THE DOPPLER-ENSEMBLE THEORY OF LIGHT

By Mark J. Lofts

Abstract The engendering of logical paradox – whenever special relativity is applied – actually indicates that that theory is obscuring a more complicated theory of light which does not produce logical paradox when applied. This theory is the Doppler-Ensemble Theory outlined here; it arises from the objective resolution of Dingle’s Question without invoking time dilation or length contraction! Each and every photon is a Doppler-Ensemble, containing all possible wavelengths of light gradually separating from one another over time – the longer wavelengths moving faster than the shorter wavelengths. Hence the arrow of time is built into the photon itself. Each specific wavelength of a Doppler-Ensemble is termed a ‘wavelength-member’, the ‘collapse-of-the-wavefunction’ leading to only one wavelength for a particular photon being observed. The effects of reflection and of gravity are also explained. The Doppler-Ensemble Theory has major implications for astronomy as it resolves the nature of the mismatched Quasar-Galaxy redshifts and points to a new way of detecting and measuring the initiation and ascent of a supernova’s activity, especially for supernovae discovered only when they are already on the descending curve. Keywords: Doppler-Ensemble, wavelength-member, Herbert Dingle, Herbert Marcuse, Herbert Samuel, Heisenberg, John Maddox, Walter Ritz, gated-piston telescope, unsharp relation, mutually directed laser beams, quantum entanglement, arrow of time, thermodynamics, mismatched galaxy-quasar redshifts, uncertainty principle.

Contents PART 1: QUANTUM THEORY A: The Development of Quantum Theory B: Irreversibility Expressed Mathematically – Matrix Mechanics C: Quantum Interactions Defy Modern Science and Its Laws D: The Unsharp Relation is no ‘Uncertainty Principle’ PART 2: THE DOPPLER ENSEMBLE AND THE ARROW OF TIME A: Answering Dingle’s Question with Laser Beams B: Mutually Directed Laser Beams Reveal the Doppler-Ensemble C: Photons Comprising a Spectrum Coordinate their Doppler-Ensembles D: The Doppler-Ensemble’s Quantum Entangled Structure and Absorption E: Uncovering the Arrow of Time PART 3: IMPLICATIONS OF DOPPLER-ENSEMBLE THEORY A: The Doppler-Ensemble under Reflection, Refraction and Gravity B: Why is There a Mismatch of Galaxy-Quasar Redshifts? C: Observing the Light Curves of Distant Supernovae D: The Gated-Piston Telescope with Supernovae Observations

CONCLUSIONS

Dedication Dedicated to ‘Cincirob’, a.k.a. Robert Harris of Cincinnati, Ohio, whose mighty jet-propelled intellect and prodigious endeavors singlehandedly destroyed a whole Einstein-propagating website – forcing the editors to remove over 1,000 posts, most of these by Einsteinians who unwittingly revealed the fundamental absurdity arising from applying SR to actual physical situations.1

Special Abbreviations Used with the New Concepts in This Paper

D-E – a Doppler-Ensemble (plural: D-Es) WM – a wavelength-member of a Doppler-Ensemble (plural: WMs)

Einstein’s theory of special relativity (SR) has become the core teaching of the fundamentally perverse realm of modern science, underpinning the notion of human helplessness in the face of experts, elites and occult forces (e.g. gravity bending spacetime and spacetime governing masses in motion).2 Hence the encouragement and welcome given to Einstein through the 20th century not so much by religious authorities but rather by secular forces that imagine themselves to embrace science wholeheartedly, including atheists,3 agnostics, rationalists, sceptics and humanists.4

Nevertheless there were many who saw that this logical-paradox-engendering theory could not be genuine living science, that SR had not flown to the topmost perch of science by its own explanatory capacity, but rather, like Monty Python’s parrot, had merely been nailed there by tacit modern agreement! But who had done this and why? A fawning mass-media and ‘scientific’ [sic] elite ensured SRs acceptance globally through mass miseducation, thus for genuine researchers such as Walter Ritz, Ernst Gehrcke, Philipp Lenard or Herbert Dingle5 merely to point out SR’s paradox-generating impostures has not been enough to displace the theory. There has to be a credible alternative answer in order to reject SR comprehensively and unreservedly, since the theory’s complete rejection necessitates that there must be some other theory waiting “in the wings” to replace it.

So, having understood that SR is a false theory designed to destroy genuine scientific endeavor, it is necessary to elaborate the correct physical theory of light to replace SR once and for all, a theory that does not lead to logical paradoxes and therefore a theory that does not invoke nor require time dilation and length contraction (TD&LC) as part of its theoretical or explanatory apparatus. This is because it is TD&LC that lead to the logical paradoxes immanent in Einstein’s SR and all its derivative theorizing. The correct theory replacing SR is a development of quantum theory called Doppler-Ensemble Theory, and is developed below from fundamental physical observations.

PART 1: QUANTUM THEORY

A: The Development of Quantum Theory Einstein invented special relativity in 1905, only four years after Max Planck discovered quantum theory. Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect that same year, based on observations by Philipp Lenard, became the confirmation of quantum theory as genuine science. The photoelectric explanation established quantum theory, but it could only develop slowly from this beginning. In consequence Einstein and his adoring mainstream media (MSM) established even general relativity (GR) before quantum spin was uncovered in the 1920s. Hence quantum theory was tainted by relativity from the beginning – especially as Max Planck himself rapidly became an effective tout for SR!

The primary quantum focus in the first three decades of the 20th century was the complexity of interpreting atomic spectral lines first as integral then as half-integral quantum units. Under the domination of mathematicians – and not Einstein alone – this eventually led to the abandonment of physical models and instead the creation of mathematical formalisms as explanations for quantum interactions. In temporal order, these were Werner Heisenberg’s Matrix Mechanics, Erwin Schrodinger’s Wave Equation and finally Paul A. M. Dirac’s mathematization which reconciled (!?) quantum principles with Einstein’s relativity6 so that the theory could be broadly applied – mathematically of course!

To find a physical interpretation for the mathematics used by Heisenberg and Schrodinger is thus the primary task for quantum understanding – Dirac’s work a mere mathematical formalism. The physical meaning of Schrodinger’s equation as describing

subatomic vortices was already indicated by Johannes Stark,7 but was truly demonstrated by Eric Lerner who showed how the Quantum Hall Effect calculated via the nonlinear Schrodinger equation dovetails with a hydrodynamic treatment of the subject through plasma vortices to lead to the same result.8

Given that Planck’s constant is a unit of angular momentum, we can now be sure that the Schrodinger Equation is a mathematical representation of fluid motion, of a vortex process, but what of the earlier mathematical formalism of quantum theory – Heisenberg’s Matrix Mechanics? What is the physical counterpart of such mathematics? What, physically, is the mathematics imitating in its inimitably precise but abstract way? Knowing more about matrix procedures will provide essential clues to uncover the answer. 1B: Irreversibility Expressed Mathematically: Matrix Mechanics Matrices are a means of “solving simultaneous equations”, their representation and use a standard procedure in mathematics, such procedures readily demonstrated on the internet.9 The varied terms are laid out in square brackets, where specific procedures are used to combine two suitable matrices into a third matrix. The addition and subtraction of matrices is straightforward and intuitive, but not so multiplication and other more complex matrix procedures. Thus while mathematicians will find this section very basic and humdrum, non-mathematicians following the rigmarole can gain insight here not only into Heisenberg’s pioneering thought-process but the actions of nature itself.

Consider two matrices: A – the 2×2 matrix , and

Z – the 2×2 matrix . The symbols for the matrices themselves are represented by bolded capital letters.

The physical relevance of matrices is that Heisenberg was investigating how different measurements of different parameters could be combined, arranging them in matrix form and from this establishing correct predictive answers through various mathematical procedures. E.g. matrix A could be position measurements, and matrix Z velocity measurements, though many other parameters could be measured likewise e.g. charge, magnetism, energy etc. When two matrices, such as the two above, are multiplied together: A×Z ≠ Z×A, i.e. the order of the multiplication of the matrices becomes essential to the result. This violates the usual commutative law of mathematics which teaches that when numbers are multiplied, the order of the numbers multiplied is irrelevant to the result. This is because A & Z are matrices, not ordinary numbers.

The reason is the mathematical rules governing matrices. When the two matrices are multiplied together as A×Z the resulting matrix R is as follows.

A × Z = R

× = + ++ +

To obtain the first term in matrix R, each term of the first row of matrix A (a then b) is multiplied by the corresponding term of the first column of matrix Z (w then y), each multiplied term (here aw) separated by a plus sign from the other term (by) to create the resulting term (aw + by) and so on. The second term of the first row in R is formed by multiplying the corresponding terms of the first row of A with the second column of Z, the two multiplied terms added to create the resulting term (ax + bz). In the case of the particular

terms however, the order of multiplication is irrelevant because these terms are numerical values, not themselves matrices (e.g. term ax + bz = xa + zb)!

Now let us see the two matrices multiplied in reverse order, i.e. as Z×A: Z × A = S

× = + ++ +

It is quite clear from comparing the two matrices that R ≠ S due to the added terms in each of the four entries in one matrix being quite different to the homologous entry in the other matrix, or indeed to any entry in the other matrix.

R ≠ S + ++ + ≠ + +

+ +

For example, the top left term in R reads aw+by whereas S reads aw+cx. Nor does R contain aw+cx at any position, nor S contain aw+by at any position.

Furthermore, we see for example that term a, which appears only once in matrix A, appears twice in both resulting matrices, R and S. Note too that each term of the resulting matrix comprises a combination of four terms from the eight terms comprising matrices A & Z. This situation arises entirely from the mathematical conventions adopted with matrices – but Heisenberg was the first to realize the practical application of such matrices to the experimental results of quantum investigations. In other words, matrices and matrix operations themselves are mathematical reflections of hitherto mysterious and inexplicable subatomic interactions.

Even more important however is the fact that the physical processes which such matrices represent in detail cannot be represented by the Einstein-sanctioned procedure of Minkowskian worldlines. That is, the matrix multiplication procedure (unlike adding and subtracting matrices) is not deterministic even though it obeys general rules. In other words, the type A local realism ‘point-particle’ interpretation of quantum theory cannot be correct. Instead, these matrix operations represent a non-deterministic world, a world where a particular outcome is not determined by one factor, i.e. there is no worldline or even a possibility of representing events with Einstein-Minkowski worldlines or conjuring up split worldlines (e.g. term a appearing in multiple terms in matrices R and S). Nor however is the complete opposite to determinism true – i.e. there is no event ever completely arbitrary and causeless (acausal) since each event or measurement is the result of complicated intersections among many, even innumerable, factors!

The arbitrary (causeless, acausal) claim arises from the false interpretation of the two-slit experiment along the lines of the type C (Copenhagen) Interpretation. Quantum theory, whether Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics or the Schrodinger equation, explains only the probabilistic distribution. It does not explain why each particle is detected at a particular and different point, even when the particles do not interact with one another because they are sent through the device individually, one falling on the detector before the next one is sent. The reason for this is that each particle has a fluidic nature and undergoes internal interaction (diffraction or interference), different in each case, otherwise each particle would end up at the same spot on the detector, being but clones of one another as each would be internally inert (i.e. comprising a subatomic plenum as we find openly with Democritus, and covertly with Epicurus, and therefore could be accurately representable as a worldline through time).

1C: Quantum Interactions Defy Modern Science and Its Laws Not confined to light alone, the material basis of quantum theory extends fundamentally into broader explanations of nature, notably the physics of sound. Sound too is quantized, into phonons, these following the principles of quantum theory and Planck’s constant, the research pioneered by Soviet physicist Igor Tamm in 1932!10 Yet this situation was predicted in a most striking way by Nietzsche in the late 19th century, who, though ignorant of the physics even of his day wrote in a youthful work:

If each of us still had a different kind of sensuous perception… if one of us were to see a stimulus as red, a second person were the see the same stimulus as blue, while a third were even to hear it as a sound, nobody would ever speak of nature as something conforming to laws, rather they would take it to be nothing other than a highly subjective formation.11

Nietzsche, like Georges Sorel and Carroll Quigley, saw that the universe is not deterministic as it does not conform to prescriptive all-controlling law(s). Yet the “highly subjective formation” of law is nevertheless neither arbitrary nor causeless, such that Nietzsche, Sorel or Quigley would deny any possibility of scientific investigation. It is rather that the scientific descriptions and predictions (“laws” in popular terminology) are applicable12 to situations only in that they prescribe neither a fixed inevitability nor allow arbitrary causeless phenomena, which by their very nature cannot be investigated scientifically.

Quantum theory is thus essential to nature itself, not something mathematically imposed upon nature – as opposed to Einstein’s relativity which we have shown to be a very definitely mathematical imposition. Rather, nature has its own internal and infinite processes, despite the fact that disorder rules overall in nature – especially as any photon does not decide, govern or control what it is ultimately to be absorbed or modified by. Instead, modern science hankers after all-controlling laws that everything must conform to – the past arrangement of matter and the all-prescribing laws absolutely controlling the future, such imagined laws being entirely mathematical by their very nature, as well as editing out and downplaying any evidence for chance, disorder or contingency in the physical realm. The modern scientist’s agenda conforms to this ideal, which is actually that of Parmenides’ block universe comprising an eternal present. Here the modern scientist controls the past which in turn absolutely controls the future,13 SR being perhaps the most egregious example, since the law of SR prescribes physically impossible situations that must be accepted (by the believer) as true nevertheless.

The situation is such that even the descriptive terminology used has been perverted, not only in the original language (usually German) but also and especially in translations! Nevertheless, classical physics in the broader sense used here – rather than the modern caricature of it – does accommodate quantum theory. The decisive evidence here lies in correctly understanding what is today called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. 1D: The Unsharp Relation is no ‘Uncertainty Principle’ In physical nature itself the causes for any particular outcome are multifactorial and interactive. The Schrodinger equation for a particle indicates, as Lerner forcefully noted, that we are dealing with a particle comprised of plural content, a fluid vortex. So what is the physical significance of matrix multiplication and other matrix interactions? What, physically, do the matrices and their operations represent? We need to know, since the exclusive adoption of Schrodinger’s explanation creates a one-sided and incomplete appreciation of quantum theory.

The matrices and their operations14 represent nonlocality i.e. the physical embodiment of the type B nonlocal hidden variables, the fluid material comprising quantum vortices. In contrast, the type A “local realist” and type C “Copenhagen & complementarity” interpretations of quantum theory do not do justice to the underlying fluidic constitution of subatomic particles15 but serve only to obscure it – since type A & C interpretations are modern in their philosophical stance in that they do not even acknowledge the existence of such fluidic content other than to confuse it with an all-embracing concept of the plenum, whether universal or subatomic. I.e. the point-particle and its complement, Max Born’s probability-density interpretation, find life and acceptance only in Descartes’ Tolerance Camp!16

Indeed, the modern Tolerance Camp is a relic of the sudden displacement of 19th century confusion about the nature of light by both quantum theory and relativity. In 19th century literature preceding relativity and quantum theory the impasse between the fluidic content of subatomic particles and the all-embracing plenum was embodied in the term ‘aether’ which amalgamated both concepts – subatomic vortex and plenum – as one and the same thing despite their radical difference and even mutual exclusivity! Nowadays ‘aether’ as the dynamic fluid constituent of matter is termed ‘plasma’. This situation is the deeper implication of the better-known conflict between ‘light as a wave’ (Bernoulli, Fresnel etc.) and ‘light as a particle’ (Newton), which was ‘resolved’ (Lorentz) by rendering the aether a universal static fluid.

Complementarity, a.k.a. dualism or doublethink, was invented by Niels Bohr as a substitute for nonlocality – since he believed in SR and so denied instantaneous-action-at-a-distance (IAAD), IAAD being the fundamental presumption, the sine qua non, of nonlocality. Older than Heisenberg, Bohr subverted the original meaning of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle into a meaningless abstraction, winning over Heisenberg in the process. The physical structure and processes underpinning nonlocality were thus dismissed entirely under Bohr’s regime since he affirmed that the quantum realm was now reduced entirely to mathematical interactions without an underlying physical substratum. Heisenberg himself was already obsessed with Platonic abstractions divorced from physical meaning, but Bohr capitalized on this by creating further degradation in human thought by negating nonlocality entirely under the term ‘complementarity’. To demonstrate what was done we only need to consider the original and true meaning of what has been mistranslated as ‘The Uncertainty Principle’.

Many German words, though rendered obscure in English e.g. U-boat for an enemy submarine, are based upon German words and phrases readily understandable in English. The word ‘U-boat’ comes not from the submarines making repeated U-turns to escape detection but rather the original German: das Unterseeboot, the obvious direct English translation being ‘under-sea-boat’. Likewise for what has been mistranslated as ‘the Uncertainty Principle.’ The original German is die Unschärfrelation; this word is a combination of the German words unscharf and Relation, whose meaning is obvious in English. The German unscharf is simply ‘unsharp’ in English, the German word too meaning ‘blurred’, ‘fuzzy’, ‘indistinct’ or ‘unclear’.

Instead, under the ontological blurring of matter, space and time into one stuff, one monistic principle championed by Einstein, there has been created the justification for the mistranslation of the word as ‘Uncertainty Principle’. This is because modernity’s ontology17 invokes Weyl’s space-time-matter, hiding the logical paradoxes of Lorentzian-Einsteinian Relativity, and thus justifying the mistranslation, since the term now invokes ontological confusion in the human mind rather than the nonlocal, i.e. spatially extended, condition of the vortices we call subatomic particles. Under the monistic conception of stuff

(Stoff), any and all difference can be denied at any point, rendering nonlocality inconceivable under modern presumptions.

Hence the term Unschärfrelation has been wrongly rendered as the “uncertainty-relation” or “uncertainty principle”. Rather, the correct meaning is “unsharp-relation”, i.e. a quintessentially nonlocal relation indicating that subatomic particles are not dimensionless “material points” but dynamic physical entities, comprising fluid vortices with spatial extension. Instead, the efforts of modernity, based upon the mathematical domination of physics, have tried to deny this fundamental insight completely. So having negated the modernist misconceptions of the world, we can now tackle Dingle’s question honestly.

PART 2: THE DOPPLER-ENSEMBLE AND THE ARROW OF TIME A: Answering Dingle’s Question with Laser Beams To begin: it is important to remember that in his initial special relativity (SR) paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Einstein subordinated the Doppler effect to his own relativity teachings. He treated the Doppler effect only in Part II §7, and there only mathematically. The Doppler effect was not taken into account in Part I where SR was established from speculative reasoning masquerading as experimental facts – under the infamous term “thought experiments”. Consequently, the discoveries of Fizeau, Voigt, Ritz and Fehrenbach indicate that SR has been established upon faulty reasoning and a selective interpretation of underlying facts.

So in order to clarify the answer to Dingle’s question we must adopt laser beams to establish a decisive answer – as was done first by John Maddox in an attempt to save SR from Dingle’s falsification of the theory!18 Laser beams emit monochromatic light, light of one color, light which is of an extremely narrow spectral band. In this case the two mutually moving objects A & B (see fig. 1) are supplied with laser beams that emit a yellow light when seen by an observer at rest with the light source. In this way we maintain the integrity of Galilean Relativity, that all motion is only ever relative. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: Dingle’s Question (from Science at the Crossroads p. 210) – observer at A is equi-distant from recording devices C and D, all three mutually stationary. Observer A simultaneously emits lights at identical yellow wavelengths at both C and D just as observer B, moving at velocity v, is passing A, traveling to the left. At this very instant when B passes A, observer B too emits lights of identical yellow wavelengths at both C and D. What and when will the devices at C and D record? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The color of the laser beam is represented by a line of greater-than or less-than

symbols (e.g. >>>>>>>>>>) pointing along the direction of the laser beam (here the beam is moving to the right) the color difference between the emitted wavelength and the received wavelength illustrated in the diagrams below, there being a crude color-change in the line of symbols to represent the change in wavelength between emitter and receiver. This process however is not causeless, haphazard nor arbitrary, but is rather proportional to the relative motion undergone by emitter and receiver.

By illustrating the lasers’ path and their color we find the following, as illustrated in Figure 2. Since C and D are stationary with respect to A, the yellow laser light from A is received simultaneously at C and D, each recorder there revealing that the wavelength is unchanged and that the speed of the light is c. Entity B is traveling to the left at speed v. For B, which emits yellow laser light in both directions, checking both the yellow wavelength of his laser in both directions along with their speed of c (and not asserting some c + v & c – v fantasy that Lorentz or Einstein might concoct) something very different is found at C and D.

At C, which B is approaching, the light is blueshifted by the Doppler effect, but is still measured by C to be travelling at c. Conversely, at D, the laser-light is received redshifted, but once again is measured by D to be at speed c. The speed of light has not changed but the wavelengths have. More importantly, the light at C and D emitted from B is received simultaneously at C and D, as would be expected from the speed c observed by both C and D. There now arises a seemingly paradoxical situation i.e. that the light emitted from B to C (and from B to D) is traveling at c in both cases, but in each case there is not a speed change but a wavelength or frequency change in the observed laser light. The result is explained from relative motion… -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

▌…………………………….……A……………………………<<<..▌ ▌<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ● >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ▌ ▌…………………………………………………………….…………▌ ▌……………………….…………B…...….………………….………▌ ▌<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ← ● ← >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>▌ ▌……………………………………………………………………….▌ C …...D

Figure 2: Dingle’s Question Answered as the yellow wavelength laser light is emitted from A and received by C and D as a yellow wavelength, measurement of the speed of light always being c, whether measured by A, C, D or B. Entity B emits yellow wavelength laser beams too, but C receives a blueshifted wavelength and D a redshifted wavelength, both C & D nevertheless measuring the speed of these different wavelengths as also c. Hence, by extrapolating back from the observed speed of light at C and D, we readily deduce that the light from B is received by C & D simultaneously. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …alone, without recourse to either an ARF-stagnant aether nor to notions of time dilation or length contraction. The explanation lies entirely with the nature of light itself – but not merely with visible light but the whole electromagnetic spectrum from the longest radio waves to the shortest gamma rays.

It hardly remains to add that in some form the Voigt Doppler Equations – mathematically identical to the so-called Lorentz Transformations applied to TD&LC – quantify the varied wavelength changes with mutual relative motion.

2B: Mutually Directed Laser Beams Reveal the Doppler-Ensemble We can now illustrate the issue further with mutually moving lasers, here termed A and B, which symbols will no longer refer to those in figures 1 or 2 above. Lasers are chosen, not because Maddox used lasers in his response to Dingle,19 but because lasers emit essentially monochromatic light, removing the complication at this point of having to consider the spectrum of a light source.

The colors used for the laser beams do not necessarily imply these actual colors but rather represent the effect of redshifting and blueshifting that occur with light-beams where source and observer are in mutual motion.

When the two lasers are approaching one another… → A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B ← → A<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< B ← …the light received by each laser is blueshifted. When the two lasers are mutually receding from one another we find the converse, that… ← A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B → ← A<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< B → …the light received by each laser is redshifted. In all cases the speed of light is always measured at speed c. We therefore see that the Doppler effect is fundamental to light emitted and received by objects in mutual motion – this fundamental understanding specifically excluded by Einstein’s teachings right back to his first paper of 1905. This is because the mere mathematical treatment of the Doppler effect serves only to ‘tame’, reduce and pervert light’s very nature into an intellectual straightjacket: the modern ideological agenda.

In the cases shown by the diagrams above, the amount of blueshifting or redshifting seen by A and B is the same, since the result depends entirely upon mutual linear motion. There is no time dilation nor length contraction of anything – not even light. Hence we can now take the next step: consider three observers of A’s laser light, one (B) approaching, one (O) at rest with respect to A, and another (R) receding from A as shown in the diagram below. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R → A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B ← Source A is producing yellow laser light as before, but the wavelength changes only in proportion to the relative velocity between A and the other entity, whether B, O or R. Nor is there a presumption that A is at rest, somehow stationary, while B, O & R are in some occult absolute motion. Rather, the same result occurs with B, O & R illustrated in relative rest and A alone shown as performing the motion, viz. ← A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R >>>>>>>>>>/>>A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O >>>>>>>>>>>\>>>\>>>/>>→ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B

Here a fundamental feature of the photon is revealed – a photon is a dynamic extended object observable at potentially all possible wavelengths. In other words, the photon is not prelabelled with the wavelength which it will ultimately be observed at!

The photon is thus projected into space – as Walter Ritz intuited – rather than being propagated through a medium. The ‘emission theory’ is retained only in that a photon’s emission wavelength is preserved only for an object not in relative motion to the emitter. Otherwise we can only conclude that the photon, indeed any photon, can potentially be detected at any possible wavelength. Each wavelength is not only spatially separated within the photon but travels at a speed proportionate to the wavelength.

Thus is each and every photon a Doppler-Ensemble! This is shown diagrammatically in figure 3, where only visible wavelengths are

shown in order to grasp the underlying concept. While wavelengths in a photon exist as a continuum, the resulting wavelength after absorption of the light is physically real, hence the collective of all wavelengths consists of an infinite ensemble of wavelengths. Since the electromagnetic spectrum is infinitely divisible, the wavelength-members of a photon’s Doppler-Ensemble (D-E) are infinite in number, not quantized into particular wavelengths. Nevertheless, all possible wavelengths are included, from the longest radio wavelengths to the shortest gamma rays, and everything in between.

Each wavelength of a D-E is thus termed a ‘wavelength-member’ or WM for short. Figure 3 reveals only three WMs, but is understood to include all other possible wavelengths as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 3: The Doppler-Ensemble: a photon projected from the point shown by the blue arrow moves leftward over time, revealing different wavelengths – the wavelength-members (WMs) – moving at different speeds in proportion to the wavelength of each: the longer the wavelength, the faster the speed. The wavelength distribution is a continuum and extends beyond the visible wavelengths within the illustration along both directions. The photon is potentially infinite in size, the Doppler-Ensemble comprising all wavelengths from the longest radio wavelengths to the shortest gamma rays. Whatever the emission wavelength of a particular photon, the Doppler-Ensemble includes all other possible wavelengths as WMs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In consequence the Doppler-Ensemble (D-E), embracing all possible wavelengths, constitutes a continuum in space and time, space and time also being continua. As Carroll Quigley has pointed out, such continua are inherently irrational and are therefore not reducible to exact mathematical treatment nor reductionist determinism.20 Thus the Doppler-Ensemble (D-E) is an ensemble comprising an infinite number of wavelengths, the

wavelength absorbed being determined by an object moving at c relative to a particular WM among the WMs of a given D-E.

Thus the observed wavelength of a photon is not an intrinsic property of the photon but an extrinsic property, revealed by the photon’s absorption by an object traveling at c relative to the particular wavelength absorbed. The object absorbing the particular photon is a phenomenon independent of the photon itself, hence the WMs exist as potentialities only, until one of these potentialities is actualized by the absorption of said photon. 2C: Photons Comprising a Spectrum Coordinate their Doppler-Ensembles When an ordinary light beam is considered, – as opposed to a laser beam which is monochromatic – it comprises a spectrum embracing different colors. However such colors derive from the combination of different photons in the light beam; they are not WMs of the D-Es involved. In contrast, each photon has its D-E, which embraces all possible wavelengths, each WM moving at the speed commensurate with its wavelength relative to whatever its emission wavelength was. Thus an observer (O) stationary relative to light source L will show the same spectrum at the same relative wavelengths. L ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) O

Thus with an ordinary spectrum (which can be redshifted or blueshifted depending on observer motion), the motion of the light, bearing its spectrum, is represented by a series of brackets along the direction of the light’s motion to the right viz. ))))))))))))). However, when specific WMs of the spectrum’s D-Es are discussed, these will be represented by the row of greater-than or less-than signs as before viz. >>>>>>>>>> to indicate their different speeds relative to the given spectrum. Parts of a spectrum (delineated by wavelength) are instead indicated by a series of reverse solidus lines thus: \\\\\\\\\\, the lines here indicating light’s motion to the right.

Up to this point only narrow wavelength emissions, as in lasers, have been considered. Nevertheless, spectral integrity is preserved, since when ordinary light sources, e.g. stars, emit light of a wide spectrum, the wavelengths comprising the emitted spectrum (i.e. not a WM of a Doppler-Ensemble but cohorts of such Ensembles) travel at the same speed as one another. Thus not only the wavelengths of the emitted spectrum, but all the WMs of every component Doppler-Ensemble also travel at the appropriate speed to maintain the integrity of the spectrum – otherwise redshifts in galaxies would be impossible to observe due to spectral decoherence.

This can be illustrated as follows, different colors of solidus lines indicating different parts of the emission spectrum of a light source e.g. a star. The receding observer (R) in the diagram below sees the whole spectrum redshifted, but the color-components of the redshifted spectrum reach him at the same time. Any temporal variations – i.e. event recordings – that they bear (e.g. nova activity) will be reproduced more or less with temporal accuracy by all the components of the redshifted spectrum in the order in which they occurred with the emission wavelength spectrum. A \\\\\\\\\>>>>>>>>>>>\\\\\\\\\ R → A \\\\\\\\\>>>>>>>>>>>\\\\\\\\\ R → A \\\\\\\\\>>>>>>> >>>\\\\\\\\\ R → Were this not the case, stellar spectra would be a jumble almost impossible to interpret! The primary message here is that the relative motion of different wavelength-components of a

given spectrum from a given source travel at the same speed as one another, the D-Es of such spectral components traveling the same speed as one another appropriate to the emission WM of each D-E.

Thus when events E & F occur in the light source, e.g. a star or galaxy, the same event registered in a redshifted or blueshifted spectrum will still exhibit the same temporal ordering, whatever wavelength is observed since it is merely a question of a generalized redshifting or blueshifting applying to the whole spectrum. This also applies to all parts of the spectrum viz. A \\\F\\E\\\\ \\\\\F\\E\\ R → A \\\F\\E\\\\ \\\\\F\\E\\ R → A \\\F\\E\\\\ \\\\\F\\E\\ R → For the whole spectrum, it could simply be indicated qualitatively as e.g.: A )))F))E)))) ))))F))E)) R → Event E occurs before event F, and so event F is observed after event E, photons emitted together simultaneously – whatever their emitted wavelength – being received together simultaneously by the observer. Hopefully this is an obvious point for readers, but its importance will be highlighted as we uncover means of telescopic observation that can alter the timing of observed phenomena due to the effect of the differential travel velocities of the WMs in the Doppler-Ensembles of the observed photons! 2D: The Doppler-Ensemble’s Quantum Entangled Structure and Absorption When a photon is absorbed, the “collapse of the wavefunction” is instantaneous, causing all WMs to disappear as potentials and be absorbed at the particular wavelength moving at c relative to the absorbing object. This necessarily implies instantaneous action-at-a-distance (IAAD), since the instantaneous collapse of a wavefunction extending over millions of lightyears from a star can only be treated as magical (i.e. as SR treats it) if the principle of IAAD is not accepted as a genuine physical phenomenon.

The obvious implication follows, that all the WMs of any photon are quantum entangled with one another, otherwise instantaneous “collapse of the wavefunction” would be impossible. The infinite number of WMs of a photon’s D-E exist not as actualities – any more than a small child is actually an adult – but instead only as potentialities.

Figure 3 shows that for longer wavelengths there is ever-greater transverse spread of the wave, involving ever greater volumes as well as the linear measure of any particular wavelength-member (λ) itself. The larger volume proportional to a longer wavelength is also revealed in Michaud,21 where V is the volume, λ the wavelength and Ƒ the fine structure constant.22

= Ƒ2

Thus the volume of ‘electromagnetic activity’ by a photon is governed by the particular wavelength in all three dimensions. The square of π indicates that this activity takes place in or on a realm embodied by the surface of a torus – but scaled to the wavelength. The wavelength in reference to the D-E is the WM, the process more and more dispersed in space as longer wavelengths are considered.

That the proportionality is to the fine structure constant raised to the fifth power is highly unusual,23 but implies that the vortical fluid comprising the photon – and every WM

of the Doppler-Ensemble – is not a simple rotation about both the rotational axis and/or the direction of motion but also undergoes a complex motion poloidally around said torus in a stable pattern generating momentum in a given linear direction (presumably the axis of the torus) and an equal magnetic field energy (B) normal to it (the particular direction in the plane of the torus decided by the inherently asymmetrical vortex-fluid distribution in and around the torus). This is very difficult to visualize but de Broglie’s ‘double-particle theory’ of light helps considerably.24

Furthermore, each poloidal ‘ring’ could itself be considered a torus, with a more finely-structured poloidal motion around it, indicating the infinite divisibility of photon-matter through the infinite regress of toroidal-poloidal motion. This understanding is the opposite to Einstein’s reductionist assertion that a photon, like the Sun, has to be treated as a ‘material point’ (i.e. a point-particle) controlled absolutely by an all-embracing external ‘field’.

Lastly we must ask why light is always absorbed at speed c by a particle. This is easier to understand when we realize that both the photon and the absorbing material comprise subatomic vortices, the tangential velocity of the bulk of the fluid comprising the rotating particle matching the linear velocity of the light, allowing for such ready absorption. Moving relative to the particle-vortex at speeds other than c, other WMs merely pass around and through the particle-vortex without interaction. 2E: Uncovering the Arrow of Time The other implication of the Doppler-Ensemble is that it embodies the Arrow of Time i.e. the Arrow of Time is built into the Photon. This is because any two WMs of a D-E separate further and further from one another over time.

Through the 19th century, the inherent unidirectionality of time was not considered to be built into the physical world – complete reversibility being asserted of material structures as a parody of classical physics, SR coming to underpin this narrow-minded (borniert) view of the world, one conceived as mere ‘billiard-ball mechanics’ supplemented by Max Born’s ‘probability clouds’. This emerging situation had confused even a pre-eminent thinker on thermodynamics like Ludwig Boltzmann as he did not appreciate the ontological separation of matter, space and time – so his misconceptions have since been readily rehashed to justify modern prejudices, notably by Sir Karl Popper.25 As a result the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been justified only by probability.

Now however, the appreciation as to the arrow of time being within the photon itself negates these conceptions, revealing the inherent nature of the photon as an entity comprising an infinite number of wavelengths ever separating from one another over time. As becomes clear immediately, this discovery underpins the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain its temporal uni-directionality, especially given the continuous interchange of photon energy among gas molecules, over and above the (relatively) stationary atoms of solids emitting and absorbing black-body radiation.

PART 3: IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOPPLER-ENSEMBLE THEORY

A: The Doppler-Ensemble under Reflection, Refraction and Gravity Photons may be deflected in the course of their motion, but this does not by any means imply a “collapse of the wave-function” since ordinary ‘non-quantum’ everyday macroscopic interactions are involved – as we see from optics!

An obvious example is reflection. Not only absorption but reflection too resets the Doppler-Ensemble according to whichever WM is moving a c relative to a mirror. That wavelength is reflected so probabilistically it restarts the Doppler-Ensemble from the point where the light meets the mirror. One has to say ‘probabilistically’ since it may be that another WM of the D-E is absorbed or reflected by another object instead. In a laser or light beam this means that many photons would be reflected by the mirror, others absorbed or reflected by other objects. However this applies to D-Es as well.

So we consider a source (S) and a mirror (M). When mutually stationary, the light reflected off the mirror will be of the same wavelength as the source. S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M SSSO <<<<<<<<<<<<< M When however the mirror is receding from the observer, the light reflected off the mirror is redshifted. Here O represents an observer at rest with respect to the source (S). S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M→ <<<<O <<<<<<<<<<<< M→ The converse is true when the mirror is approaching S. S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M← <<<<O <<<<<<<<<<<< M← While the above is true there is also a difference when the observer is, for example, at rest with the source (S) or at rest with the mirror (M). If observer O is at rest with respect to the mirror… S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M→ << →O <<<<<<<<<<<< M→ …then the redshift is what is reflected by the mirror. If however the observer (O) is at rest with the source S, then the redshift is doubled because the observer is receding from the mirror. S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M→ SSSSO <<<<<<<<<<<< M→ Likewise with blueshifts when source (S) and mirror (M) are approaching one another.26

Note however that the reflections from mirrors are probabilistic. Thus if the mirror is small and the wavelength relatively large, many photons will be ‘split’, nonlocal both in the sense that some of the WMs will be reflected while others, notably longer wavelengths, pass through and around the mirror. As a result the photon’s potential for detection is split between absorbers (P) ‘downstream’ of the mirror and other absorbers (O) capable only of receiving the reflected WMs. Thus the detection of the photon remains probabilistic, dependent upon whatever object absorbs it.

This would lead to partial reflection and partial continuation of every D-E comprising the spectrum of S, and depending on the wavelength of the WM. It can be illustrated as follows, where shorter wavelength WMs (green) are reflected whereas longer WMs (red) pass by and around the small mirror. Thus a particular photon could be observed

either reflected or downstream of the mirror (but not both since “collapse of the wavefunction collapses all the WMs of the photon, such that a particular photon will not be detected at both O and P, even though both O and P will detect other photons from the beam spectrum)! S ))))))))))))))))))))))))))) M→ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ P SSSSO //////////////////////// M→

The refraction of light through transparent media also involves D-Es but here the

passing through glass of light from a distant source (where WMs are very separated) will have to await experimental evidence. Suffice to say that in actual spectra, the slower speed of shorter wavelengths in transparent media, e.g. glass, causes them to be bent more strongly, this situation having allowed spectra to be observed scientifically in the first place!27 The spectra however are not WMs of a given Doppler-Ensemble but separate photons of different wavelengths being refracted differentially according to the different wavelengths. Never-theless, a similar situation will also apply to the gravitational bending of light when we consider the function of an ordinary glass prism.

Therefore one predicts that with gravitational bending the shorter WMs of a photon passing by a gravitating object will be bent more strongly than the longer wavelengths. This is because the shorter WMs are traveling more slowly relative to the gravitating object, so are therefore bent more strongly. To observe them in the Solar System however will require a telescope moving much faster than Earth, the faster the telescope relative to a gravitating object (Sun, Jupiter etc.) leading to an increase in the observed angle of gravitational lensing proportional to the blueshift of the gravitationally-deflected photons!28

3B: Why is There a Mismatch of Galaxy-Quasar Redshifts? We imagine S to be a continuous laser source, receding R and approaching B observers normally able to access the laser light redshifted and blueshifted respectively. S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R→ S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ▓ S >>>>>>>>> B← The “collapse of the wavefunction” caused by the absorption of the yellow laser light prevents the WMs of these laser photons from reaching both receding observer R and approaching observer B, unless they are much closer to S.

At this point we can now extend the argument by considering those particular narrow spectral lines absorbed and emitted by a cloud of gas or plasma which can lie between the spectrum source (S) and the Earth.

When a spectrum is considered, the absorbing material, a cloud of gas and/or plasma shown by the black rectangle, blocks only specific wavelengths, creating absorption lines in the spectra (this shown here by a darkening of the color of the spectrum after it passes through the absorbing material). Meanwhile the WMs associated with the photons of the specific wavelengths that are absorbed by the cloud also disappear, as shown in the diagram above, but the remaining parts of the spectrum, along with their WMs, are untouched. S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R→ S ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ▓ ))))))))))))))))))))) S >>>>>>>>> B ←

The D-Es of the spectrum as a whole after passing through the cloud are also affected by the absorption lines, but only where specific photon wavelengths (i.e. whole D-Es) have been weeded out. Hence the D-Es of most of the spectrum persist, the WMs within each D-E separating as shown previously. We thus have a situation where the spectrum – along with the WMs of its constituent photons, whether blue (shorter slower waves) or red (longer faster waves) – bears the mark of the absorption lines at whatever Doppler effected spectrum-shift it is observed at. S ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))||))))))))))))))))))))))))) R→ S ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ▓ ))))))))))))))))))))) ………………………….E S ))))))))))||)))))))))) B ← This is represented diagrammatically above by two black vertical lines followed by a color change in the spectrum – the different rates of WM motion are shown for the whole spectrum, not just for one narrow wavelength band, the longer wavelength WMs racing ahead, the shorter wavelength WMs lagging behind. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 4: A spectrum observed by E from source S. It shows a thin absorption line in green as a constituent of light source S. It also shows a thicker absorption line in the yellow region due to the intervening absorptive material at rest relative to the light source (S) and the observer, all three mutually at rest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We now consider the case where the absorbing material is ‘infalling’ i.e. is moving towards the source (S). The D-Es reflect the absorption by the absorbing gas or plasma by exhibiting the same absorption lines – but Doppler shifted. S ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))||))))))))))))))))))))))))) R→ S )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ▓ ←)))))))))))))))))))))……………………….E S ))))))))))||)))))))))) B ← Seen from the perspective of the moving absorbing material the spectrum from the source (S) is blueshifted (this represented by the change to green brackets before the absorbing material, but NOT for the spectrum that has passed through the material to be observed by E). The absorbing material has not changed its constitution however. It continues to absorb light at particular wavelengths, but because the spectrum is all blueshifted, it is the otherwise redder wavelengths that are being absorbed by the gas/plasma approaching the source, since these longer wavelengths have WMs in the critical shorter (bluer) wavelength range to be absorbed at speed c by the infalling material.

We can illustrate this by an example. Imagine that the absorbing material creates many absorption lines in the yellow region, thus when the source (S) light is observed through the absorbing material – e.g. from planet Earth (E) observing the source – the spectral lines will be absorption lines in the yellow region, as we see from figure 4 where one thick absorption line is considered. The absorbing material now begins to ‘fall’ towards the source. What happens to the absorption lines? Since from the absorbing material’s

perspective the light from the source is blueshifted, the red spectrum will be blueshifted into the yellow range, WMs at this yellow range being absorbed by the infalling material instead. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 5: Spectrum observed from E showing that the thin absorption line from the source (S) remains as before, since source and observer remain at mutual rest. However the absorption line due to the intervening absorptive material moving towards the light source is redshifted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we imagine the source (S) to be at rest with the Earth (E), the absorbing material lying between them moving towards the source, the absorbed spectral lines in the yellow part of the spectrum seen by an observer moving with absorbing material, will instead fall into the redshifted range when seen from Earth since Earth is in relative motion, moving away from the absorbing material – as in figure 5. Hence the Earth will see the spectral lines redshifted when the absorbing material is moving towards the light source (S), even though S and E are mutually at rest.

Note that with our Earthbound observers, quasar observation is difficult, hence we are considering a situation in which only the thick absorption line is observed (i.e. the line from the absorbing material). The absorption line in the source (S) remains unchanged in its spectral position, but such lines are not normally observable in actual quasars. This seems to be because the light source of the quasar is actually very dynamic and hot, blurring any absorption lines within the source – especially given that quasars are considered to be galaxies early in formation, and seen from particular angles that emphasize the effects of infalling material.29

Of course all quasars, like almost all galaxies, are receding from us due to galactic recession, which itself creates a recession-redshift. Material infalling towards the light source at the quasar’s center thus accounts for the further redshift seen in quasars. Hence this accounts for the mismatch between galaxy and quasar redshifts. Whenever there is clear evidence that a given galaxy and quasar are connected to one another despite the different redshifts, the quasar is always the more redshifted – the redshift created by the infalling material normally accounting for the difference. 3C: Observing the Light Curves of Distant Supernovae Thus to ordinary galactic redshifts we have to add the redshifts formed by absorbing material ‘falling’ towards the source light at the centre of the quasar, leading to further absorption line redshifting in excess of that due to the ordinary galactic redshifts. Einstein’s relativity cannot deal with this situation – except by misrepresenting it. Galactic redshifts are instead explained by the ‘expansion’ or ‘stretching’ of space rather than galactic motion in space, while the quasar-galaxy redshift mismatch renders relativity’s proponents silent – unless they hypothesize black holes at the center of quasars to cause e.g. localized gravitational redshifts, but such notions lead to further complications such as explaining away the absence of evidence for gravitational lensing in quasars.

In the case of a distant supernova, because it and the Earth are almost always receding from one another (except for those in the Local Group and the Virgo Supercluster) there is always redshift in the spectrum, due to the galactic recession. In the diagram below, the supernova light source is A. In this diagram this redshift in the spectrum is treated as going

from green to yellow – and is here termed the ‘recessionary redshift’, that due to galactic recession. Above and below the spectrum are shown the longer WMs and shorter WMs respectively – these too revealing appropriate recessionary redshifts represented by color changes.

The D-Es however are arranged by nature such that the events seen in the D-Es pass by the Earth at different times (see figure 3) such that the telescope on Earth (T) will receive the recessionary-redshifted light at speed c. This light is shown in yellow, along with the event markers E & F where E marks a significant initiation event in the supernova while F marks the peak supernova brightness. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>F>E>> A ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))T)))F))E))) → A >>>>>>>>>>>F>E>> The illustration above shows the usual situation for the discovery of a supernova in a distant galaxy. It happens either to be observed at its peak or just after – as is found here. Decay curves for supernovae abound, but initiation and brightening curves for supernovae are rare indeed. The same situation is shown above in the diagram, where events E & F, recorded in the spectra moving at c relative to Earth, have already passed the Earth, so are undetectable. The redshifted WMs of the D-Es have already long passed by the Earth, but the blueshifted WMs of the very same D-Es have not yet reached planet Earth!

Now the more distant the supernova is from Earth, the more separated any two particular WMs of a D-E have become. This means that orbiting telescopes with mirrors moving backward or forward relative to a ‘stationary’ telescope on earth could detect and demonstrate such differences in the observed timing of arrival of events E & F at different wavelengths, due to redshifted or blueshifted WMs being sampled. Thus a telescope approaching the supernova relative to a telescope on Earth will sample blueshifted WMs and reveal an earlier stage of the supernova’s evolution, perhaps one before the supernova began to emerge. The case here arises from WMs travelling at different speeds – not some mysterious ability of telescopes to look ‘backward in time’ so as to prove SR!

Conversely the monitoring of stars suspected of impending supernova activity would be carried out telescopically by a receding telescope measuring the redshifted WMs, since these will provide the first signs of impending supernova activity. Astronomers will then be prepared for ordinary telescope viewing as the ‘normal recession-redshifted’ light reaches them, rather than having to search the blueshifted WMs to establish an ascent curve for the supernova.

3D: The Gated-Piston Telescope with Supernovae Observations A technical problem occurs here in that evidence from telescope comparisons from satellite-telescopes and geographically separated Earth-based telescopes would usually be explained away by invoking mysterious ‘relativistic’, i.e. Einstein-based, influences, since such electronic ‘corrections for SR’ are also standard procedures, these corrections made without understanding their actual origin in non-Einsteinian-relativity physics! Such arguments would be (and no doubt are!) used to explain away these timing differences as due to SR!

So in order to remove long-distance electronic communication which could hide away the evidence from satellite-telescopes as well as that from telescopes on earth, some receding and some approaching a luminous source, a single telescope could be fitted with a device that would move the mirror back and forth like a piston in a combustion engine. The light received from the telescope would be ‘gated’ i.e. in the sense that the only light observed by

the telescope then reflected into the recording devices would be such light reflected by the telescope only when the mirror was moving fastest, either in mid-motion forward or in mid-motion backward. The forward mirror motion would examine blueshifted WMs of D-Es from a given source (supernova) while the backward mirror motion would examine redshifted WMs of D-Es from the same source.

Such motion in an individual telescope would be modest compared to the Earth’s motion and especially to orbiting telescopes – but this will not matter when supernovae are considered, since these are already at extreme distances, revealing wide WM separation and a greater possibility of detection at slower telescope speeds – see diagrams in §3C.

According to the above explanation, while the important events accessible to an Earth-based telescope have already moved past Earthly observation, the gated piston telescope will select redshifted and blueshifted WMs, recording them separately to create a time-spectrum different to that of the earth-stationary spectrum. The redshifted WMs will indicate the future visual wavelengths to be seen in the earth-stationary telescope. The blueshifted WMs, being slower, will reveal the events that have passed by the earth-stationary telescope and even enable the initiation and ascent curves of supernovae to be observed for the first time, despite the WMs moving at c relative to an Earth-based telescope having already moved on past such a telescope.

Here specifically is meant events E and F, where E is an initiation marker for the ascending curve of the supernova while F represents peak supernova brightness. These can now be made visible in the blueshifted WMs. Meanwhile, redshifted WMs can be used to scan for future supernovae e.g. in Andromeda galaxy. By ‘past’ and ‘future’ in reference to WMs is meant information carried in the various sequential photons from actual events occurring millions or more years ago, and in no way suggest notions of time-travel, time dilation or anything related to or dependent upon Einstein’s relativity theories.

The most important point to gather is that the WMs are separated most extremely in the most distant objects, thus the gated-piston telescope will work far more effectively with more distant supernovae than with other variable activity, such as nova activity in Milky Way stars. It will also be useful in cross-checking other distance measurement methods as well as providing the experimental evidence disproving SR once and for all. CONCLUSIONS It is clear from the above discussion that the implications of Doppler-Ensemble Theory are overwhelming for physics and astronomy as they concern our deepest understanding of light – and of the universe itself. There are clearly many other implications that have not been considered here and that will arise from thinking about the situation and from puzzling experimental results. Queries from readers on these matters are very welcome.

The first and perhaps most significant implication for physics is that ‘fundamental’ physics is not simple. Subatomic particles cannot be reduced to dimensionless ‘points’ without vital information about their nature being edited out or misrepresented. Therefore mathematicians will now have to defer to physical insight, while fluid mechanics (Bernoulli) will no longer be subordinate to ‘solid’ physics (Newton), where the ideal was considered to be billiard-ball mechanics and gravity, supplemented by the Borniertheit (narrow-mindedness) of “probability clouds.”

Perhaps even more significant is that the Doppler-Ensemble explanations will evoke a monocle-dropping moment in the Kommandantur at Descartes’ Tolerance Camp, especially among the dominant monocular, monochromatic, monoperspectival, monothematic, monotonous, monodimensional30 and monomaniacal authorities there.31 They will cling to Einstein’s relativity until their dying day, even as genuine science and scientists come to

abandon the Einsteinian dead end. In other words, modern science as a philosophical agenda is finished, since its grounding doctrine – the ontological reduction of matter, space and time to a monistic stuff affirmed by Einstein’s relativity – has now been disproven. Scientists such as Herbert Dingle, Johannes Stark, Walther Ritz and Philipp Lenard stand rehabilitated while mathematical journals dedicated to futile speculation (e.g. General Relativity and Gravitation) will either have to reconsider their philosophy and cosmology or retreat to an even more ineffectual sectarianism.

Lastly arises the most important question of all. Why was and is Einstein’s relativity so heavily promoted worldwide, despite its absurd implications? Instead, the situation indicates that Einstein’s relativity is part of a larger agenda of disempowerment being foisted upon mankind by propaganda from an obscure alliance of elite oligarchs.32 The task is now to expose the larger agenda and the mysterious oligarchs, something already largely achieved through the works of Joseph Atwill and many others, though the intimate connection to Einstein’s teachings – and the full exposure of the agenda – remains to be elaborated.

References

Atwill, Joseph, https://postflaviana.org/freemason-rye/ . --------, Joseph & Tim Kelly, at the ongoing Powers & Principalities series on

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/tkelly6785757 . Born, Max, “Physical Reality”, Philosophical Quarterly 3 (1953) 139-149. Caldin, E. F., The Functions of Science, Nature 146 (1940) 403. Dingle, Herbert, Modern Aristotelianism, Nature 139 (1937) 784-786. --------, Herbert, “Philosophy of Physics, 1850-1950” Nature (13th October 1951 No. 4276)

630-636. --------, Herbert, Science at the Crossroads, Martin Brian & O’Keeffe, London (1972). Einstein, Albert, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” pp. 37-65 in A. Einstein, H. A.

Lorentz, H. Minkowski & H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity, with notes by A. Sommerfeld, trans. W. Perrett & G. B. Jeffery, Dover, New York (1952).

Huxley, Thomas, Evolution & Ethics [the Romanes Lecture, 1893], new intro. Michael Ruse, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2009){1894}.

Lerner, Eric J., The Big Bang Never Happened, Simon & Schuster, London (1991). Litten, Freddy, Mechanik und Antisemitismus: Wilhelm Müller (1880-1968), Algorismus Heft

34, Institut für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, München, Germany (2000). Lofts, Mark J., General Science Journal No. 8389 (2020). -------, Mark J., General Science Journal No. 8468 (2020). -------, Mark J., General Science Journal No. 8793 (2021). Marcuse, Herbert, One Dimensional Man, Beacon, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (1964). Michaud, André, Electromagnetism According to Maxwell’s Initial Interpretation, Journal of

Modern Physics 11 (2020) 16-80, https://doi.org/10.4236/imp.2020.111003 Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Birth of Tragedy & Other Writings [The Dionysian Worldview, On

Truth & Lying in a non-Moral Sense] ed. Raymond Geuss & Ronald Spiers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1999).

------------, Friedrich, Human All Too Human Vol. I & II, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, intro. R. Schacht, Cambridge University Press, UK (1996).

Popper, Karl R., Unended Quest, preface by Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Routledge, London (1992).

Quigley, Carroll, The Evolution of Civilizations: an Introduction to Historical Analysis, 2nd edition, foreword Harry J. Hogan, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, Indiana (1979).

Samuel, Viscount Herbert Louis & Herbert Dingle, A Threefold Cord: Philosophy, Science, Religion, foreword by Viscount Samuel, George Allen & Unwin, London (1961).

Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Pan in association with Secker & Warburg, London (1964).

Stark, Johannes, Die Axialität der Lichtemission und Atomstruktur, A. Seydel, Berlin (1927). -------, Johannes, Atomstruktur und Atombindung, A. Seydel, Berlin (1928). Endnotes

1: See http://websites.milonic.com/thephysicsforum.com/ where the issue was how to apply SR to a rotating situation. Under ‘Special and General Relativity’, where the threads are listed in order of most recent posting, one may have to go to page two to select ‘Relativistic Rolling Wheel II’ (2014). In that thread go to Page 13 and the short posts ##1250-1252 and those immediately above them, showing that posts from 2014-2017 have been removed en masse. Don’t hesitate to look – and give cincirob (#1252) a ‘like’ if possible – since that thread will certainly be taken down as this paper’s influence spreads!

2: See Georges Sorel’s understanding of the implications of deterministic thinking (Lofts GSJ No. 8398 note 55).

3: The Einstein-affirmed atheistic category includes not just almost all Marxists (excepting Gramsci, Bruno Rizzi and perhaps others) but all Anarchists and most liberals and democratic leftists as well. Among academics, the ‘Modern Aristotelians’ (see Dingle’s article) and Cambridge Platonists alike propagated Einstein’s manner of thinking from the beginning, echoing the fact that it was the Aristotelians within the Church – and not actually Christianity itself – who were the primary opponents of Galileo.

4: Notably the agnostic Thomas Huxley, who not only coined the term, but defined agnosticism as deterministic, entirely excluding chance from nature. See his Evolution & Ethics, Prolegomena I pp. 6 & 8.

5: In a previous article (Lofts GSJ No. 8468 note 57), reference was made to the striking lack of opposition to Einstein’s relativity theory among Protestants. Concerning British physics and Herbert Dingle in particular a curious opposition arises. The leading English proponent of relativity was Arthur Eddington, who had led one of the eclipse expeditions to prove GR and was considered the expert on relativity second only to Einstein himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#cite_ref-autogenerated1_14-0 , accessed 19/6/2012). He died in 1944 before Dingle came out in opposition to SR. Both pro-Einstein Eddington and anti-Einstein Dingle were of Quaker background, this religious movement, also called the Society of Friends, emerging from British Protestantism but as an extreme trend going beyond the dogmas of the Christian religion (much as the Baha’i movement from Shia Islam goes beyond Islamic dogmas). In The Threefold Cord: Philosophy Science Religion, co-authored by only ‘two Herberts’, Dingle writes of his Quakerism – partly to explain his background as distinct from his co-author’s better-known Jewish background – as follows:

“The religious body to which I belong – the Society of Friends – has neither ethical system nor theology, although any individual member may have his own system of belief. One’s guide in conduct is the Inner Light, which is not expressible in written rules, and meetings for worship are in silence since in the last resort there is nothing that can be said. This seems to me to be the essence of religion. Of course, this society, like any other human institution, falls short of its ideal. It traffics with pacifism, and – in that connection particularly – makes categorical statements about God’s intentions which suggest the intrusion of some unacknowledged Outer Light. But it comes nearer than anything I know to the heart of things, to the point of view from which the whole of life can be seen to form a possibly harmonious system in which one’s intellect and one’s actions are both completely free to be dedicated to the ultimate ideal without fear of conflict. And the characters it produces – the best of them – seem to me to come nearer to the fulfilled life than those found in the same proportion in any other organized body.” (Dingle in Samuel & Dingle pp. 257-258)

The central role of ‘light’ here in the footnote as well as the main article parallels the traditional dualistic definition of aether both as the fluidic content of matter and an absolute reference frame for all motion!

6: And not merely the equation E = mc2, which does not necessitate nor justify the adoption of Einstein’s SR since the equation has been verified in various ways from established non-Einsteinian science.

7: Stark’s 1920s works were pioneering here. 8: Lerner BBNH pp. 369-372. 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYlOjyPyX3g 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon (accessed 15/6/2021) 11: “On Truth & Lies Outside of any Moral Sense” (Über Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne)

reproduced in Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy p. 148. It was a separate essay written before his major works, and for which he was unable to find a continuation or confirmation before he died, though rightly he always regarded it highly (see e.g. the 1886 preface §1 to his earlier work Human All too Human part 2 p. 209). That he draws an intimate connection between light and sound might seem remarkable in retrospect, but the real puzzle is the basis for his insight.

The answer lies in the development of the German language where verbs with inseparable prefixes (of which there are only 16) began to multiply as culture and technology developed. German grammars state that most of these prefixes are always inseparable, including wider-, homologue of the English prefix with-. However, a very few verbs referring to complicated actions involving sound and light e.g. widerschallen (to resound or reverberate) and widerspiegeln (to reflect), are separable, ‘instinctive’ to the German listener as the prefix is accented in separable verbs, these latter presumably being chronologically older in the development of the German language.

Still tied up in Kantian idealist philosophy, Nietzsche then wrote immediately afterwards: “In consequence, what is a law of nature for us at all? It is not known to us in itself but only in its effects, i.e. in its relations to other laws of nature which are in turn known to us only as relations. Thus, all these relations refer only to one another, and things we really know about them are things which we bring to bear on them: time and space, in other words, relations of succession and number. But everything which is wonderful and which elicits our astonishment at precisely these laws of nature, everything which demands explanation of us and could seduce us into being suspicious of idealism, is attributable precisely and exclusively to the rigor and universal validity of the representations of time and space.” (ibid. pp. 149-150).

By 1886 he had rejected his early idealism, as shown in his later introduction for the Birth of Tragedy titled “Attempt at a Self-Criticism §7”. Nevertheless this does not mean the rejection of his earlier essay as there his critique of the notion of a ‘law of nature’ stands confirmed by the Doppler-Ensemble – the “universal validity of representations in time and space” i.e. objective space and time, where space and time are ontologically independent from each other and from matter, which also answers and affirms Heidegger’s “question of Being” (see note 30 below).

For physics, this means that permittivity (ε) and permeability (μ) are properties of yet-undetermined material fields and structures in space, as indicated in Lofts GSJ No. 8793 §I:4 and so do not indicate any inherent material property of space itself nor that such fields and structures are identical with space.

12: The term ‘applicability’ is in German Anwendbarkeit. Notably one British scientist E. F. Caldin (1940) was extremely hostile to the critical German use of this word, calling it “the Nazi view of science.”

13: This of course is also the Party slogan in Orwell’s 1984 (I:3 p. 31): “Whoever controls the past controls the future; whoever controls the present controls the past.” For Parmenides’ block universe see GSJ No. 8793 §I:4.

14: Over and above matrix addition and subtraction which, rendered into physical situations, are linear, so can be represented through worldlines.

15: Lofts GSJ No. 8793 §II esp. note 45. 16: See Lofts GSJ No. 8793 §I:3. 17: In German, ontology is termed die Seineslehre. 18: See Lofts GSJ No. 8793 §II:7. 19: Lofts GSJ No. 8793 §II:7. 20: Quigley pp. 85-99. 21: Michaud p. 51 equation (25). 22: A new symbol – Ƒ – is used for the fine structure constant, rather than α, since the fine structure

‘constant’ is only a constant in the sense that “acceleration due to gravity” is a constant, i.e. the latter is spatially limited to planet Earth just as the former constitutes a cosmic dipole ‘constant’ only in nearby cosmic space.

23: It is difficult to explain why an otherwise dimensionless ‘constant’ (Ƒ) is raised to the 5th power. The

author’s medical background provides knowledge of the Frank-Starling curves concerning the relation of cardiac output to blood pressure. Total vascular resistance (RV) to blood flow in given by a number expressed in the following units:

=.

…where F is the total force exerted (by the heart) while t is time and d is distance, but raised to the fifth power. Since the cardiac output is measured as volume (d³) and the cross-section of the vascular tree, whether that of the lungs (right ventricle) or the systemic circulation (left ventricle) is an area (d²), there is an analogy, via fluid resistance, to the greater understanding of the dimensionless fine-structure constant. The medical discoveries are evidently a counterpart to the Darcy-Weisbach Equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy%E2%80%93Weisbach_equation, accessed 10th/6/2021) for the attenuation with distance of the pressure of a fluid flowing in a pipe. In such attenuation, called the ‘[pressure] head loss’, the attenuation is inversely proportional to the diameter (D) of the pipe raised to the 5th power, the analogy to figure 3 showing the Doppler-Ensemble being quite clear.

24: Michaud pp. 23-24 etc. 25: Popper, Unended Quest §35 especially p. 159; one can only suspect that this sort of mockery in his

lifetime contributed to Boltzmann’s suicide! Indeed it could even be said that Sir Karl Popper’s media-boosted contributions to the philosophy of science match those of Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile to child protection, i.e. “It was good while it lasted!”

26: Pedantically, the source (S) should have an arrow pointing in the opposite direction to the mirror (M) arrow. The reader is meant to understand that – but perhaps there is still a Lorentzian or Einsteinian who will be tempted to claim the diagrams as evidence for absolute motion.

27: Newton had purchased his first prism from a travelling circus (reference needed)! 28: The gravitational bending of light is a quantum phenomenon (see Lofts GSJ No. 8389). 29: See particularly Lerner pp. 209-212 & 249-252 where the centre of the galaxy or quasar is treated as very

active indeed. 30: I.e. the Frankfurt School, especially Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man ch. 5 note 4 (p. 136) where he

specifically rejects die Frage nach dem Sein – i.e. Heidegger’s question about Being (see Lofts GSJ No. 6468 §C4) – in favor of the “technological universe.” See next endnote.

31: So see a modern Tolerance Camp, editing out understanding in favor of a fearfully aggressive and fatally simplistic view of the world, even with rainbows, a camp fit only for one-dimensional humans, (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tolerance+camp+video&qs=HS&pq=tolerance+camp&sk=HS1&sc=6-14&cvid=CE924B0943DA4D8E8FC3513F522E4C48&sp=2&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dtolerance%2bcamp%2bvideo%26qs%3dHS%26pq%3dtolerance%2bcamp%26sk%3dHS1%26sc%3d6-14%26cvid%3dCE924B0943DA4D8E8FC3513F522E4C48%26FORM%3dQBRE%26sp%3d2&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=4B4D815AAEB0F98AFDE84B4D815AAEB0F98AFDE8&FORM=WRVORC ).

32: Some in Nazi Germany were already partly aware of the larger agenda embracing Einstein, as even

William Shirer reveals, though with severe condemnation of this mathematical aeronautical engineer (see Freddy Litten’s biography for further details) :

“There was also Professor Wilhelm Müller, of the Technical College of Aachen, who, in a book entitled Judaism and Science, saw a world-wide Jewish plot to pollute science and thereby destroy civilization. To him, Einstein, with his theory of relativity, was the arch-villain. The Einstein theory, on which so much of modern physics is based, was to this singular Nazi professor ‘directed from beginning to end toward the goal of transforming the living – that is, the non-Jewish – world of living essence, born from a mother earth and bound up with blood, and bewitching it into spectral abstraction in which all individual differences of peoples and nations, and all inner limits of the races, are lost in unreality, and in which only an unsubstantial diversity of geometric dimensions survives which produces all events out of the compulsion of its godless subjection to laws.’ The world-wide acclaim given to Einstein on the publication of his theory of relativity, Professor Müller proclaimed, was really only a rejoicing over ‘the approach of Jewish world rule which was to force down German manhood irrevocably and eternally to the level of the lifeless slave’.” (Shirer ch. 8 ‘Education in the Third Reich’ p. 312)

Original quotations: “Seine Theorie… ist von vornherein auf die Zielsetzung angelegt, die lebendinge, d. h. aber die nicht-jüdische Welt lebendiger, aus einer mütterlichen Erde geborener und blutgebundener Wesen zu verwandeln und zu verzaubern ins Abstrakt-Gespenstische, wo alle invidiuellen Unterschiede der Völker und Nationen, wo alle inneren Grenzen der Rassen ins Wesenlose versinken und wo eine stofflose Mannigfaltigkeit von geometrischen Dimensionen übrigbleibt, die alle Geschehnisse aus dem Zwang ihrer gottlosen Gesetzmäßigkeit erzeugt.“ ... „der höhnische Jubel über das Nahen der jüdischen Weltreiches, das den deutschen Menschen unabänderlich und ewig auf die Stufe des entseelten Sklaven herabdrücken sollte.“ (Müller, Judentum und Wissenschaft p. 55) Fake text overlay to hyperlinks removed.