Hi Sunil!

Unfortunately, Eddington screwed up this subject for subsequent researchers by writing that SR was no better or worse than other theories wrt time-reversibility, which isn't true.

With NM, where the recession-based redshift is E'/E=(c-v)/c, a signal sent across a room via a moving transponder arrives at the far side with a net energy-loss of

E'/E = (c-v)/c × (c-(-v))/c = 1 - v2/c2

In other words, Newtonian theory doesn't respect traditional energy-conservation - there's an energy-loss over the round trip.There's also a bias towards exothermicity in systems trying to reach equilibrium, giving NM an "arrow of time".

If the terminal velocity associated with a gravity-well is v, then while SR physics will predict that a signal sent across that well emerges with precisely the same energy it started with, under Newtonian theory, there's a final Lorentz-squared redshift, calculated from v. In a universe containing clumpy but reasonably-evenly distributed matter, there's then an expected statistical distance-dependent redshift for light travelling across cosmological distances.

Preprint The "arrow of time" under Newtonian physics

Personally, I don't see this as being an competing explanation to expansion – I think it's an alternative way of deriving expansion as being a necessary feature of our universe. But whatever.

Dear Sunil,

I read your paper on the "missing divergence in Maxwell equations"

Maybe you would be interested in reading about de Broglie's hypothesis about the localized double-particle EM photon from the point of view that EM energy may not be a pulse in an underlying ether, but would be a physically existing substance on its own, that leads to look at the Poynting vector from a new perspective:

Michaud A (2016) On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis. J Phys Math 7: 153. doi: 10.4172/2090-0902.1000153

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards, André

Hi Andre,

Yes, I became aware of it through this paper.

Article Quantum-entangled superluminal double-helix photon produces ...

Have you read my paper, The Walk of Reality -Understanding Nature of Space.

Best Regards,

Sunil

I will read the paper which you pointed. I found another reason why the whole Big Bang is wrong based on CMB and Redshift observation.

Regards,

Sunil

Hi Andre,

I have read upto 9 pages and glanced more pages. Here are some of my comments.

1. The English is very hard to read, much worse than Charles Dickens whom I thought was the most complex sentencer but you beat him. :-) I also used to do it but I realized the greatness comes in simplicity of expressions and explains our own grasping and its acceptance as popularity.

2. I was made aware of De Broglie's work recently.

3. The Maxwell Wave Model emerged to me in 2008.

4. The orthogonal of three fields, E, M and Space Field (vs Velocity) was with me since Middle School.

5. The 9 Dimensions I have had since 2008. I feel there is a medium that gives momentum to Photon in Space Field. All forces are gradients of the "their substance of fields" in Space. We know Space has e and u. I feel the ether is Space Field, and vibrating in the Space FIeld. It is also a function of temperature, and the gradient of Temp gives rise to the momentum to the photon. The hv in your equation represents the vibration of this, which is related to vibration of B and M and Poynting Vector. I have since 2008, though the model of Vacuum of Space to be Gyropscopic in 9 DImensions. In static they are Gyropscopic but in dynamics, the third field vibrates 2 times faster,

6. The 1/2 hv, 1/2 E and 1/2 M also back my line of thought and I called it Binary Partition of Energy and recently talked about in a draft.

7. The modelling of LC was also there with me in mind seeing parallels with transverse oscillation of B and M fields but it is just a mathematical modelling. And for EMF waves, the helix projected gives rise to that impression. But it is just E and M are chasing each other in dance because of orthogonal relationships. If one is Sin, the other is Cos in the same dimensions, and in other dimensions, one is Cos and the other is Sun. But it does not paint a physical picture of photon.

8. This paper from Richard Gauthier is a good paper to read. Perhaps we all can collaborate on my model of Electron and Positron I had since 2008.

Article Quantum-entangled superluminal double-helix photon produces ...