Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
- - MY THEORY - -

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on October 6, 2002 21:54:09 UTC

Mog, et al interested:

My theory is humbly called JR Redbourne's General Theory of Universe Structure and Dynamics.

It's a very short story, really. It is based 100% on ordinary introductory physical physics that anyone can understand.

Simple wave mechanics explains it all, with only the addition of a new aspect of wave mechanics, that is not taught, but can be easily demonstrated by anyone with the ability to toss a rock into a stream, as follows:

A few years ago I was fishing with my girlfriend of the time, in the Jordan River (not Biblical), where it flows into Lake Ontario, maybe 2/3 way along the Niagara Peninsula between Toronto and Niagara Falls. This "river" is only about 100 meters long, actually draining Jordan Harbour into Lake Ontario.

There was a north wind blowing waves in off the lake, and I noticed a curious effect: As the waves left the portion of the wave medium (lake water) in which they were generated, and started to climb against the counter-flowing current, they were compressed in wavelength. I have never seen this described anywhere else.

The waves looked strange, because they were quite tall and length-shortened from what we normally expect, and in fact actually toppling over a bit at the very top.

They also had a bit of an odd shape, wherein they were rounded troughs, with sharp peaks. As it turns out, this is actually a typical lake Stokes wave, where the waves are peaky, and with longer troughs. I'd never noticed that before, but the wavelength compression in the river, accentuated it, by changing the aspect ratio between height and length.

This effect is readily seen under similar circumstances, or if one cares to toss a rock into a stream, but it is harder to see the effect with a rock. A fairly smooth-surface stream flowing into a lake, with ~10/30 cm waves coming in off the lake is best. I got lucky.

Now taking a quantum leap into a generalization, I say: "When a wave leaves the portion of the wave medium in which it was generated, and enters a differentially flowing portion of the wave medium, the wavelength is compressed or extended according to differential velocities, direction, and angle of attack".

Carrying this further: If we generate a wave to travel across a stream, and we reflect it up into the stream current, we have effectively caused the reciprocal to occur. That is: instead of the wave medium changing direction and velocity, we have caused the wave to change direction.

And (I say) exactly the same result happens. That is: going across the stream (no head current), the waves assume the characteristic wave height to wavelength aspect ratio. When the wave is reflected up into the head current, the value of the head current is subtracted from the value of inherent wave velocity, thereby piling up the wave, and slowing it down.

That is: the wave possesses a certain value of kinetic energy, and this energy must be conserved, as it is reflected. Its velocity is converted to height (potential energy) and mass (volume of water). Exactly what this mathematical relationship is, I can't say. Some of it has to be based upon empirically derived values (ie: water's density), and calculus to integrate the cross-sectional area under the wave. But this is no mystery, any competent Fluid Flow Engineer would have a solid handle on it.

That is beyond my capability. And there may be some surprises, that actually require physical tests, instead of relying on disembodied math. That is: what portion of wave velocity in the kinetic energy formula, is converted to increased height, and what portion to include more captured mass, or is it all converted to height, with no volume increase? Someone like the Colorado School of Mines (flow technology expertise), or perhaps Canada Center for Inland Waters (long test tank) would have the facilities for doing accurate measurements and generating relationship curves.

So bear in mind that I have extrapolated my theory from one unofficial observation, eyeballed from shore, with the other eye on the girlfiend's butt. But the observation is legitimate. And further development of the applications completely supports it by raw data from astronomical observations in particular. Ah, but I'm getting ahead of the train of development.

In the next post, we'll get into applying it to the accursed Michelson Morley experiment of 1887, which almost single-handedly ejected the aether from Theoretical Physics. This compression / extension of waves was not known then, and not considered in the interpretation of the results.

Einstein in his later years said that, "The aether must exist, because electromagnetic phenomena require it". He was still looking for his Unified Field Theory when he died.

Indeed, what could be more obvious than that the aether exists as the field that unifies everything?- Greene's fabric of space; Higg's field, the wave medium for Zero Point Energy, Einstein's warped space.

I have invented nothing, except adding my discovery of wave compression / extension into Theoretical Physics. The rest is standard university simple physics and mechanical wave mechanics, as demonstrated in a ripple tank, etc.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins