FEEDBACK NOTE NO. 9
RESPONSE TO TONY ERICKSON
Copyright, Harold Aspden, 2002
On April 16, 2002 Tony
Erickson, Tony@lasersafety.com, sent me an E-Mail which was insulting in
declaring that I had made numerous untrue statements on my website concerning
electromagnetic radiation. His message read:
Your site is filled with inaccuracies and out-right lies. You make
suppositions about problems with the propagation of electromagnetic radiation
that have been proven to be true from multiple directions. You would be well
served to learn some actual physics. Your types of lies support the crazy
anti-science groups that are the enemies of civilization. You can not take
"hunches" and post them as facts. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
My polite response to this was my E-Mail message to
him dated April 22, 2002 (sent at 8.06 am) which was:
"Will you kindly point to one section of my website where I make
an untrue statement concerning electromagnetic radiation - a statement that is
contrary to what you believe has been proven to be true from multiple
directions? Identify the statement that concerns you and I will correct it and
explain in my FEEDBACK section of my website why I have corrected it or I will
otherwise give a full explanation of why I adhere to what I have said in the
light of your criticism."
Some 8 hours later at 16.10 on April
22, Erickson sent me his E-Mail response, as presented below, and only 25
minutes later at 16.35 on April 22, he sent a further response, also presented
below, in which you will see that he declares to me, as his point 4, 'You are
crazy, but I assume you knew that', before signing off as "Tony Erickson, A REAL
scientist."
Now I have had very many E-mail messages supporting my
efforts and congratulating me on my website presentations and I must admit that
it comes as a surprise to find that here is someone who can get so 'hot under
the collar' about an opinion on the debatable issues of, to use his own words,
'REAL science'. Confronted with his insulting style of expression I have chosen
not to respond to any further messages he might send me, but I will, for the
benefit of those readers who may be interested in how I could refute his
assertions, deal specifically and openly with the remarks he has made in his two
communications below.
Erickson's Message No. 1:
"The problem with this argument is that the photon is supposedly
travelling at the speed of light, but that speed needs a reference frame and,
to ...."
WRONG! It does NOT need a reference frame. Please read up on
Einstein’s theories (both general and special relativity while you’re at it)
and you will see that the 'reference frame' is built into the very fabric of
space/time. For the record, they are not even just theories, relativity has
been proven to be correct countless times.
That one was so easy as to
not even be worth correcting you.
I will provide you with one per day
if you like. Your bible based 'science' is quite amusing and FULL OF
HOLES.
Tony
Erickson's Message No. 2:
"It is that every electromagnetic wave travels in company with a
companion wave of the same frequency. They serve to assist in at least
partially balancing one another dynamically in their oscillations lateral to
the direction of propagation, but they have different displacement amplitudes
in terms of both their electric and their magnetic field properties. Analysis
then shows that the wave frequency is coded into the relative strengths of
those displacement amplitudes. As a result the wave in transit through space
can be intercepted by quasi-material particles in its path and so shed energy
in a way which progressively modifies that ratio of displacements, so
affecting the coded data and reducing the wave frequency."
1. You have
NO evidence at all that 'every electromagnetic wave travels in company with a
companion wave of the same frequency'. Pure supposition and
speculation.
2. "As a result the wave in transit through space can be
intercepted by quasi-material particles in its path and so shed energy in a
way which progressively modifies that ratio of displacements, so affecting the
coded data and reducing the wave frequency." Just PLAIN WRONG! You even make
up a new form of matter with an off-hand remark like 'quasi-material'. There
is no evidence at all to support such a claim and all you are doing is taking
explainable, observable phenomena like photon propagation and adding on some
sort of extra physics that has no need or evidence.
3. I assume you
need to shed this energy and reduce the frequency so that you can prove the
universe is young and small.
4. You are crazy, but I assume you already
knew that.
Tony Erickson
A REAL scientist.
You
will see that his first concern is my apparent ignorance of Einstein's theory of
relativity and his second concern is my lack of evidence in support of my
companion wave hypothesis and my assumption that a form of 'quasi-matter' exists
everywhere in so-called empty space. I will try to embrace both of these issues
in one overall commentary.
In 1916 Einstein wrote a book in which he set
out to give 'an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers
who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested
in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics'. His book was aimed at the student community having reached
university entry requirements and Einstein explains how he has purposely treated
the empirical foundations of his theory in a "step-motherly" fashion to make it
easy for readers to follow. Now, I presume that Tony Erickson, being 'A REAL
scientist', will be fully conversant with the necessary mathematics that go with
a full in-depth study of Einstein's theory, as indeed I am myself, but as his
concerns are expressed in simple language so that will suffice for this
response.
Still concerning that Einstein book, one finds that by 1952 it
had reached its final edition form, as the Fifteenth Edition, when a 23 page
Appendix V was added. That Appendix was entitled 'Relativity and the Problem of
Space'. So, you see, 'space' as such was still a problem even in Einstein's
eyes, some 36 years after his theories of Special and General Relativity were
cast in a form which those with only a high school education could understand.
Indeed, one may well wonder how, as Tony Erickson insists, it has ceased to be a
problem over the intervening half century since 1952.
Now, to get to the
specifics of Erickson's concern, I will quote a few words from the Appendix IV
of Einstein's book, which was only 2 pages in length. It is a note on 'The
Structure of Space according to the General Theory of Relativity'. You see,
'space' as such does have a 'structure'. In Einstein's own words:
"My original considerations on the subject were based on two
hypotheses: (1) There exists an average density of matter in the whole of
space which is everywhere the same and different from zero. (2) The magnitude
("radius") of space is independent of time. Both of these hypotheses proved to
be consistent, according to the general theory of relativity, but only after a
hypothetical term was added to the field equations, a term which was not
required by the theory as such nor did it seem natural from a theoretical
point of view ("cosmological term of the field
equations").
Einstein then goes on to explain how a different
hypothesis according to a Russian mathematician Friedman was more appropriate
and how the later discoveries of Hubble concerning the spectral red shift seemed
to confirm Friedman's ideas. Then Einstein asserts: "There does arise, however,
a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic line-shift discovered
by Hubble as an expansion leads to an origin of the universe which lies only
about 109 years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear likely
that the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably
longer. It is in no way known how this incongruity is to be
overcome."
Now, Erickson states that I have 'no evidence at all that
every electromagnetic wave travels in company with a companion wave of the same
frequency', without, it seems, being aware that I find that I can derive the
value of the Hubble constant by adopting this assumption. Bear in mind here that
the alternative 'assumption' is that an electromagnetic wave has no companion
wave, meaning that somehow its electric field can oscillate sideways as it
advances at the speed of light and yet that oscillation has no counterpart to,
as it were, push against in its passage over vast distances across empty space.
I submit that the truth is that we have no evidence to prove the latter, albeit
standard, assumption and that in terms of physics, as opposed to mathematics,
and as guided by Newtonian dynamics we do need a companion wave to provide that
dynamic balance within the composite wave system. As to evidence for my
proposition, the evidence comes from the onward application of that proposition
to explain quantitively and qualitatively something observed that is otherwise
inexplicable, namely the Hubble constant. After all, one can hardly be impressed
by the assumption that it arises from Doppler effects in a universe that is ever
expanding from a singularity in space at time zero. That really is quite an
arbitrary assumption and it means that once upon a time the whole mass and
energy of the universe appeared as if from nowhere in a void having no field
presence, a breathtaking proposition that defies all logic!
Then Erickson
goes on to affirm that I am "PLAIN WRONG!" in suggesting that if there are two
waves advancing together in an anti-phase lateral motion so as to provide that
dynamic balance, then, in shedding energy, the ratio of the amplitudes of the
two waves must change and that could result in a progressive reduction of wave
frequency. Yet, as I have stated, this is how I explain the physics governing
the Hubble constant, a physical account which tells that the universe need not
be expanding but can be steady state. To account for the obstruction in space
which causes wave energy to be shed at a very modest by finite rate I point to
the quasi-matter presence which I see as Nature's ongoing attempts to create
matter everywhere throughout space, attempts which only succeed, except
transiently, should there be a surplus of field energy somewhere within that
space medium. I support this by showing how those attempts do create the
occasional proton along with an electron, the basic components of matter, and
going on to derive by pure theory the precise value of the proton-electron mass
ratio. Keep in mind also that reference by Einstein to a uniform distribution of
matter throughout space and add to that the current cosmological belief that
there is a significant amount of so-called 'missing matter' that is active in
making theory match observation but that is not seen in the stellar system of
matter.
Of course, this notion that Nature has a process for transiently
creating matter throughout space is a hypothesis, but a working hypothesis that
gives results that explain what is hitherto not explained. That is how physics
works and it really is not 'extra physics' to assert that there is a
quasi-matter presence in space. After all, this is admitted by Einstein himself
in that quoted text above and it is in any event recognized as existing by
quantum physicists who study the lepton creation and annihilation properties of
what we call the 'zero-point' energy of space.
I find it a curious
observation for Erickson to say "I assume you need to shed energy and reduce the
frequency so that you can prove the universe is young and small". In fact, I
have no idea how large the universe might be or how old it might be and, if
anything, my theory, though deriving the Hubble time period as some 14 or so
billion years, suggests a steady-state universe of greater extent and longer
existence than followers of Einstein assume.
Then there is, in the first
of Erickson's above messages, that question of the 'reference frame'. He says
that the speed of light does not need a reference frame but then tells me to
read up on Einstein's theories where I will see that the 'reference frame' is
built into the very fabric of space-time. Then he says that Einstein's theories
are not even theories because Relativity has been proven to be correct countless
times.
So a reference frame is not needed but yet it exists in Einstein's
theories and those theories are not even theories. What can Erickson mean to
convey by such a self-contradictory style of expression?
On this point I
quote Einstein's own words from page 9 of Chapter 3 of his book 'Relativity'
referred to above:
Moreover, what is meant here by motion 'in space'? from
considerations of the previous section the answer is self-evident. In the
first place we entirely shun the vague word 'space', of which we must honestly
acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by
'motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference'.
Note
here that sweeping assumption ".. of which we must honestly acknowledge, we
cannot form the slightest conception..". Surely, no would-be physics student
should be exposed to such nonsense! "We must shun the vague word 'space' because
we have no idea how to imagine the form of that medium!" Einstein was doing a
selling job and grinding his own axe here in saying "Give up trying! It is too
difficult! Buy a pair of spectacles from me that will allow you to see a
distorted version of whatever you are looking at, a version that avoids the
difficulties of simple logic, and with it comes a drug that will allow you to
sense the passage of time at a different rate to the one of your natural
experience."
Seemingly the word 'relative' is where one gets the name
'Relativity', just as I maintain that an electromagnetic wave has a transverse
electric field oscillation that arises from a relative displacement as between
two companion waves. It takes two of something to define a relationship! So
Einstein tells us that we need not imagine space as being something real because
everything is 'relative' to a 'practically rigid body of
reference'.
Having noted that Tony Erickson's E-Mail address includes the
word 'laser' it is appropriate here to suggest that the electromagnetic wave
activity that exists in the laser in the space we shun is an activity defined
solely by motion relative to the reflecting mirrors at each end of the laser.
Undoubtedly, when the laser is transported at high speed, the light waves
travelling between those mirrors have no dependence whatsoever on that motion of
the laser, the only rigid body of relevance. However, if I say there is an
aether medium and that it has a structure that shares the motion of the laser
and defines an electromagnetic frame of reference for light within (but not
external to) that laser, does experiment prove me wrong and Einstein right? Does
Einstein tell you how light escaping from that laser can travel onwards on its
journey through space, always governed by its intrinsic ability to maintain a
steady speed referenced solely on that laser source and do that without
dependence upon the speed of transport of that laser? You are told to shun space
and replace it by something called 'space-time', which is a mathematical notion,
and accept Einstein's doctrinaire ideas without question, even though they make
no sense.
Einstein tells you to shun the aether and even space itself so
long as you have objects which provide the reference body for the speed of
light. If that is so why is space given a new name 'space-time' and assigned
special mathematically defined properties that govern how time itself can adopt
different clock rates dependent upon the value of the speed of light in
vacuo?
I have yet to hear of any evidence which proves Einstein's theory
along with a confirmation of the implicit assumptions involved. The theory stems
from the errors of an era of experimentation leading to a formulation of
physical principles that were extrapolated beyond the scope of the experiments.
Two relevant examples are (1) the assumption that the speed of light waves is
not affected by encounter with the reflected form of the same light waves
travelling in an opposite direction and (2) the assumption that electrodynamic
interaction between two discrete charges in relative motion is identical to such
an interaction as between a current element of a closed circuital current and a
discrete moving charge.
If Einstein's theory has anything worthwhile to
offer why is it that it has no predictive power leading to new discovery, given
that it was expressly formulated to explain certain experimental facts that were
already known?
Einstein himself in his final Appendix V dating from 1952
evidently gets himself confused in twisting his ideas about space around and
around to make them coherent. He writes:
"In accordance with classical mechanics and according to the
special theory of relativity, space (space-time) has an existence independent
of matter and field. In order to be able to describe at all that which fills
up space and is dependent on the co-ordinates, space-time or the inertial
system with its metrical properties must be thought of as at once existing,
for otherwise the description of 'that which fills space' would have no
meaning. On the basis of the general theory of relativity, on the other hand,,
space as opposed to 'what fills space', which is dependent on the
co-ordinates, has no separate existence."
Later, in the same
paragraph, we read:
"There is no such thing as empty space, i.e. space without a
field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a
structural quality of the field. Thus Descartes was not far from the truth
when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion
indeed appears absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in
ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as a representative of
reality, in combination with the general principle of relativity to show the
true kernel of Descartes' idea; there exists no space 'empty of
field'."
So there you are! Tony Erickson tells me to study
Einstein's theories for true enlightenment concerning the 'reference frame' and
the 'very fabric of space-time' and here I am somewhat confused by what Einstein
says. It is absurd to conceive of space being empty as it contains 'space-time',
but space-time does not exist on its own, it being the 'structural quality of
the field'. The 'field' is something that exists in space, but it is not 'seen
exclusively in ponderable bodies'.
So if I say that electromagnetic waves
propagate as field disturbances that is O.K. but if I say that an electric field
as part of an electromagnetic wave attributable to the physical separation of
electric charge of opposite polarities then I am introducing something into
space other than the field and that is not permissible, according to
Einstein.
Well I would rather take the facts of experiment as a basis and
infer from that that the vacuum medium that I regard as filling space has
properties consistent with those observations. I choose to ingore Einstein's
philosophical ideas and his notion of a space metric interwoven with time,
according to a mathematical formulation that has no logical basis other than
being a convenient empirical excuse for dodging the fundamental issues. Those
fields according to Einstein can be electric or magnetic in nature, though
Einstein seems obsessed with gravitational fields because his general theory of
relativity hinges around the latter. He failed to explain gravitation in terms
of electromagnetic action but soldiered on in pontificating as to the governing
truths of the space medium. Instead, I prefer to give meaning to electric field
theory and explore the nature of space, building on Maxwell's formulations, this
then obliging me to see space as containing electric charge that can be
displaced. The displacement involves relative separation of two components of an
electromagnetic wave and further, in the absence of such waves, displacement of
charge from what otherwise would be a state of rest in a system devoid of
motion. This assures that what would otherwise be a prevalent state of negative
potential energy is virtually one of zero potential energy. In its turn this
implies motion to sustain the charge separation, motion which one can link to
the quantum of action we see as governing electron states in atoms. The same
motion implies the need for dynamic balance and that introduces the the role of
the graviton charges that give account of the phenomenon of gravitation, an
electrodynamic phenomenon. So I see space as alive with action and a sea of
electric charge in motion, but it complies with our observation of its elusive
character.
In summary, whereas Einstein ended his quest by admitting that
he could only conceive of space as a field system and could not form the
slightest conception as to its composition, I began by regarding space as a sea
of electric charge of one polarity permeated by discrete charges of opposite
polarity and set about the arduous mathematical task of investigating how its
properties matched what was observed. By 'observed' here I mean the implicit
regulating parameters we see in Planck's quantum of action and G, the constant
of gravitation, leading on from there to understanding the electromagnetic wave
property that we see in the findings of Hubble.
I accept that Ivor
Erickson believes what he understands as Einstein's theories and I see no point
in trying to educate him as to the real truths that pervade science. It is not
my wish to seek to discredit belief in Einstein's doctrines, this being an
assumption made by many who read of my research in its early stages years ago.
My sole objective was to fathom the truths of the anomalies that beset my early
experimental efforts, anomalies which I could only explain by wandering a little
off-track by exploiting weaknesses I could see in standard theory. The prime
example is the factor of 2 saga concerning the gyromagnetic ratio of the
electron, which makes ferromagnetism an electron spin property of atoms rather
than one involving electron orbital motion. This led me into a study of magnetic
field reaction properties of space itself, that medium which Einstein would have
us see only as a system of fields conforming with his special and general way of
looking at things. Space had be occupied by a real aether and so my search for
the truth began and Ivor Erickson's intervention now is merely an amusing
distraction which I hope will enliven this FEEDBACK section of my web site.
****************************
Harold Aspden
April 29,
2002