. Even before Michelson-Morley and other experiments gave Lorentz's aether trouble, he already had a mess of difficulties with how the aether and non-aether influenced each other back and forth.

Thread theory is 100% consistent with the Lorentz factor because the atom moves along the rope like a knot in a shoelace or a turn on a wire. Light propagates transversely along the "wire" between two atoms while the atoms propagate longitudinally. The light signal must go around some portion of the electron shell before being re-emitted. Its transverse propagation is slowed as it is longitudinally "carried along" with the atom. It takes longer to be re-emitted and the "light clock" appears to run slow.

"Length contraction" is an artifact of measurement, not "real". When you measure the length/distance of a remote object or between two objects A and B you do so by measuring the difference in light propagation time between A and B. Since those two objects are "time dilated" you will count fewer clock ticks between A and B. Less time means you calculate a shorter distance.

By the way, Bill Gaede's paper on the Rope Hypothesis of light has been accepted for publication in IEEE. I will be submitting a followup paper in the next couple months which we both expect to also be accepted. Bill's will address the most basic observations of light that the rope succesfully simulates, orthogonality, rectilinear propagation, etc. My paper will analyze the rope hypothesis in the context of Maxwell's Equations and STR, with similar discussion/arguments to that shown above (but more carefully written and reviewed).

[mbunds]

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying this concept with a very elementary question, but I am studying this electric universe with great fervor since its concepts line up concisely with my (lack of) understanding of the universe so far.

Is it true that light itself is unobservable, but rather only its effect upon a target?

[Jarvamundo]

Nice! Bill Gaede - how to make a razor out of rope.
Thanks for the updates Alton, we get pre-prints at TB yeah?

[altonhare]

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying this concept with a very elementary question, but I am studying this electric universe with great fervor since its concepts line up concisely with my (lack of) understanding of the universe so far.

Is it true that light itself is unobservable, but rather only its effect upon a target?

Light is just a word. It's true that you can't observe the mechanism by which you observe. However there must be such a mechanism else how would you observe anything...

[Birkeland]

Bill Gaede's paper on the Rope Hypothesis of light has been accepted for publication in IEEE.

Great news!

[webolife]

mbunds,
Simply and concretely put, all light is "invisible", ie transparent. Like gravity it is an action, not a thing.
A photoreceiver must be resonant with the configuration of the light signal, which I would say is a result of the electronic configuration/geometry of the source object[s]. So configurations which create a signal in the range of what we call colors are resonant with our retina. It is quite fortuitous that we cannot see other "colors" of light such as radio, IR and UV, x-ray, etc. as it would render our view of the universe something like the static on an untuned TV, or at best like a "Where's Waldo?" picture with light stimuli in practically every point of our field of vision. It would be difficult to distinguish between objects in space. The melanocytes in our skin "see" UV. Green plants "see" red and blue light. Your TV set receives signals that are resonant with the antenna configuration, but which are invisible to us... meanwhile, the TV cannot "see" color...

Back to Time Dilation, there is none. IMHO There is only the contradiction of interpretation we encounter when we try to fit actual observation into a relativistic framework. I think this misinterpretation stems from the acceptance of the paradigm of "c" as an unsurpassable constant, and mathematics such as Lorentz's Transformation.
Alton, I miss your correspondence; I don't intend to engage in further rigorous debate, but look forward to more discussion and clarification of the Rope Theory.

[altonhare]

Alton, I miss your correspondence; I don't intend to engage in further rigorous debate, but look forward to more discussion and clarification of the Rope Theory.

Great! In thread/rope theory the signal called "light" is a transverse undulation of the rope. This transverse undulation occurs at a constant rate. However, when transverse waves in a medium encounter longitudinal waves in that medium, the transverse component must be slowed to retain a constant net propagation rate in that medium. The two waves essentially blend into one wave that has longitudinal and transverse components which, all together, have a resultant of c.

Since, in thread theory atoms move longitudinally, a light signal encountering an atom will take longer to move through an atom that is moving faster longitudinally. So light signals from a moving atom will be observed to occur at longer intervals. The two perpendicular components have a resultant that simply obeys the Pythagorean Theorem, which explains the particular form of the Lorentz factor.

Additionally the speed of signal propagation would be dependent on the density of thread through which the signal is propagating. Threads/ropes can, with a little effort, overlap. Especially near the atom where ropes from every atom in the U converge, the thread density goes up dramatically. If you overlay two ropes you can now imagine a signal propagating through them experiences a different elasticity (or force constant). Pack enough atoms (and thread) together densely enough and signals will take a very long time indeed to propagate.

I know you disagree etc., but you wanted more clarification/elaboration, so there you go.

[Goldminer]

In my humble opinion, "Photons" are an artifact of light radiation interacting with matter. No "light" is ever emitted or detected without first interacting with matter. The so called "Photon" never leaves home. The technical aspects of antenna engineering are best applied to propagation of light. Understanding the transition of radiation from near field to far field, and the resonances of wavelengths to the size of atoms and molecules (that is, treating them as fractional wavelength antennas) is a good start.

Check this link: http://blazelabs.com/f-u-photons.asp

[Goldminer]

Back to Time Dilation, there is none. IMHO There is only the contradiction of interpretation we encounter when we try to fit actual observation into a relativistic framework. I think this misinterpretation stems from the acceptance of the paradigm of "c" as an unsurpassable constant, and mathematics such as Lorentz's Transformation

"Back to Time Dilation, there is none. IMHO." exactly right, Webolife! I suggest for your comment/criticism; that it is not really a "contradiction of interpretation," but an outright fantasy that Einstein set out in his STR. Everyone (practically) since he introduced his ideas has uncritically accepted his proposition.

So Lorentz's problem was that he proposed a light-carrying medium that was independent and disconnected from the atoms/matter/objects that the light interacts with. Even before Michelson-Morley and other experiments gave Lorentz's aether trouble, he already had a mess of difficulties with how the aether and non-aether influenced each other back and forth.

Altonhare, you have expressed several really good points here. I won't go deeply into them, but let me see if I can cover some of them quickly:

1. The MM experiment did not show that light is independently propagated from the source, regardless of the source's motion. It merely showed that the aether's motion is probably not detectable with an interferometer. (the light source was right on the interferometer!)

2. Light (and all EMR) does propagate from the source spherically, centered upon the source. This is obvious by the fact that at-rest with the source observers are the only ones who see light waves undistorted by aberration and spectral Doppler shift.

3. If the aether is responsible for inertia, as I have concluded from the above insight, (#2.), [for light waves, as well as matter] the aether will remain undetectable.