Relativity Revised

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:
{A} Relativity proposes that space contracts as an object approaches the velocity of light.
Such a contraction has never been observed.
In fact many years after Relativity was first published,
it was observed that space is expanding evenly in all directions.

"Space expands" as well as "space contracts" are vague informal descriptions, appropriate for popular descriptions but not to a scientific discussion. The agreement between experiments and predictions of relativistic theories is very good, take any paper of Will to get the actual information about this. Your claim shows only one thing: Such informal descriptions for laymen, using "space expands" and similar methaphorical speech, are not necessarily accurate.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:
{B} The Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained by realizing that
the medium through which light is moving, is itself simply moving with the Earth.

No. Theories with an ether moving together with Earth have been tried at that time and failed miserably.

Relativistic time dilation and length contraction is, instead, a simple explanation which is compatible with the ether. It is often claimed that such a theory would require some conspiracy, time dilation and length contraction would have to fit in such a very nice way to make the velocity of the ether unobservable. But there is no need for any conspiracy. To derive the formulas for time dilation and length contraction it is sufficient to assume that condensed matter is hold together by electromagnetic forces - as it is. Or, alternatively, that all the forces are guided by the same wave equation, with the same velocity c. Which is not really a big conspiracy, but a simple unifying assumption.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:just watch this looped animation:



then read this link:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/big-unwind.htm

The most difficult part of this is knowing when to leave something implicit or make it explicit.
If I explain every little step, then its just too long and nobody finishes reading the article.
If I skip what seem to be the obvious steps, then I lose the reader as they cannot make the connections.

So I am resorting to the informal Q&A method on a forum, so I can tailor-make each explanation for each reader.

...

I hope that when we discuss gnome theory, that you type really quietly so that the gnomes do not hear you.
They are a very dogmatic bunch, and go blue in the face when people discuss them in ways which they think are wrong.
They perfected time travel during the early 20th century - so their arrival is more unpredictable that the Spanish inquisition.
Some even reckon that the Spanish inquisition WAS in fact perpetuated by gnomes standing on top of one another.
This is why they wore robes.

If there was a singularity (which I regard as absurd nonsense) and it was spinning, it could not have expanded or "unwound" uniformly. Most material would have been concentrated roughly in a disk, as with rotating galaxies or solar systems. No material would have appeared along the rotational axis. The WMAP data indicates a roughly spherical expansion.

just watch this looped animation:



then read this link:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/big-unwind.htm

The most difficult part of this is knowing when to leave something implicit or make it explicit.
If I explain every little step, then its just too long and nobody finishes reading the article.
If I skip what seem to be the obvious steps, then I lose the reader as they cannot make the connections.

So I am resorting to the informal Q&A method on a forum, so I can tailor-make each explanation for each reader.

...

I hope that when we discuss gnome theory, that you type really quietly so that the gnomes do not hear you.
They are a very dogmatic bunch, and go blue in the face when people discuss them in ways which they think are wrong.
They perfected time travel during the early 20th century - so their arrival is more unpredictable that the Spanish inquisition.
Some even reckon that the Spanish inquisition WAS in fact perpetuated by gnomes standing on top of one another.
This is why they wore robes.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Aah, good.
My model shows that wherever the rotation curve of a galaxy appears
to defy Newtonian gravity, there are two centers of gravity,
happily obeying Newtonian gravity.

...

I was a bit worried that I would have to explain Gnome theory further.
I am not only vehemently opposed to Gnome theory, but the Gnomists
normally regard people such as me, as the anti-gnome.

The Gnomists would be horrified at your idea of Trolls rotating Jupiter, btw.
Its such an outright silly notion, that even the Gnomists would point out
it is not possible, because any beings rotating a planet would have had
to have suffered from a contraction in space. This is why they are so
short. Moreover, only the Earth would have beings rotating it because
they all gnow that Earth is the center of time.

Jonathan,

I am hoping for a time when you describe your theory at the level where I might be able to understand it.  This would also make it easier for others to understand.  One of them might become a publisher.  

Perhaps my problem (and maybe others' as well) is that your theory is just a model.  I'm holding out for the physics.  

Consider your example.  What is the source of two centers of mass?  (Two once-solo galaxies, now in the end phase of their merger?)  Shouldn't they be orbiting one another?   Would that motion cause an asymmetrical rotation pattern, and why?  
____________________________________

I believe that your theories of planetary rotation are short sighted.  (Ahem. )  Gnomes were as large as trolls when they first arrived on Earth, which at that time was spinning because the trillions of gnats, the planet's only life form at the time, circled in one direction only, thereby imparting an opposite Newtonian rotation to the earth.  

The huge gnomes quickly developed a taste for the gnats, and gnawed up most of them.  This caused them to become smaller thanks to the principle, you are what you eat.  Their unbalanced diet greatly reduced the gnat population, contributing to chronic gnome malnutrition and reduced stature.  Plus, having eaten so many gnats that the planet was slowing down, it became their job to keep it moving.  

Gnomists, short-sighted by nature, fail to consider how huge Jupiter's trolls must have been before contraction.

Aah, good.
My model shows that wherever the rotation curve of a galaxy appears
to defy Newtonian gravity, there are two centers of gravity,
happily obeying Newtonian gravity.

...

I was a bit worried that I would have to explain Gnome theory further.
I am not only vehemently opposed to Gnome theory, but the Gnomists
normally regard people such as me, as the anti-gnome.

The Gnomists would be horrified at your idea of Trolls rotating Jupiter, btw.
Its such an outright silly notion, that even the Gnomists would point out
it is not possible, because any beings rotating a planet would have had
to have suffered from a contraction in space. This is why they are so
short. Moreover, only the Earth would have beings rotating it because
they all gnow that Earth is the center of time.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

Jonathan,

I gave this a cursory study and learned some new things, thank you.

One was the rotational asymmetry of spiral galaxies.  Very interesting.  It does not seem to be explained by dark matter.  Averaging velocity measurements looks like a cheap way to avoid addressing the question.  

Then, I recall when MOND was first introduced but was unaware that it had been explored as thoroughly and as effectively as the wiki piece claims.  Back then I'd dismissed the theory for lack of any apparent physics behind it.  Now it seem like time for someone smarter than me to figure out the physics.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin

Okay-- that Rubin.  I'd not realized that she left a problem.  Her dark matter hypothesis seems to work, at least as a theory that explains galactic glue.

Of course, dark matter is a problem onto itself.  We don't know what it is, or where it came from.  Like Dark Energy, it is not predicted by Big Bang theory (no surprise to me.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Somebody may suggest that the Earth rotates because little invisible gnomes are pushing it.

"See" they say,
"How can you deny the existence of little invisible gnomes, seeing as though
the Earth is obviously rotating?"

If you have not understood my thesis, its because you did not read it
because
you already 'knew' that :

little invisible gnomes make the Earth spin.

I tried reading your website.  It is beautifully done and absolutely gorgeous.  However, the content seems to consist of a bunch of hand-waving assertions which, by way of explanation, refer to other hand-waving assertions.  

These made no independent sense, and I found no detailed explanations for them in the context of existing data.  You seem to rely heavily on approximations, such as the notion that bodies move in circles, whereas in the real universe it is nearly impossible to obtain a circular orbit.  Belief in circular orbits was a mistake originated by Ptolemy, then perpetuated by Copernicus and Galileo.  "Near circles" may count in target practice, but real physics works best with ellipses.  

Another example of what appears to me to be a serious inaccuracy:  I worked in astronomy for 15 years and have kept up with advancements in the field, without ever learning about galaxies in even near-circular orbits, none of them stable.  There are a few colliding galaxies, all in highly elliptical orbits around one another, but no apparently stable galaxy-pairs.  At least none that I've learned about.  Here, a reference would be helpful.  

A photo of a pair of galaxies wrapped in their death dance and briefly rotating with comparatively high velocity around their center of gravity, along with your assertion that they are or ever were in a stable orbit, is not an adequate reference.  

You referenced Rubin's Problem.  I googled this but only found stuff about a crazy old shrink, and glitches with tractors.  Your description of it left me wondering what it was.  

I'm a proponent of alternative theories and have encountered several that were interesting.  Often I can get insights even from flawed theories.  Therefore I tried getting into yours, but could not find anything that I understood.  Nonetheless I appreciate your willingness to develop and describe alternative theories to the best of your abilities.  The website really is a work of art!

Incidentally, I disagree with your claim that little gnomes make the Earth spin. The gnomes are much bigger than you imagine, and very fat, almost half the size of the great trolls that make Jupiter rotate.

Somebody may suggest that the Earth rotates because little invisible gnomes are pushing it.

"See" they say,
"How can you deny the existence of little invisible gnomes, seeing as though
the Earth is obviously rotating?"

If you have not understood my thesis, its because you did not read it
because
you already 'knew' that :

little invisible gnomes make the Earth spin.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:I always welcome any polite analytical discussion.
It'd be great if my theory could be proven wrong
by proving relativity right.

Its actually not much fun at all being in disagreement with the majority.
But math does not respect democracy.

Jonathan,

If a cheap GPS locator doesn't prove to you that relativity is right, nothing ever will.  

You keep writing as if math is more than a tool.  Surely you recognize that math is a rigorous form of formal logic, and that the validity of mathematical statements, like that of logical statements, depends upon the validity of initial hypotheses.  You seem unwilling to question some that IMO deserve scrutiny, "time" being up there on the list.  

Math is as easily manipulated and misused by democracies as by dictatorships.  It is physics that invariably has its own way, independently of political systems or deficient theories.

I always welcome any polite analytical discussion.
It'd be great if my theory could be proven wrong
by proving relativity right.

Its actually not much fun at all being in disagreement with the majority.
But math does not respect democracy.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:1. You got the number wrong. My first point was not about Zeno at all.
time/time is redundant mathematically.

2. The only way to solve Zeno's paradox is with quantum time. I got this answer, and then later found another reference which claimed that Zeno reached this same answer. The book is on my shelf somewhere, but I recall it was published in the 1950's. If you are interested I can go look for it.

3. I don't think so. Others have verified that my notion of Planck time is correct.

4. Dilation of time has the same effect as reduction in velocity - but reduction in velocity has no internal logical contradictions - like the 'dilation of time dilemma'.

5. I absolutely have seen wheels appear to rotate backwards.

6. Link worked fine when I posted it, still looks fine when I clicked it now.

7. You are avoiding answering the 'dilation of time dilemma'.
Here:
https://rgphiloscience.forumotion.com/t42-the-dilation-of-time-dilemma
try again.

Having read your website and your attitude to academia,
it seems a little bit ironic that now you decide that 'qualification'
is required to simply apply a simple formula to a simple problem.

However politely your ad hominem approach is made,
it is done to avoid the question.

This is THE question that proves that dilation of time fails
due its own internal logic:

https://rgphiloscience.forumotion.com/t42-the-dilation-of-time-dilemma

Jonathan,
We disagree on many things.  Nothing new there.  Of course others agree with your concept of Planck time.  I'm not much of a crowd follower.  You seem well set in your opinions, always countering my comments with assertions, never with counter arguments, so there is no point trying for a discussion as to their merits.  You will always win.  I concede.  

I'm sorry that you felt there was an ad hominem attack in my previous post.  It was not intended.    

Qualifications are certainly relevant, and with respect to your persistent problem, I doubt mine.

Let's say for the sake of a more interesting conversation that time dilation fails, exactly as you propose.  

1.  This neither surprises nor concerns me, because I do not believe that time is anything but a mathematical contrivance useful for problem solutions.  Time is not real.  That's my opinion, and I've no doubt that you can find plenty of agreement for your opinions, which seem to me to be in line with conventional understandings.  

2.  Is it not inevitable that if I am correct about the non-reality of time, somewhere along the line there must be proof of its non-reality? 

3.  You've found that proof.  Why not acknowledge it for what it is, give up the faulty understanding of time that led to your conundrum, and go with ideas that actually work?

1. You got the number wrong. My first point was not about Zeno at all.
time/time is redundant mathematically.

2. The only way to solve Zeno's paradox is with quantum time. I got this answer, and then later found another reference which claimed that Zeno reached this same answer. The book is on my shelf somewhere, but I recall it was published in the 1950's. If you are interested I can go look for it.

3. I don't think so. Others have verified that my notion of Planck time is correct.

4. Dilation of time has the same effect as reduction in velocity - but reduction in velocity has no internal logical contradictions - like the 'dilation of time dilemma'.

5. I absolutely have seen wheels appear to rotate backwards.

6. Link worked fine when I posted it, still looks fine when I clicked it now.

7. You are avoiding answering the 'dilation of time dilemma'.
Here:
https://rgphiloscience.forumotion.com/t42-the-dilation-of-time-dilemma
try again.

Having read your website and your attitude to academia,
it seems a little bit ironic that now you decide that 'qualification'
is required to simply apply a simple formula to a simple problem.

However politely your ad hominem approach is made,
it is done to avoid the question.

This is THE question that proves that dilation of time fails
due its own internal logic:

https://rgphiloscience.forumotion.com/t42-the-dilation-of-time-dilemma

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Right you are.

My point is that any change in the 'speed of time'
can only be observed as a change in velocity.

So how can we decide if tortoises are galloping at
the same velocity of as Hercules, but for the tortoise
time just runs at a slower rate - or - does the tortoise
actually just move at a slower velocity - but the rate of time
is the same?

Well I answer that time is always at a constant rate for several reasons:

Firstly, the 'speed of time' can only be measured in the units of t/t.
Which cancels itself out mathematically.

Secondly, Zeno's paradox shows that if we allow time to be infinitely divided
then Hercules is slower than the tortoise.
So time must be in an indivisible quantum.

Thirdly: Planck calculated the exact amount of the minimum
duration of a quantum of time.

Fourthly: When programming using the 'event-timer' object,
I can give separate objects different 'speeds of time'.
So if an object moving at 10 pixels every 1/10th of a second
has its event-timer slowed, to 2/10ths of a second, then
the result is that the velocity is simply slowed to 5 pixels
every 1/10th of a second.

Fifthly: ever notice how a wheel appears to spin backwards when it is actually speeding up?
This can only happen due to our perception (at least) of the movement being in quanta of time.

Sixth: Only quantum time can describe how the 'gravity assist' works.
See here: http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/quantum-gravity.htm

Seventh: Consider all of the above holistically.

The 1st is about as close to absolute logical proof as I can imagine.
The 3rd I cannot verify.
The 6th is empirical proof for quantum time as the foundation of quantum gravity.

Jonathan,
Thank you for your thoughts.  Nonetheless, you've not made your case convincing enough for me, or particularly interesting.  Now, that could be entirely my problem and you could be absolutely correct.  Perhaps it would help if you understood where I'm coming from to some small extent.  
   
I pretty much gave up any ideas of pursuing my physics education to the Ph.D level after learning what quantum mechanics was really about and deciding it was dreadfully mistaken, and sillier in concept than my previous atomic physics classes.  Like a few other similarly disenchanted wanted-to-be-physicists, I ended up on astronomy, where classical physics could be put to effective use.  

I was around when Big Bang theory was being promoted, pointing out its obvious flaws to people who were not interested in discarding an explanation that would prevent them from being asked about God.  As In time I realized that there is something fundamentally wrong with a cosmology beginning with a single, high-entropy thing (or entity--- the complaint extends to the God concept) to jump start the beginnings.

I also concluded that human consciousness was perhaps the greatest mystery of any time, and needed an explanation-- impossible to find from the perspective of conventional theories.  I ended up with a unique theory of the beginnings that starts with an interaction between a contrary pair of entropy 0 spaces.  Forums are not the place to expound in detail on such subjects, but I've found them a useful place to meet an occasionally interesting person and sometimes to kick ideas around.  

From my perspectives, variations on current speculative physics ideas such as yours seem to be, are not  likely to answer the questions about the beginnings and of human consciousness that I personally feel are the most critical questions a mind can pose.  

Realistically, it is more likely that your approach is superior to mine.  Maybe we'll find out some day, and since, like you, I cannot possibly count the number of times that a conceptually simple machine which does what amounts to counting on two fingers, has told me that my code sucks, I'm used to being wrong.  

In this context, here are a few comments:

You do your case no good service by mentioning concepts like the speed of time.  Are you trying to describe acceleration without using differentials, or what?  If so, to what end?  I don't get it, because there is nothing to get.  

1. If you peruse Xeno's paradoxes carefully, you'll note that they do not mention time at all.  They are about sequences of events only, and the final states of each event at that.  As such, the one you mentioned is one of several that portend an asynchronous quantization of state changes.  

2. The notion that time proceeds at a constant rate is irrelevant because it cannot be empirically detected or experimentally verified.  It is merely a philosophical concept.

3. You've misinterpreted Planck time.  It is the time, measured in our terms (as if we could actually measure it) required for a quantum event, such as an electron "moving" between atomic shell levels.  

4.  And so...?

5.  We do not see real wheels rotating backwards.  We sometimes perceive such apparently reversed motion in films.  I use this example in my book.  It is a clue that would allow someone to figure out how movie cameras and projectors work by watching "Stagecoach."  It tells us that the movie is effectively quantized.  

6.  Without reading your referenced information (File not found, error 404), I think you are overreaching for the sake of making a point.  Gravity assisted orbits are calculated just fine using Newtonian physics.  

7.  Sorry, but I see no notable relationship between your first six points, except a continuity of misinterpretation.  I must respectfully invite you to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better.  This is not to be taken as an insult.  I've personally scrapped a cherished theory five times, and if confronted with contrary evidence or better logic, will do it again.  The search for interesting ideas is rarely met with universal approbation.

Right you are.

My point is that any change in the 'speed of time'
can only be observed as a change in velocity.

So how can we decide if tortoises are galloping at
the same velocity of as Hercules, but for the tortoise
time just runs at a slower rate - or - does the tortoise
actually just move at a slower velocity - but the rate of time
is the same?

Well I answer that time is always at a constant rate for several reasons:

Firstly, the 'speed of time' can only be measured in the units of t/t.
Which cancels itself out mathematically.

Secondly, Zeno's paradox shows that if we allow time to be infinitely divided
then Hercules is slower than the tortoise.
So time must be in an indivisible quantum.

Thirdly: Planck calculated the exact amount of the minimum
duration of a quantum of time.

Fourthly: When programming using the 'event-timer' object,
I can give separate objects different 'speeds of time'.
So if an object moving at 10 pixels every 1/10th of a second
has its event-timer slowed, to 2/10ths of a second, then
the result is that the velocity is simply slowed to 5 pixels
every 1/10th of a second.

Fifthly: ever notice how a wheel appears to spin backwards when it is actually speeding up?
This can only happen due to our perception (at least) of the movement being in quanta of time.

Sixth: Only quantum time can describe how the 'gravity assist' works.
See here: http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/quantum-gravity.htm

Seventh: Consider all of the above holistically.

The 1st is about as close to absolute logical proof as I can imagine.
The 3rd I cannot verify.
The 6th is empirical proof for quantum time as the foundation of quantum gravity.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Well, 'contraction of space' has been part of all the texts I have perused, Feynman in particular.
But I agree that it is a self-contradictory idea - as you point out.
It is also not empirical - space is expanding.

But it forms part of the same mathematical origin as 'dilation of time'

Feynman shows how the combination of contraction of space and dilation of time
results in the reduction of velocity as the object approaches the velocity of light here:
---------
ok thats painful to read

so you likely glossed over it completely
don't worry if you did because it is so riddled with errors
I quote it merely for the sake of form.

However,
dilation of time is also self-contradictory:
curious to see how you answer the
'dilation of time dilemma'
here:
https://rgphiloscience.forumotion.com/t42-the-dilation-of-time-dilemma

Jonathan,

I find that comparing space and time is akin to comparing apples and locomotives.  It is possible to graph the number of apples produced on a given farm vs. the number of locomotives built by a given manufacturer, but doing so does not establish a real relationship.

Space appears to be something abstract in concept, but nonetheless real.  Things occupy it and move through it.  Three degrees of freedom (dimensions) are required for any form of motion to occur.  It applies on all scales of potential measurability, from galaxy dimensions to the size of a proton.  

Time, on the other hand is entirely arbitrary, often even subjective.  It is clearly a mathematical contrivance that facilitates the precise description of motion-- not a thing unto itself.  

In a space containing but one particle, time cannot be measured.  With two particles time can be measured only if one moves in space with respect to the other.  Time cannot exist without space and change.  It is not a fundamental component of reality.  

Consider a more interesting possibility, that matter represents the components of an asynchronous state-machine.  By way of example, consider the digital computers you program.  Internally, they are analog devices.  Voltages rise and fall in a continuous manner between the states that define one and zero.  But functionally the machines are digital, because only their stable states, the ones and zeroes, are useful.  Your computer is a synchronous state-machine.

Notice that from the digital perspective, time does not exist within a computer.  Its states are synchronized by a clock, which is usually a crystal-based circuit that generates a continual stream of regularly spaced pulses.  Digital states are only sampled when a clock pulse arrives at a circuit.  

Of course time is involved at the electronic circuit level.  The time between clock pulses must be sufficient to allow all circuits to stabilize before sampling.  

What happens if the clock speed is changed, as it could be in some old IBM XT computers with a "turbo" switch?  From your perspective, the execution speed of a particular program will change.  But from the perspective of digital circuits, no change can be detected.  The computer itself cannot determine how fast it is running, unless a program references an independent analog clock.  (PC's have these built in, of course, for programs that must synchronize themselves with human time, as for instrumentation or device controlling.)  

Our clue that the universe is indeed a state machine comes from quantum physics.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:I speculate as to what the medium that light travels through (and which moves with the Earth) actually is.
Suffice to say that regardless as to what this medium is, such an explanation satisfies the experiment
without needing the contradiction that light always travels at 'c' in relation to any observer.
(Even an observer moving away from the source of the light in the opposite direction).

The most obvious answer would be the Earth's magnetic field is the medium thru which the velocity of light
must be measured against.
- This is because light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

However, it may be something else entirely:
A subtle substance of space, which is not quite the same as geometric Euclidean space.
I call this 'Etha' to distinguish it from 'aether' - but similar enough to place it at least in the same context.

Either way: The medium thru which light moves in the M-Morley experiment
is simply moving with the Earth.

Jonathan,

You seem a bit dogmatic about your assertion that the medium moves with the earth.  You might want to back up your certainty with a description showing how much of that medium moves with the earth, and other questions:

What is the shape of the part of the medium moving with the earth?
Does its density change with distance from the earth?
Does the earth push this medium ahead of it?
Does it also drag the medium behind it?  (Pushing and dragging require separate forces.)
What about those portions of the medium lateral to the earth-- what keeps it from blowing on by?
Does the moon carry its own proportion of that medium in similar fashion?
Does the moon's medium interfere with the earth?
Etc.

Kindly explain your statement: "The most obvious answer would be the Earth's magnetic field is the medium thru which the velocity of light must be measured against."  It makes no sense to me, and given that magnetic fields are not constant anywhere in the universe, how might it be accomplished?  Your justification for the statement needs better grounding, IMO.

Why distinguish your notion of the medium from the aether, especially in light of Schulenberger's paper showing that the existence of the aether has not been disproven?  It is a perfectly good concept.  Moreover, there is now a mechanism for it: dark energy.

Well, 'contraction of space' has been part of all the texts I have perused, Feynman in particular.
But I agree that it is a self-contradictory idea - as you point out.
It is also not empirical - space is expanding.

But it forms part of the same mathematical origin as 'dilation of time'

Feynman shows how the combination of contraction of space and dilation of time
results in the reduction of velocity as the object approaches the velocity of light here:





ok thats painful to read

so you likely glossed over it completely
don't worry if you did because it is so riddled with errors
I quote it merely for the sake of form.

However,
dilation of time is also self-contradictory:
curious to see how you answer the
'dilation of time dilemma'
here:
https://rgphiloscience.forumotion.com/t42-the-dilation-of-time-dilemma

I speculate as to what the medium that light travels through (and which moves with the Earth) actually is.
Suffice to say that regardless as to what this medium is, such an explanation satisfies the experiment
without needing the contradiction that light always travels at 'c' in relation to any observer.
(Even an observer moving away from the source of the light in the opposite direction).

The most obvious answer would be the Earth's magnetic field is the medium thru which the velocity of light
must be measured against.
- This is because light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

However, it may be something else entirely:
A subtle substance of space, which is not quite the same as geometric Euclidean space.
I call this 'Etha' to distinguish it from 'aether' - but similar enough to place it at least in the same context.

Either way: The medium thru which light moves in the M-Morley experiment
is simply moving with the Earth.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

This is quite a lengthy article, so before I begin I would first like to make the two points that are the easiest to grasp:

{A} Relativity proposes that space contracts as an object approaches the velocity of light.
Such a contraction has never been observed.
In fact many years after Relativity was first published,
it was observed that space is expanding evenly in all directions.

{B} The Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained by realizing that
the medium through which light is moving, is itself simply moving with the Earth.

{A} proves Relativity to be unempirical. {B} is the explanation that replaces Relativity.

Perhaps before continuing, the reader may want to spend some time pondering these points carefully and methodically.
It may be unwise to carry on reading until the reader fully grasps the implications of these two points.

I believe that both these points are incorrect.  Back when I studied relativity theory, it said nothing about any contraction of space.  Has the theory changed since, or merely been incorrectly interpreted?

Imagine a 4 Tev proton zinging along.  Exactly what part of space is supposed to contract?  The space around the proton?  If so, what's the size of this localized space?  How does the proton manage to drag space along with itself?  

Re: point B: The notion that the earth drags something along with it seems equally unlikely.  What is it that the earth drags along?  

You might want to peruse John Schulenberg's paper, Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether, wherein he demonstrates that the M.-Morley experiment could not possibly have detected earth's motion through the aether.

Time I reckon to be a quasi-dimension.
That is; its not a 'true' dimension
- not in the way space is anyhow.

I cannot accept the chimera of space-time for reasons
outlined in the original article at the start of the thread.
Space and time are fundamentally separate.

We can only move in one direction in time,
and going backwards in time is clearly illogical
unless we deny free will. Thus we would find it impossible
to kill an ancestor - no matter how we tried.
This is at odds with the common experience of free will.
(I'll get back to this in a bit)

Consciousness, can have more than 4 dimensions:

If you find yourself at a fork in the road at sunset,
that diverts into two pathways, you stop and consider both.

You see an ornate path on the right, with cobbled stones and neat lawns.
On the left you see an uneven path, with gnarled trees and hidden shadows.

As you contemplate which path to take, your mind is in the classic
superposition of states. That is; it simultaneously pictures both paths.

Your mind is thus contemplating itself in both spaces.
These two realities thus are similar to 4-d space.
A part of your consciousness is in both realities.
There are two future 'yous', much as a 2-d triangle has
multiple triangles piled on top of one another to form a pyramid.

Of course you have multiple futures, not just two.
But due to the rigid nature of time, you must make only one choice first.

Now if I reach the fork in the road before you
I could consider which path you will take.

To contemplate your decision I must imagine myself as you
- which itself adds another dimension to the scenario.
My mind now splits again - Into my decisions, and your decisions.

You will probably want to take the path less traveled, but seeing as
though it is close to sunset, will possibly take the neat path in the hope
of finding light and a warm place to rest.
But you are an adventurous person! And if you are not,
then if I take the gnarled path, I may meet an adventurous person anyhow.

It could be considered that to contemplate your choice, my mind
has jumped through normal space and taken on a '5th dimension'.
Your entire reality and its choices are now superimposed on my reality and choices.

And so on...

Now these are not real physical dimensions in space.
But there is a simplistic similarity between this analogy and
how multiple dimensions exist in the mind.

The mind can contemplate infinite dimensions,
because the mind has a quality of 'infinity' to it.
This is something that the physical world does not have.
Though plenty may disagree, but quantum theory shows that,
for example, energy cannot be infinitely divided.

Zeno's paradox shows that time itself must be in quanta and cannot be
infinitely divided. Here is an article which explains this:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm

But the question turns on itself. If the universe is always in quanta,
then there must be a finite number of dimensions.

But to return to free will.
You may not bother thinking about the fork in the road at all.
You can freely just choose to follow the nearest path.

But you cannot know about which path to take unless you think about it.
You cannot think about it unless you freely choose to think about it.

Your choice to think must be freely chosen because if it was not free,
then you would be claiming to have knowledge about which is the better
path without knowing which is the better path. Of course you could also
be an automaton devoid of thought at all. (I hope not).

The more you think about it, the better your choice will be.
But the sun is setting, so you are limited in how long you think,
if you take too long, then you will have no choice at all
and may end up wandering in the darkness and the howling
and wailing and gnashing of teeth!

What this shows is that the only free choice is:
To think, or not to think.

Because you cannot choose not to think unless you are claiming you
have knowledge of all things. Or, you know nothing at all.

Could consiousness/awareness be a 4th dimension or may the 4th dimension be time as many seem to think?

Well, I have read Penrose's 'Shadows of the Mind' about 3 times - which was published after 'the emperors new mind'.
Shadows of the mind is an attempt to lay a foundation for the study of the mind.
But unfortunately it reduces mind to an after-effect of the brain.
Some of the topics are inspiring - even if you don't agree with his analysis.
I first did it in Phil Hons.

Chi' seems to be a few concepts under one term.
I found it useful especially playing cricket.
If you keep entirely relaxed, and only stiffen your muscles precisely
at the moment that you hit the ball, it flies off the bat at twice the pace.
Some call this 'timing' - or even the product of prudent use of the body's chemical energy.

But the life-force itself is a more mystical concept.
Despite its subtle nature, how anybody can conceptualize existence without
taking the life-force as a given fact, is itself, I suppose, part of the paradox of life.

In the article on relativity I reach the conclusion that the mind has at least
4 dimensions, whereas the brain is just a 3-d surface feature of it.

Conceptualizing a 4-d idea with a 3-d brain is like trying to fit a 3-d sphere inside a 2-d circle.