Penrose lectures about crystal structures - basically reduced too mix of 2 elementary shapes is also great. Seems the field may contain more elementary truths about universe than we could expect.
I don't see why you have to abandon logic for entanglement. There could be an unseen realm that handles entanglement in a logical fashion. I also think this realm deals with the links necessary for pilot wave theory, only I believe the wave is merely an average of the interaction in this realm of individual photons and possibly an unseen companion particle in said realm. This just shows that logic does not need to break down if you don't want it to.
The problem is that your interpretation of quantum entanglement and superposition requires a mirror particle in a dimension we cannot experimentally observe. Spooky act at a distance was discovered by Einstein and it spelled the death of locality as a fundamental aspect of reality. The problem is that since Einstein, the greatest scientific mind of all time, passed away, nobody seems to have a real version of what a unifed merger would look like.
Would really like to see you do a topic devoted to explanation and analysis of Mendel Sachs theoretical work (theory of matter) and efforts to furthering Einstein's unified field theory.
Thank you, I will. And yes, space and time is a suitable venue for physics, but, that is only because the properties of that venue are dependent upon what occupies that venue. Newtonian gravity is a mathematical description only. And as far as it being relative to mass, that's only when the Gravitational Constant is used. Newton also said it was universal, which to him meant as far as Jupiter and he also said that the sun was near the center of the universe. M=e/c^2 Mass is energy and in classical physics the most fundamental form of energy is that of charge, as noted with an electron and a proton. All other forms of energy are tertiary. Torsion is an interesting concept in light of what I consider the luminiferous aether to be in which plasma plays a key role. I have been reading some of these papers circa 1900, and, knowing what I know due to a hundred years of technology, its easy to understand why Michelson/Morley got a null result testing for the aether wind due to the motion of earth. A constant theme in these papers is that space is a vacuum devoid of all matter but the ponderable bodies. Birkeland was refuted for suggesting electric corpuscles in space due to this consensus. The fact of the matter is the solar system is one giant electromagnetic cell defined by the Heliopause. The Heliospheric current sheet defines the polarized Interplanetary magnetic field which fills the entire so called vacuum of the solar system. Which brings us to the anode sun, which was how Birkeland modeled the sun when he made his prediction and has been further validated with Safire Projects results of 14 times thermal over unity through the containment of electrons in double-layers around an anode sun, which Hannes Alfvenn was adamant about needed proper consideration in cosmology, and finally, earth is a spherical capacitor, our atmosphere is a dielectric between a mostly Q+ Ionosphere and a mostly electronegative Q- earth. The properties of any space in time is dependent upon what occupies that space, be it material or immaterial. That's physics.
If variable lightspeed explains gravitational light-bending, then how much of the rest of GR does it cover? Can you write equations, involving a variable lightspeed, equivalent to Einstein's GR equation? Would it need to be a tensor? Is Mach's Principle involved, and if so, how? Does it have singularities at the center of black holes? Does lightspeed go to zero there?
according to the Lorentz-Einstein transformation we have y' = y (or dy'=dy), with the train moving along the x'/x axes. since the 'c' relative to the "moving" frame of the train and the "stationary" ground frame is the same i.e. dy'/dt' = dy/dt, we get dt' =dt or t' = t, if we assume that t' = 0 when t = 0. the time dilation expression shown is for light beam moving along the x'/x axes which is the direction of motion of the train. we need to rotate the clock in the train by 90 degrees clockwise to align it along the x'/x axes, which is the direction of the motion of the train relative to the ground. Einstein does this in his 1905 published paper. however, he then has the time for light to reach x', a point along the x' axis of the train, as x'/(c+v) and the return time as x'/(c-v). this makes the speed of light along direction of motion of the train > c and < c in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the train, relative to the ground/stationary frame, and is Galilean addition and subtraction of speeds.
11 Dimensions do make sense, but only if you acknowledge space as one dimension, one equal and not parallel, 9 lower and one higher dimension. The constant assumption that extra dimensions must be higher in nature is rather a little disturbing 😁
Sad part is string theory at its core is not really that bad of an idea. Taking the universe and attempting to model it in 3 dimensional strings such that a 3 axis coordinate system is made of vibrating axis so to speak could potentially turn out to be a very great model were it not for the cluster fuck of nonsense modern string theorist have turned it into.
The variable light speed GR is the only one consistent with a field theory framework that can be quantized. The curved space-time version lacks any process which explains what is this curvature and how it is maintained. The 1914 Einstein equations solve for a metric, but a metric is not a field. This has resulted in the failure to find any QM version of GR even though string theory and loop-quantum gravity ware supposed to pave the way. Brilliance is not a substitute for empiricism and there is nothing unique about the 1914 GR which makes it the singular choice. An improved theory of gravity guided by QM and finer tests is long overdue.
Except that, QM is strictly a matter phenomenon, not necessarily applicable to spacetime! Who says that QM is the end all be all of physics from which all other phenomena including spacetime itself should be derived, other than the fanboys of QM who continue to promote the idea of a "field" that implicitly demand an ad hoc spacetime!?
So you’re regurgitating what you’ve absorbed from CZcams presentations and several pop-physics books out currently, and now you can be hypercritical of the limitations of a theory formulated over a century ago by a man who possessed a deeper comprehension of reality than other humans. Good boy!
About EPR, assuming 2 electrons with opposite spins, how would the spin of one be affected by the other striking a positron and turning into a gamma ray? Not knowing the spin of either beforehand. And if c is not a constant, then what is?
Could mr . Unzicker make video not about current physics , or physicists from the past but about physics of the future ? I ' m talking precisely about the way Physics lessons will be taught in schools of tomorrow ? We have access to current physics material on internet , and we can search about natural philosophy of the old days . Also thanks to the internet . But there isn't much here about futuristics . I wander if profesor Alexander could expande the subject to : " how We will teach Physics in next Millenium " . Thank you . Danke .
@Del Bradley I have an invited paper about to upload to the Jrnl of Space Safety Engineering reference it in Elsevier's under "Moon Dust is Deadly" after review. Yours 🍺
I wonder why the Gravitational Potential is not negative, i.e. why the expression within the brackets is not (1-phi/c^2)? also, I wonder why Einstein did not solve the 3rd degree polynomial for 'c' unless the 'c' within the brackets is actually 'c(0)' and not 'c' and hence a misprint?
Light-travel is a product of science back in the Islamic era. The universe runs at its maximum energy potential. Therefore, Light cannot be thrown to 'waste' everywhere the way we like to direct the 'torchlight in our hand left and right' - assuming Light travels. Light is a visible call to the Universe's API (UAPI). "Energy, like time, flows from past to future"
No because that is not what einstein meant by spooky action at a distance his sentence was taken out of context of the full paragraph he wrote. He reffered to that twice and if both occasions are read he reffered to something else, uou can check other videos which explain.
Without selection rules, the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't work. Otherwise, millions of electrons wouldn't have the same speed under the same bias voltage.
@Unzicker's Real Physics Just read this book. A curved Universe with a constant speed of light vs. a flat Universe with variable speed of light. Here is my question: Consider a galaxy that is a spiral, 8 billion years away. In a Universe that has expanded, the angular size in the Sky of this spiral galaxy should be greater (in angular size as seen from Earth) than the angular size of this same Galaxy if the size was just due to distance, in a flat Universe that has not expanded. Why? because when this light was emitted, this Galaxy was much closer to Earth. In a Universe that has been expanding, galaxy angular sizes must be bigger than in a flat Universe where the speed of light is variable. If the Universe is flat and the Galaxy is redshifted just due to gravitational effects on wavelength, then the size will be smaller because it really represents the distance and the galaxy was not much closer to Earth when the light was emitted. These two models are not equivalent when it comes to the angular sizes of Galaxies as seen from Earth, There has to be a way of differentiating the two. Online, I read this: "For close galaxies, the greater the distance, the smaller their apparent diameter, but around z = 1.5 cosmic expansion becomes a bigger factor than the galaxy’s distance. As a result, galaxies with higher redshifts actually start appearing larger. The most distant galaxies can appear significantly larger than closer galaxies. This doesn’t mean that distant galaxies are actually larger, simply that they appear larger due to cosmic expansion." If this apparent larger size is real, then, the Universe is expanding indeed, space is curved and the speed of light could be constant. I wonder about your opinion about this.
In my opinion, Einstein is the greatest physicist in history. However, I think he made a mistake in elevating the constancy of the speed of light to a postulate instead of searching for other possible explanations. The approach he took led him to reject Newton's concept of absolute time, and this rejection is the root of the problems in particle physics.
@@ebrelus7687 I am sorry, but I don't understand your question. Also, in my opinion, it is irrelevant whatever Penrose has to say. My point is simple: if time is actually absolute, but particle physics assumes it is relativistic, then that would explain why the standard model has reached a dead-end .
I agree only in part. constancy of c *with respect to a moving reference frame* is a great idea. But he himself generalized this idea by considering a vyriable speed of light in 1907/1911 (actually his first idea when dealing with general relativity). the even more profound problem is that c as such is not explained, and raises doubt on the concept of space-time. More in www.amazon.com/dp/B0849ZXQB1
@@TheMachian I think the constancy of the speed of light predicted by the Lorentz transformation is accurate, but misinterpreted. It can be shown that this transformation can also be derived from the following two postulates: 1) physical space is four-dimensional and 2) time is absolute. If these two postulates are true, then the Lorentz transformation is actually telling us that length contraction and time dilation are types of four-dimensional depth perception effects, analogous to the depth perception effects we observe in our daily lives. Just in case anyone is interested, the preprint with the derivation of the Lorentz transformation from those two postulates is the following: Why is the Speed of Light in Vacuum a Universal Physical Constant? osf.io/6rhcb
Could the idea of a variable speed of light fit in with photon ∆E=hf energy being the emergent part of an interactive process? We can see the speed of light slow down when it travels through water, the wave particle nature of light interacting with the water molecules. You talk about spin being opposite, up or down, but if light radiate out spherically 4π we can have the same spin for the whole spherical surface at the same moment in time. This will be seen has opposite spin on opposite sides of the light sphere. If the photon is part of an emergent process this happens when there a new photon electron coupling or dipole moment with an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future unfolding photon by photon. In such a theory the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer. This forms an interactive process continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual. This gives us the potential to form ever more abstract mathematics! Nothing has lower entropy than a sphere therefore a process of spherical symmetry forming and breakingwill naturally form the potential for entropy to increase with time. What do you think?
Consider the Sternglass-Einstein work on the electron-positron pair in a death spiral since being created in the first condensates of matter after a Bang. From that structure paired with another counter-rotating pair was found a meson matching properties in lab results. The implications of this finding, late 50's, which was never disproven although disputed vs the "Copenhagen School", are immense to theory & help explain a portion of 'dark matter' by virtue of their external neutral charge as a single pair. And, when they finally decay their energy of annihilation is released, this can explain inflation. Thus the Standard Model while coherent to itself isn't a theory being a empirically derived system. In a cellular universe there were more than one Bang, material was there before & a portion unaffected by the explosion remains mixed in with the results of a Bang. That is, a Bang converts mass to energy that is sent quickly away from the center of mass outward as energy thus removing the gathered mass as an Attractor. All masses being drawn by a Great Attractor are suddenly free to take altered trajectories as a way to distinguish objects released from the mass attraction. Consider if this didn't happen all the Universe would be only Great Attractors gobbling each other. Ymmv.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 I bought their papers, you don't know physics worth a pile of stinky. aiBOT emotiCONs are nothing but one-liner insults, no rebuttal, no evidence-> attack the person. Go for it.
Personally, there is not any significant evidence to me that actually suggests that such a bang ever occurred. Hubble constant is an assumption as it is questionable that redshift is purely a doppler effect. CMB is littered with technological and statistical issues. Anthony Perrat formerly of Los Alamos, recreated in a super computer simulation the creation of the universe from two charges circling one another. Einstein's GR required a dark matrix and now we have a modern standard cosmological model that is 97% dark and that to me equals bad model. The only reason Einstein gave properties to space and time was because from his very limited perspective of visible light he was totally ignorant that heliospheric space is occupied with electromagnetic fields due to the interconnecting heliospheric current sheet and the interplanetary magnetic field. He was being creative, imaginative even in the face of profound ignorance. Einstein would die before these discoveries and I suspect he would have dismissed GR himself. Which based on this video is a fair assessment, due to some of Einstein's other works which these observations may have supported but came too late. Ninety-nine point nine percent of the observable matter in the universe is plasma, and charge in plasma does not neutralize, it forms double-layers as well as other electromagnetic structures, and when you think about it, electromagnetic structures are also the nature of subatomic particles, therefore, no gobbling great attractors. Math, not rooted in reality is kind of like science fiction. Can be good fun, but its not real, nor is it physics. Just an opinion of a non-mathematician.
@@daemonnice @Daemon Nice Try Hubble finding a large gravity anomaly in our Milky Way big enough to be a remnant Great Attractor, this common multiverse|cellular universe theory of objects able to suck in galaxies. That's evidence on top of more. If you believe a mirror reflects light, the physics & math describe it, they don't create anything out there. If asteroids are real, so are Attractors, my opinion of gravity that it's a type of fluid that conducts mass attraction. Inflation is a big deal to the Standard Model & explained simply by the Sternglass-Einstein work. Cheers 🍺
What can say about time and gravity a clerk who started talking at age five and until twenty-five years old did not see a professional physicist? Only fantasies.
Das ist eine der Fragen die ich mir stelle..... hat die SRT und ART ihre Gültigkeit? Das Buch würde ich mir holen, jedoch ist mein Englisch zu schlecht, als das ich mir dieses Thema aneignen könnte. Naja und mit Mathe ist auch nicht so rosig bestellt :D. Als Beispiel möchte ich Neutronensterne und ihre Rotationsperiode anführen. Es ist sicher mein unvermögen die ART zu verstehen, aber sollte diese hier nicht ihre Anwendung finden. Auch wenn die Gravitation nicht die der eines schwarzen Loches entspricht, so sollte doch die tatsächliche Rotationsgeschwindigkeit höher als die gemessene sein. Selbst die Kollision von so massereichen Objekten, will mir nicht in den Kopf. Ja, soweit kann ich es nachvollziehen, das die Wechselwirkungsgeschwindigkeit der Gravitation immer c ist und nur noch diese wechselwirkt (SL). Aber wir reden doch von einer Bewegung von Massen im Raum. Wenn sehr viel Masse im Spiel ist, wird eine Außnahme gemacht..... ja usw. .......
Curvature isnt really there, einstein had the right approach but the wrong idea about how to build the microscopic scheme. In truth i science is about contributing, and einstein as all others made mistakes and failed to realise what to do.
NOWHERE DOES the EQUATION E=mc^2 APPEAR IN EINSTEN'S WORKS. IT IS NOT EINSTEIN'S EQUATION. It is not true that he mastered calculus at the age of 14. He was acquainted with calculus and geometry. But he never mastered it. Einstein was bad at math and the level of it was today's first year of college. When Einstein was working on relativity he asked his best friend mathematician Marcel Grossman to interpret his ideas in mathematical equations. It was Grossman who was furnishing Einstein with almost all mathematics on relativity which again was already done by Samuel Tolver Preston even before Einstein was born. Preston is the one who derived E=mc^2 and wrote of equivalence of matter and energy but it was never published and stayed in small circle of physicists. Nowhere does E=mc^2 appear in Einstein's works about relativity. There appears the equation of m=L/c^2 in his works. But E=mc^2 was already published in Italy in 1903 by Olinto de Pretto who derived the famous equation of E=mc^2. This equation is not Einstein's. Mutual friend of Einstein and of De Pretto Italian physicist Besso gave that equation to Einstein. Einstein stole it and revised his works much later in time by claiming as his. No! E=mc^2 is NOT Einstein's equation! Before Einstein Ponicare, Lorentz and Minkowski had the relativity worked out. Einstein stole other people's ideas in patent office while being a clerk there.The same with General Relativity where Einstein stole the Schwartzschild's metric tensors and used it in GR. Einstein was a very emotional person. He was prone to anger and jealousy. He never mentioned other people's names who contributed in his own findings. He did not even calculate his own tax returns and had a personal clerk who was a mathematician to do it for him. Einstein never obtained a driver's licence and did not know how the internal combustible engine worked. He laughed at the idea of an atomic bomb and said that atoms cannot be split. He was a womanizer. And most imporatnt: he was a plagiarizer. czcams.com/video/fsOba2upljw/video.html
These are NOT Einstein's obscure thoughts, aside from teleparallel gravity (which you did not explain at all), and the edge and screw dislocation stuff which was not completely original to Einstein.
I would classify most of his theories as mysticism. He found the property of gravity to equally accelerate objects a "remarkable property". As a supposed expert in relativity and relative motion, he should have easily seen the exact reason why the gravitational field equally accelerates all objects. There is only one common everyday principle of physics that can cause one to observe equal acceleration of all masses. All he did was to create a model that mathematically conveys his belief biases about the mechanism of gravity. The more difficult the mathematics, the more distanced from reality the theory is. His equations "blow up" i.e. they predict singularities, and we all know that in the simple reality of our world cannot support the idea of infinite gravity in infinitesimal volume. That idea is nonsensical. Our world is not has bizarre as physicists make it out to be.
I disagree with your negative assessment. His 1911 idea is intriguing and related to other thoughts: see arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518 or "Einstein's Lost Key"
@@TheMachian Einstein was correct in one thing, and that is the Equivalence Principle. Just as the Equivalence Principle implies, gravity is a mechanical phenomenon. But he was unable to extrapolate the idea of mechanical acceleration in a world of spherical celestial objects. The only way he could picture and express this was via the dynamic "scrunching up" of space and time, which we all know cannot be fundamental reality despite being able to create equations to demonstrate that. If he thought about it more deeply, he would have been able to see how nature achieves gravity purely as a mechanical phenomenon. He probably did think of it, but was either influenced by his belief bias or fallacy of incredulity. Nature cannot do magic tricks with empty space. Reality can only come from physical matter. Gravity is and can only be mechanical. Unfortunately, he left science with a legacy which was the 180 degree opposite of a certain reality of our world (no, the Earth is not flat). As a scientist, you would experience it every moment of every day, but you cannot see it because you are blinded by his models. Also, in his 1911 postulation on the effect of gravity on light, he is correct there in that gravity does indeed bend light, but it is not in any way caused by a gravitational field. Time is not dilated by distances from a body. Again, if you think of it mechanically indeed there is a very compelling illusion that gravity has bent or curved light and even dilated time (if you must use that to explain the apparent slowing of the light). You and the rest of science need to go back to Occam's Razor and start again.
All of Einstein's gedankens are rubbish. 2:00. The curving light ray gedanken is rubbish. This is obvious if u consider a single photon crossing the elevator/chest. In a gravity field the photon must bend, ie it forms a curve, ie the front of the photon is always at 90 deg to its curving traject at that point, likewise the rear. But in an accelerating elevator/chest the photons forming Einstein's ray of light follow an apparent/perceived/observed curved traject (ok), but each individual photon must remain straight & horizontal at all times, & their fronts & rears are at all times at a non-90 deg angle to the traject. Hence the equivalence of the 2 scenarios is not 100% -- hence an observer can tell the difference tween gravity & acceleration -- hence GTR is (at least in part) rubbish. If u dont like the idea of having a geometrical photon then my argument still works ok if u chop the light ray into short bits each forming a say cylinder. Also, based on Einstein's version of the elevator/chest gedanken, bending of light passing the Sun will be 0.87 arcsec, ie only a half of the actual measured bending of 1.75 arcsec. Paul Marmett has also pointed this out (Incompatibility between Einstein's General Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence, 2018 edit). To arrive at 1.75 arcsec we have to invoke Shapiro Delay (Einstein's prediction that light slows near mass)(Einstein's only good contribution to science)(however it was a lucky guess, Einstein's reasoning was wrong)(& so now we are in the Einsteinian Dark Age of Science).
@@TheMachian Thanx for the link, but it has a paywall & i am not a scientist. I wonder what was Dicke's mechanism for Shapiro Delay (variable speed of light near mass), & the Mach idea. Did Dicke believe in aether?? Did Dicke use aether in his mechanism?? I wonder how Dicke resolved the 1.75" problem. Thanx for any info or links. Aha -- i found your paper. Yes, Dicke's explanation for the 1.75" is i think the same as my own. I add an aether inflow (ballistic if u like) bending of 0.87" to the (Einsteinian) slowing of light contribution of 0.87" to get 1.75". I see that Dicke invokes a kind of refraction. But did Dicke have a mechanism for the slowing of light near mass (i have a mechanical model for that slowing)?? Did Dicke believe in aether?? vixra.org/pdf/1510.0082v1.pdf [Unzicker].......... "It is shown that the paper 'Gravitation without a principle of equivalence' by American astrophysicist Robert Dicke (1916-1997) contains a simple, but consequential, technical mistake. The purpose of this comment however is not to blame Dicke, but to bring to mind the intriguing idea exposed in his article. The cosmology proposed by Dicke would have been in full agreement with Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis, had Dicke not gone astray at that decisive step. Instead of igniting the dispute with Dirac that followed (R. Dicke, Nature 192 (1961), p. 440; P. A. M. Dirac, Nature 192 (1961) p.441), the two researchers could have joined forces in creating an alternative cosmology that incorporated Mach's principle. Dicke's variable speed of light version of general relativity. Despite the somehow misleading title 'gravitation without a principle of equivalence', Dicke essentially provides an alternative formulation of general relativity. Instead of a curved space with constant c, it is based on a flat space with variable speed of light. Dicke assumed that the speed of light was lower in the vicinity of masses, and in an analogy with optics, he introduced an index of refraction ([1], eq. 5) = c 0 c = 1 + 2GM rc 2. (1) that accounts for the correct light deflection at the Sun, 1.75 arc seconds. Since it has been shown elsewhere [2, 3] that the variable speed of light formulation of general relativity is in agreement with the classical tests, I will focus here on the cosmological implications of Dicke's model. The relation to Einstein's variable speed of light attempt [4, 5] is discussed elswhere [6]. With respect to the above equation (1), Dicke made the following intriguing comment: 'The small term on the r.h.s. of the equation is obviously related to the presence of the Sun. But what about the other term, 1? could it have its origin in the remainder of the matter in the universe?' While Dicke's variable speed of light theory was equivalent to general relativity so far, this additional assumption, though natural, incorporates Mach's principle: gravity would be determined by all other masses in the universe. This formulation leads to a different cosmology." Mach's principle says that universal mass affects gravity & mass & big G. I have an aetheric mechanical model for that. The model is partly based on gravity having the Van Flandern speed of at least 20 billion c. Re Einstein's silly elevator/chest gedanken for equivalence. Failure No2. In a spherical elevator/chest wires will hang parallel during acceleration but will not be parallel in gravity. physics.princeton.edu/romalis/papers/Roll_1964.pdf people.loyno.edu/~brans/ST-history/CHB-RHD.pdf Re gravitational mass & inertial mass, there is no such thing as gravitational mass. Or putting it another way, all we ever measure is inertial mass.
@@TheMachian Further to my other comments & questions re Dicke's methodology/model for the extra bending of light passing the Sun. I haven't seen the details, but i can tell u that Dicke is wrong. If light is slowed near the Sun then a wide laser beam will be deformed so that the wavefronts lean forward because the part of the beam closer to the Sun will go slower than the part further from the Sun. But that lean does not mean that any light has bent or curved. Its like an army of soldiers marching say 10 abreast, if the soldiers nearer the right have muddier ground then they will naturally tend to march more slowly than the soldiers on firmer ground, & the line of the 10 abreast will slowly develop an angle other than 90 deg, but every soldier will nonetheless march in a straight line. If u introduce the fact that each soldier's right boot takes smaller steps than the left boot then yes each soldier will march along a curve. For Dicke to do that he has to have a model that goes down to the level of each individual photon. Thats what i did. The near side of each photon propagates more slowly than the far side, hence each photon bends & curves. Simply examining a wavefront of photons doesnt do the trick. Dicke's refraction of a wavefront is not necessarily the same as my refraction of a photon. Its a minor point, but at the same time its a major point. I have seen this same criticism made by a scientist in a paper (i forget who it was)(perhaps Marmet or Marett or Munera). But he/she was not targeting Dicke, he/she was targeting Einstein's theory for bending.
He designed an innovative airplane based on his interpretation of Bernoulli. It was built and tested but didn't work out very well in the end.
Penrose lectures about crystal structures - basically reduced too mix of 2 elementary shapes is also great. Seems the field may contain more elementary truths about universe than we could expect.
I don't see why you have to abandon logic for entanglement. There could be an unseen realm that handles entanglement in a logical fashion. I also think this realm deals with the links necessary for pilot wave theory, only I believe the wave is merely an average of the interaction in this realm of individual photons and possibly an unseen companion particle in said realm. This just shows that logic does not need to break down if you don't want it to.
Perhaps . . .
Indeed, it's not logic that breaks down: it's instead the model that requires different fundaments to work from.
The problem is that your interpretation of quantum entanglement and superposition requires a mirror particle in a dimension we cannot experimentally observe.
Spooky act at a distance was discovered by Einstein and it spelled the death of locality as a fundamental aspect of reality.
The problem is that since Einstein, the greatest scientific mind of all time, passed away, nobody seems to have a real version of what a unifed merger would look like.
Would really like to see you do a topic devoted to explanation and analysis of Mendel Sachs theoretical work (theory of matter) and efforts to furthering Einstein's unified field theory.
Thank you, I will. And yes, space and time is a suitable venue for physics, but, that is only because the properties of that venue are dependent upon what occupies that venue. Newtonian gravity is a mathematical description only. And as far as it being relative to mass, that's only when the Gravitational Constant is used. Newton also said it was universal, which to him meant as far as Jupiter and he also said that the sun was near the center of the universe. M=e/c^2 Mass is energy and in classical physics the most fundamental form of energy is that of charge, as noted with an electron and a proton. All other forms of energy are tertiary. Torsion is an interesting concept in light of what I consider the luminiferous aether to be in which plasma plays a key role. I have been reading some of these papers circa 1900, and, knowing what I know due to a hundred years of technology, its easy to understand why Michelson/Morley got a null result testing for the aether wind due to the motion of earth. A constant theme in these papers is that space is a vacuum devoid of all matter but the ponderable bodies. Birkeland was refuted for suggesting electric corpuscles in space due to this consensus. The fact of the matter is the solar system is one giant electromagnetic cell defined by the Heliopause. The Heliospheric current sheet defines the polarized Interplanetary magnetic field which fills the entire so called vacuum of the solar system. Which brings us to the anode sun, which was how Birkeland modeled the sun when he made his prediction and has been further validated with Safire Projects results of 14 times thermal over unity through the containment of electrons in double-layers around an anode sun, which Hannes Alfvenn was adamant about needed proper consideration in cosmology, and finally, earth is a spherical capacitor, our atmosphere is a dielectric between a mostly Q+ Ionosphere and a mostly electronegative Q- earth. The properties of any space in time is dependent upon what occupies that space, be it material or immaterial.
That's physics.
If variable lightspeed explains gravitational light-bending, then how much of the rest of GR does it cover? Can you write equations, involving a variable lightspeed, equivalent to Einstein's GR equation? Would it need to be a tensor? Is Mach's Principle involved, and if so, how? Does it have singularities at the center of black holes? Does lightspeed go to zero there?
according to the Lorentz-Einstein transformation we have y' = y (or dy'=dy), with the train moving along the x'/x axes. since the 'c' relative to the "moving" frame of the train and the "stationary" ground frame is the same i.e. dy'/dt' = dy/dt, we get dt' =dt or t' = t, if we assume that t' = 0 when t = 0. the time dilation expression shown is for light beam moving along the x'/x axes which is the direction of motion of the train. we need to rotate the clock in the train by 90 degrees clockwise to align it along the x'/x axes, which is the direction of the motion of the train relative to the ground. Einstein does this in his 1905 published paper. however, he then has the time for light to reach x', a point along the x' axis of the train, as x'/(c+v) and the return time as x'/(c-v). this makes the speed of light along direction of motion of the train > c and < c in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the train, relative to the ground/stationary frame, and is Galilean addition and subtraction of speeds.
11 Dimensions do make sense, but only if you acknowledge space as one dimension, one equal and not parallel, 9 lower and one higher dimension. The constant assumption that extra dimensions must be higher in nature is rather a little disturbing 😁
Liked just because of your comment about string theorists.
Sad part is string theory at its core is not really that bad of an idea. Taking the universe and attempting to model it in 3 dimensional strings such that a 3 axis coordinate system is made of vibrating axis so to speak could potentially turn out to be a very great model were it not for the cluster fuck of nonsense modern string theorist have turned it into.
The variable light speed GR is the only one consistent with a field theory framework that can be quantized. The curved space-time version lacks any process which explains what is this curvature and how it is maintained. The 1914 Einstein equations solve for a metric, but a metric is not a field. This has resulted in the failure to find any QM version of GR even though string theory and loop-quantum gravity ware supposed to pave the way. Brilliance is not a substitute for empiricism and there is nothing unique about the 1914 GR which makes it the singular choice. An improved theory of gravity guided by QM and finer tests is long overdue.
Except that, QM is strictly a matter phenomenon, not necessarily applicable to spacetime! Who says that QM is the end all be all of physics from which all other phenomena including spacetime itself should be derived, other than the fanboys of QM who continue to promote the idea of a "field" that implicitly demand an ad hoc spacetime!?
So you’re regurgitating what you’ve absorbed from CZcams presentations and several pop-physics books out currently, and now you can be hypercritical of the limitations of a theory formulated over a century ago by a man who possessed a deeper comprehension of reality than other humans. Good boy!
Thank you again Sir, for continuing my education. I find you an invaluable aid in refining my thinking
About EPR, assuming 2 electrons with opposite spins, how would the spin of one be affected by the other striking a positron and turning into a gamma ray? Not knowing the spin of either beforehand. And if c is not a constant, then what is?
Could mr . Unzicker make video not about current physics , or physicists from the past but about physics of the future ? I ' m talking precisely about the way Physics lessons will be taught in schools of tomorrow ?
We have access to current physics material on internet , and we can search about natural philosophy of the old days . Also thanks to the internet . But there isn't much here about futuristics .
I wander if profesor Alexander could expande the subject to : " how We will teach Physics in next Millenium " .
Thank you . Danke .
This subjct would make a great book. Be thorough and tell us everything you can find, pretty please :)
@Del Bradley I have an invited paper about to upload to the Jrnl of Space Safety Engineering reference it in Elsevier's under
"Moon Dust is Deadly" after review.
Yours 🍺
@@ttmallard Great, link to to it please, I qould love to see it :)
@@delb0y1967 Sure, will post here when it's accepted, cheers 🍺
I wonder why the Gravitational Potential is not negative, i.e. why the expression within the brackets is not (1-phi/c^2)? also, I wonder why Einstein did not solve the 3rd degree polynomial for 'c' unless the 'c' within the brackets is actually 'c(0)' and not 'c' and hence a misprint?
Good one :)
Light-travel is a product of science back in the Islamic era.
The universe runs at its maximum energy potential.
Therefore, Light cannot be thrown to 'waste' everywhere the way we like to direct the 'torchlight in our hand left and right' - assuming Light travels.
Light is a visible call to the Universe's API (UAPI).
"Energy, like time, flows from past to future"
Thanks for the upload
Spooky action at a distance is the coolest thing. It breaks the model though, doesn't it? Or does it?
No because that is not what einstein meant by spooky action at a distance his sentence was taken out of context of the full paragraph he wrote. He reffered to that twice and if both occasions are read he reffered to something else, uou can check other videos which explain.
can someone help me find the CF Frank "relativistic behavior of crystal defects" source?
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0370-1298/62/2/307/meta
Without selection rules, the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't work.
Otherwise, millions of electrons wouldn't have the same speed under the same bias voltage.
@Unzicker's Real Physics Just read this book. A curved Universe with a constant speed of light vs. a flat Universe with variable speed of light.
Here is my question: Consider a galaxy that is a spiral, 8 billion years away. In a Universe that has expanded, the angular size in the Sky of this spiral galaxy should be greater (in angular size as seen from Earth) than the angular size of this same Galaxy if the size was just due to distance, in a flat Universe that has not expanded. Why? because when this light was emitted, this Galaxy was much closer to Earth. In a Universe that has been expanding, galaxy angular sizes must be bigger than in a flat Universe where the speed of light is variable. If the Universe is flat and the Galaxy is redshifted just due to gravitational effects on wavelength, then the size will be smaller because it really represents the distance and the galaxy was not much closer to Earth when the light was emitted. These two models are not equivalent when it comes to the angular sizes of Galaxies as seen from Earth, There has to be a way of differentiating the two.
Online, I read this:
"For close galaxies, the greater the distance, the smaller their apparent diameter, but around z = 1.5 cosmic expansion becomes a bigger factor than the galaxy’s distance. As a result, galaxies with higher redshifts actually start appearing larger. The most distant galaxies can appear significantly larger than closer galaxies. This doesn’t mean that distant galaxies are actually larger, simply that they appear larger due to cosmic expansion."
If this apparent larger size is real, then, the Universe is expanding indeed, space is curved and the speed of light could be constant. I wonder about your opinion about this.
In my opinion, Einstein is the greatest physicist in history. However, I think he made a mistake in elevating the constancy of the speed of light to a postulate instead of searching for other possible explanations. The approach he took led him to reject Newton's concept of absolute time, and this rejection is the root of the problems in particle physics.
Penrose could tell you that no statism in universe is needed to explain its laws. So how does it solve problems in particle physics exactly?
@@ebrelus7687 I am sorry, but I don't understand your question. Also, in my opinion, it is irrelevant whatever Penrose has to say. My point is simple: if time is actually absolute, but particle physics assumes it is relativistic, then that would explain why the standard model has reached a dead-end .
I agree only in part. constancy of c *with respect to a moving reference frame* is a great idea. But he himself generalized this idea by considering a vyriable speed of light in 1907/1911 (actually his first idea when dealing with general relativity). the even more profound problem is that c as such is not explained, and raises doubt on the concept of space-time. More in www.amazon.com/dp/B0849ZXQB1
@@TheMachian I think the constancy of the speed of light predicted by the Lorentz transformation is accurate, but misinterpreted. It can be shown that this transformation can also be derived from the following two postulates: 1) physical space is four-dimensional and 2) time is absolute. If these two postulates are true, then the Lorentz transformation is actually telling us that length contraction and time dilation are types of four-dimensional depth perception effects, analogous to the depth perception effects we observe in our daily lives.
Just in case anyone is interested, the preprint with the derivation of the Lorentz transformation from those two postulates is the following: Why is the Speed of Light in Vacuum a Universal Physical Constant?
osf.io/6rhcb
Does it it apply to quantum mechanics
Could the idea of a variable speed of light fit in with photon ∆E=hf energy being the emergent part of an interactive process? We can see the speed of light slow down when it travels through water, the wave particle nature of light interacting with the water molecules. You talk about spin being opposite, up or down, but if light radiate out spherically 4π we can have the same spin for the whole spherical surface at the same moment in time. This will be seen has opposite spin on opposite sides of the light sphere. If the photon is part of an emergent process this happens when there a new photon electron coupling or dipole moment with an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future unfolding photon by photon. In such a theory the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer. This forms an interactive process continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual. This gives us the potential to form ever more abstract mathematics! Nothing has lower entropy than a sphere therefore a process of spherical symmetry forming and breakingwill naturally form the potential for entropy to increase with time. What do you think?
Consider the Sternglass-Einstein work on the electron-positron pair in a death spiral since being created in the first condensates of matter after a Bang.
From that structure paired with another counter-rotating pair was found a meson matching properties in lab results.
The implications of this finding, late 50's, which was never disproven although disputed vs the "Copenhagen School", are immense to theory & help explain a portion of 'dark matter' by virtue of their external neutral charge as a single pair.
And, when they finally decay their energy of annihilation is released, this can explain inflation.
Thus the Standard Model while coherent to itself isn't a theory being a empirically derived system.
In a cellular universe there were more than one Bang, material was there before & a portion unaffected by the explosion remains mixed in with the results of a Bang.
That is, a Bang converts mass to energy that is sent quickly away from the center of mass outward as energy thus removing the gathered mass as an Attractor.
All masses being drawn by a Great Attractor are suddenly free to take altered trajectories as a way to distinguish objects released from the mass attraction.
Consider if this didn't happen all the Universe would be only Great Attractors gobbling each other.
Ymmv.
Everything you know is wrong.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 I bought their papers, you don't know physics worth a pile of stinky.
aiBOT emotiCONs are nothing but one-liner insults, no rebuttal, no evidence-> attack the person.
Go for it.
Personally, there is not any significant evidence to me that actually suggests that such a bang ever occurred. Hubble constant is an assumption as it is questionable that redshift is purely a doppler effect. CMB is littered with technological and statistical issues.
Anthony Perrat formerly of Los Alamos, recreated in a super computer simulation the creation of the universe from two charges circling one another. Einstein's GR required a dark matrix and now we have a modern standard cosmological model that is 97% dark and that to me equals bad model. The only reason Einstein gave properties to space and time was because from his very limited perspective of visible light he was totally ignorant that heliospheric space is occupied with electromagnetic fields due to the interconnecting heliospheric current sheet and the interplanetary magnetic field. He was being creative, imaginative even in the face of profound ignorance.
Einstein would die before these discoveries and I suspect he would have dismissed GR himself. Which based on this video is a fair assessment, due to some of Einstein's other works which these observations may have supported but came too late.
Ninety-nine point nine percent of the observable matter in the universe is plasma, and charge in plasma does not neutralize, it forms double-layers as well as other electromagnetic structures, and when you think about it, electromagnetic structures are also the nature of subatomic particles, therefore, no gobbling great attractors.
Math, not rooted in reality is kind of like science fiction. Can be good fun, but its not real, nor is it physics. Just an opinion of a non-mathematician.
@@daemonnice @Daemon Nice Try Hubble finding a large gravity anomaly in our Milky Way big enough to be a remnant Great Attractor, this common multiverse|cellular universe theory of objects able to suck in galaxies.
That's evidence on top of more.
If you believe a mirror reflects light, the physics & math describe it, they don't create anything out there.
If asteroids are real, so are Attractors, my opinion of gravity that it's a type of fluid that conducts mass attraction.
Inflation is a big deal to the Standard Model & explained simply by the Sternglass-Einstein work.
Cheers 🍺
@@ttmallard Everything you know is wrong. Think about that.
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
What can say about time and gravity a clerk who started talking at age five and until twenty-five years old did not see a professional physicist? Only fantasies.
Das ist eine der Fragen die ich mir stelle..... hat die SRT und ART ihre Gültigkeit? Das Buch würde ich mir holen, jedoch ist mein Englisch zu schlecht, als das ich mir dieses Thema aneignen könnte. Naja und mit Mathe ist auch nicht so rosig bestellt :D. Als Beispiel möchte ich Neutronensterne und ihre Rotationsperiode anführen. Es ist sicher mein unvermögen die ART zu verstehen, aber sollte diese hier nicht ihre Anwendung finden. Auch wenn die Gravitation nicht die der eines schwarzen Loches entspricht, so sollte doch die tatsächliche Rotationsgeschwindigkeit höher als die gemessene sein. Selbst die Kollision von so massereichen Objekten, will mir nicht in den Kopf. Ja, soweit kann ich es nachvollziehen, das die Wechselwirkungsgeschwindigkeit der Gravitation immer c ist und nur noch diese wechselwirkt (SL). Aber wir reden doch von einer Bewegung von Massen im Raum. Wenn sehr viel Masse im Spiel ist, wird eine Außnahme gemacht..... ja usw. .......
Gibts auch auf Deutsch: www.amazon.de/Einsteins-verlorener-Schlüssel-Jahrhunderts-übersehen/dp/1517045452/ Sie können mir auch schreiben...
FOR SR
Einstein opposed plate tectonics theory.!
Always stimulating to hear you confront the "herd-think" that befuddles modern physics.
So Einstein couldn't exclude a flat earth accelerating upwards...
Curvature isnt really there, einstein had the right approach but the wrong idea about how to build the microscopic scheme. In truth i science is about contributing, and einstein as all others made mistakes and failed to realise what to do.
i mean, nothing is really anywhere, its just a mathematical model describing the reality we observe
So what is there instead of the curvature? And how it explain the concepts that use curvature as explanations?
@@ebrelus7687 Well, one theory is that there is a flow of time, like electrical current, and massive objects act as resistors to this flow.
Nono, the curvature can be separated into scalar curvature, equivalent to changes in size as you move around in space
NOWHERE DOES the EQUATION E=mc^2 APPEAR IN EINSTEN'S WORKS. IT IS NOT EINSTEIN'S EQUATION. It is not true that he mastered calculus at the age of 14. He was acquainted with calculus and geometry. But he never mastered it. Einstein was bad at math and the level of it was today's first year of college. When Einstein was working on relativity he asked his best friend mathematician Marcel Grossman to interpret his ideas in mathematical equations. It was Grossman who was furnishing Einstein with almost all mathematics on relativity which again was already done by Samuel Tolver Preston even before Einstein was born. Preston is the one who derived E=mc^2 and wrote of equivalence of matter and energy but it was never published and stayed in small circle of physicists. Nowhere does E=mc^2 appear in Einstein's works about relativity. There appears the equation of m=L/c^2 in his works. But E=mc^2 was already published in Italy in 1903 by Olinto de Pretto who derived the famous equation of E=mc^2. This equation is not Einstein's. Mutual friend of Einstein and of De Pretto Italian physicist Besso gave that equation to Einstein. Einstein stole it and revised his works much later in time by claiming as his. No! E=mc^2 is NOT Einstein's equation! Before Einstein Ponicare, Lorentz and Minkowski had the relativity worked out. Einstein stole other people's ideas in patent office while being a clerk there.The same with General Relativity where Einstein stole the Schwartzschild's metric tensors and used it in GR. Einstein was a very emotional person. He was prone to anger and jealousy. He never mentioned other people's names who contributed in his own findings. He did not even calculate his own tax returns and had a personal clerk who was a mathematician to do it for him. Einstein never obtained a driver's licence and did not know how the internal combustible engine worked. He laughed at the idea of an atomic bomb and said that atoms cannot be split. He was a womanizer. And most imporatnt: he was a plagiarizer.
czcams.com/video/fsOba2upljw/video.html
These are NOT Einstein's obscure thoughts, aside from teleparallel gravity (which you did not explain at all), and the edge and screw dislocation stuff which was not completely original to Einstein.
I would classify most of his theories as mysticism. He found the property of gravity to equally accelerate objects a "remarkable property". As a supposed expert in relativity and relative motion, he should have easily seen the exact reason why the gravitational field equally accelerates all objects. There is only one common everyday principle of physics that can cause one to observe equal acceleration of all masses. All he did was to create a model that mathematically conveys his belief biases about the mechanism of gravity. The more difficult the mathematics, the more distanced from reality the theory is. His equations "blow up" i.e. they predict singularities, and we all know that in the simple reality of our world cannot support the idea of infinite gravity in infinitesimal volume. That idea is nonsensical. Our world is not has bizarre as physicists make it out to be.
I disagree with your negative assessment. His 1911 idea is intriguing and related to other thoughts: see arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518 or "Einstein's Lost Key"
@@TheMachian Einstein was correct in one thing, and that is the Equivalence Principle. Just as the Equivalence Principle implies, gravity is a mechanical phenomenon. But he was unable to extrapolate the idea of mechanical acceleration in a world of spherical celestial objects. The only way he could picture and express this was via the dynamic "scrunching up" of space and time, which we all know cannot be fundamental reality despite being able to create equations to demonstrate that. If he thought about it more deeply, he would have been able to see how nature achieves gravity purely as a mechanical phenomenon. He probably did think of it, but was either influenced by his belief bias or fallacy of incredulity.
Nature cannot do magic tricks with empty space. Reality can only come from physical matter. Gravity is and can only be mechanical. Unfortunately, he left science with a legacy which was the 180 degree opposite of a certain reality of our world (no, the Earth is not flat). As a scientist, you would experience it every moment of every day, but you cannot see it because you are blinded by his models. Also, in his 1911 postulation on the effect of gravity on light, he is correct there in that gravity does indeed bend light, but it is not in any way caused by a gravitational field. Time is not dilated by distances from a body. Again, if you think of it mechanically indeed there is a very compelling illusion that gravity has bent or curved light and even dilated time (if you must use that to explain the apparent slowing of the light). You and the rest of science need to go back to Occam's Razor and start again.
@@robertferraro236 einstein was correct in so many things.
All of Einstein's gedankens are rubbish.
2:00. The curving light ray gedanken is rubbish. This is obvious if u consider a single photon crossing the elevator/chest. In a gravity field the photon must bend, ie it forms a curve, ie the front of the photon is always at 90 deg to its curving traject at that point, likewise the rear. But in an accelerating elevator/chest the photons forming Einstein's ray of light follow an apparent/perceived/observed curved traject (ok), but each individual photon must remain straight & horizontal at all times, & their fronts & rears are at all times at a non-90 deg angle to the traject. Hence the equivalence of the 2 scenarios is not 100% -- hence an observer can tell the difference tween gravity & acceleration -- hence GTR is (at least in part) rubbish.
If u dont like the idea of having a geometrical photon then my argument still works ok if u chop the light ray into short bits each forming a say cylinder.
Also, based on Einstein's version of the elevator/chest gedanken, bending of light passing the Sun will be 0.87 arcsec, ie only a half of the actual measured bending of 1.75 arcsec. Paul Marmett has also pointed this out (Incompatibility between Einstein's General Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence, 2018 edit).
To arrive at 1.75 arcsec we have to invoke Shapiro Delay (Einstein's prediction that light slows near mass)(Einstein's only good contribution to science)(however it was a lucky guess, Einstein's reasoning was wrong)(& so now we are in the Einsteinian Dark Age of Science).
Dicke resolved the 1.75'' problem : journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.363
@@TheMachian Thanx for the link, but it has a paywall & i am not a scientist.
I wonder what was Dicke's mechanism for Shapiro Delay (variable speed of light near mass), & the Mach idea. Did Dicke believe in aether?? Did Dicke use aether in his mechanism?? I wonder how Dicke resolved the 1.75" problem. Thanx for any info or links.
Aha -- i found your paper. Yes, Dicke's explanation for the 1.75" is i think the same as my own. I add an aether inflow (ballistic if u like) bending of 0.87" to the (Einsteinian) slowing of light contribution of 0.87" to get 1.75".
I see that Dicke invokes a kind of refraction. But did Dicke have a mechanism for the slowing of light near mass (i have a mechanical model for that slowing)?? Did Dicke believe in aether??
vixra.org/pdf/1510.0082v1.pdf
[Unzicker].......... "It is shown that the paper 'Gravitation without a principle of equivalence' by American astrophysicist Robert Dicke (1916-1997) contains a simple, but consequential, technical mistake. The purpose of this comment however is not to blame Dicke, but to bring to mind the intriguing idea exposed in his article. The cosmology proposed by Dicke would have been in full agreement with Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis, had Dicke not gone astray at that decisive step. Instead of igniting the dispute with Dirac that followed (R. Dicke, Nature 192 (1961), p. 440; P. A. M. Dirac, Nature 192 (1961) p.441), the two researchers could have joined forces in creating an alternative cosmology that incorporated Mach's principle. Dicke's variable speed of light version of general relativity. Despite the somehow misleading title 'gravitation without a principle of equivalence', Dicke essentially provides an alternative formulation of general relativity. Instead of a curved space with constant c, it is based on a flat space with variable speed of light. Dicke assumed that the speed of light was lower in the vicinity of masses, and in an analogy with optics, he introduced an index of refraction ([1], eq. 5) = c 0 c = 1 + 2GM rc 2. (1) that accounts for the correct light deflection at the Sun, 1.75 arc seconds. Since it has been shown elsewhere [2, 3] that the variable speed of light formulation of general relativity is in agreement with the classical tests, I will focus here on the cosmological implications of Dicke's model. The relation to Einstein's variable speed of light attempt [4, 5] is discussed elswhere [6]. With respect to the above equation (1), Dicke made the following intriguing comment: 'The small term on the r.h.s. of the equation is obviously related to the presence of the Sun. But what about the other term, 1? could it have its origin in the remainder of the matter in the universe?' While Dicke's variable speed of light theory was equivalent to general relativity so far, this additional assumption, though natural, incorporates Mach's principle: gravity would be determined by all other masses in the universe. This formulation leads to a different cosmology."
Mach's principle says that universal mass affects gravity & mass & big G. I have an aetheric mechanical model for that. The model is partly based on gravity having the Van Flandern speed of at least 20 billion c.
Re Einstein's silly elevator/chest gedanken for equivalence. Failure No2. In a spherical elevator/chest wires will hang parallel during acceleration but will not be parallel in gravity.
physics.princeton.edu/romalis/papers/Roll_1964.pdf
people.loyno.edu/~brans/ST-history/CHB-RHD.pdf
Re gravitational mass & inertial mass, there is no such thing as gravitational mass. Or putting it another way, all we ever measure is inertial mass.
@@TheMachian Further to my other comments & questions re Dicke's methodology/model for the extra bending of light passing the Sun. I haven't seen the details, but i can tell u that Dicke is wrong.
If light is slowed near the Sun then a wide laser beam will be deformed so that the wavefronts lean forward because the part of the beam closer to the Sun will go slower than the part further from the Sun. But that lean does not mean that any light has bent or curved.
Its like an army of soldiers marching say 10 abreast, if the soldiers nearer the right have muddier ground then they will naturally tend to march more slowly than the soldiers on firmer ground, & the line of the 10 abreast will slowly develop an angle other than 90 deg, but every soldier will nonetheless march in a straight line.
If u introduce the fact that each soldier's right boot takes smaller steps than the left boot then yes each soldier will march along a curve. For Dicke to do that he has to have a model that goes down to the level of each individual photon. Thats what i did. The near side of each photon propagates more slowly than the far side, hence each photon bends & curves. Simply examining a wavefront of photons doesnt do the trick. Dicke's refraction of a wavefront is not necessarily the same as my refraction of a photon. Its a minor point, but at the same time its a major point.
I have seen this same criticism made by a scientist in a paper (i forget who it was)(perhaps Marmet or Marett or Munera). But he/she was not targeting Dicke, he/she was targeting Einstein's theory for bending.