Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Cameron Y. Rebigsol
local time: 2018-05-23 11:27 (-07:00 DST)
Cameron Y. Rebigsol Abstracts
Titles
  • The Highly Collimated Jet Streams of Quasars (2017) [Updated 11 months ago]
  • The Solar System Resulted by Random Collision (2017) [Updated 11 months ago]
  • Sunspot Cycle, Gravity, and Magnetism (2017) [Updated 11 months ago]
  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated(1 of 3) —In Terms of Mathematics (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]
  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated(2 of 3) —In Terms of Physics (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]
  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated(3 of 3) —Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]
  • Newton’s Gravitational Law over Dark Matter (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]
  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated (3 of 3) - Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether (2016) [Updated 11 months ago]
  • Mathematical Inconsistency in Relativity's Original Paper of 1905 (2010) [Updated 1 year ago]
    by Cameron Y. Rebigsol   read the paper:
  • Relativity's Length Measurement Inconsistency (2009) [Updated 7 years ago]
    by Cameron Y. Rebigsol   read the paper:
  • Letters (2000) [Updated 7 years ago]
  • Mathematical Description on Hubble's Law (2000) [Updated 7 years ago]

  • Abstracts Details
  • The Highly Collimated Jet Streams of Quasars (2017) [Updated 11 months ago]

    Basic facts common to quasars:

    1. Highly compact both in mass and energy,
    2. Having a super massive material center,
    3. Excluding the material center, the general existence of mass is in a state of plasma,
    4. Rapidly spinning,
    5. Periodical variation in luminosity,
    6. Highly remotely located from Earth with high value of red shift.

    In addition to the above common facts, a high percentage of quasars are also found containing jet streams. The strange thing is that the jet always comes in a set, with one from the set pointing in the opposite direction of the other, and both jets are highly collimated.

    As far as we know on Earth, to create highly collimated beams of light or particles, technology must rely on lenses; be they optical, mechanical, or electrostatic. Beams that can travel even in the order of millions of light years and still retain their high collimation in many cases should be beyond what artificial lens can handle, let alone that the lens must be able to withstand the destructively high energy that the lens must let through.

    As a thumb of rule, the higher the energy content is found in any physical entity, the higher chance of randomness is associated with this entity. Special filtering mechanism must be present for orderly output of anything to come out of this entity. Without a lens-like arrangement, how would the jet stream of a quasar stay highly collimated and remain in pair? Could this pairing have anything to do with the quality of collimation in our interest? In other words, must the collimation rely on some mechanism that produces the pairing? Or, if no pairing were to be present, would the jet stream not be formed at all? In nature, action and reaction always coexist, so do matter and anti-matter, as well as electric and magnetic poles. How should we relate the phenomenon shown by the jet pair of opposite directions from the philosophical aspect in terms of physical interaction?

    In modern science, when high energy and high speed are involved, it has been so natural for a big number of science workers to apply Einstein's Theory of Relativity to explain many puzzles about which classic physics seems lead them to no solution. What is odd is that the jet streams from blazars, a special group of quasars, boldly present superluminal movement in our observation. To those who trust relativity, they say superluminal movement so detected is only a mirage, an illusion. Obviously, quasars, with their extraordinarily high energy content, have challenged us with this dilemma: Should this superluminal movement serve as physical evidence to topple the validity of relativity, or should we once again allow our mental work to contort what we observe as illusion? Are we sure we should forever let our mental work overpower the physical world?


  • The Solar System Resulted by Random Collision (2017) [Updated 11 months ago]

    Hubble's Law is conventionally expressed with v=H_0 D, where $v$ is the recessional speed of a celestial object, usually a galaxy, $D$ is the distance between an observer and the recessing object, and H_0 is the so called Hubble's constant. However, while this equation does give a straight line diagram between $v$ and $D$ , no publication is found to have given convincing argument regarding what has led H_0 to be resulted. In other words, v=H_0 D is only a convenient summary of phenomenon, but hardly an equation led to by genuine physical analysis.


  • Sunspot Cycle, Gravity, and Magnetism (2017) [Updated 11 months ago]

    No material we know of on Earth can withstand the temperature of nearly 6,000k found on the surface of the Sun and still stay in one stable structure as how the sunspots show. The heaviest element Osmium has a mass density of  22.6 g/cm^3 with a boiling point of 5285k, above which no one stable piece of osmium can be found. The next material found with higher mass density is neutron stars. All these potentially lead us to believe that sunspots are composed of material of mass density far higher than osmium. But what is its material nature?

    With volumes that can reach even 1,000 times of that of the Earth, together with the unusually high mass density, the sunspots must have response to the gravitational influence from all the planets conspicuously different from the fluidic materials in their environment. The gravitational influence from the planets on the Sun is just an inescapable reciprocal response to the gravitational force from the Sun onto the planets. Therefore, as part of the Sun, the sunspots must be responsible of the exertion of the influence as well as sharing the corresponding reciprocal response from the planets.

    When the size of the sunspot is mentioned in our study, we have been getting used to a concept that is portrayed by terms like contract, expand, and decay. If gravitational influence from the planets cannot be excluded in a reasonable speculation, we may have to include one more concept that is portrayed by the term ``buoyancy". As such, the visual effect of contracting in our view happens when a sunspot sinks deeper and deeper below the Sun's surface, whereas the visual effect of expanding happens when the sunspot resurfaces and exposes itself more and more in our view. So, given the unusually high mass density of the sunspots, true decaying of them in the sense of material integrity may not be a reality that our study can pursue.

    Looking at whether the sunspots should have response to the gravitational influence from the planets, we cannot escape from the awareness of two numbers that are very close in value. One of them is the more or less than 11 year beat of the rhythm shown by the maximum and minimum of the sunspot population; the other is the 11.86 year period of Jupiter's orbital movement. In case the gravity of Jupiter does have influence on the cycle of sunspots, what about other planets? Further, we must be aware of that the Sun's spinning axis tilts by an angle of 7.5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, but when a solar maximum begins, the initial few spots always show up near the 45 degrees latitude, north or south. Will the Sun's axial tilt also play a role in affecting the sunspot cycle?

    Documents show that the Sun's magnetic field strength distributes itself differently across the surface of the Sun. At its polar field, the strength is found to be 1-2 gauss, whereas it is typically 3,000 gauss in areas where sunspots populate, and 10-100 gauss in solar prominences. Such field strength distribution thus reveals to us the following typical features: (1) the field strength at areas near the equator is far stronger than that near the polar area; (2) while the field is strong near the equator, it is further concentrated at where the sunspots show up; (3) number of the sunspots in our vision displays no direct proportional relationship with the overall strength at where they show up; (4) that 10-100 gauss is found in solar prominences conversely means that the field strength of each sunspot is comparatively weak until some chance is introduced together with a prominence.

    Features (1) and (2) can be hypothetically realized by such an arrangement: A strong magnetic bar is placed deep below the surface of the Sun and this bar always has its pole pointing at about the equator, but never at either of the Sun's poles. Feature (3) removes the possibility that the strong magnetic strength near the equator is solely contributed by the sunspots; therefore this reasoning further emboldens a believing that a separate magnetic source other than the sunspots owns this strong field. Being not the source, however, the sunspots' appearance can serve as an index to help tracing how this source has been moving. Is it only coincidence that sunspot never appears at the pole where the magnetic strength is so weak? Feature (4) further witnesses that each sunspot is a weak magnet compared to the one hypothetically assumed existing far below the Sun's surface.

    Reasoning in this article based on observation leads to a believing that the Sun is consisted of three basic material layers: (1) the out-most layer, which, in a state of plasma, is the layer in our daily view, and shall be called the fluidic crust of the Sun in this article; (2) deep below this crust is a zone that hosts the absolute major thermonuclear reactions of the Sun; (3) further below the nuclear reaction zone is the core body of the Sun, a spheroidal volume of exceedingly high mass density. This spheroidal dense volume shall be called the yolk of the Sun in this article. This yolk is embraced by numerous nuclear reactions, which happen all over on the yolk's surface in an isotropic manner with respect to the center of the Sun. Floating on this dense massive yolk is a gigantic magnetic material body MMB), which should have contained no less mass than all the sunspots put together, and its material nature should be essentially the same as that of the sunspots.

    Floating on the yolk with mass far exceeding what our Earth has, this MMB cannot escape from the governing action exerted on it by the gravitational force from the planets, particularly Jupiter. Being a gigantic magnetic carrier, its whereabouts must in turn orchestrate the debuting and hibernation of the population of those magnetic sunspots through magnetic reaction. In comparison to this giant MMB, each sunspot is merely a magnet droplet, even if such droplet may reach a volume as big as 1000 times of the Earth. From this thread of reasoning, let's further pursue how the MMB and each sunspot are to form various magnetic "tube" that guides the appearance of prominence, solar flare, and subsequently the coronal mass ejection.


  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated(1 of 3) —In Terms of Mathematics (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]

    If c = 0 is what a physics theory leads itself to conclude for the speed of light, anyone would reject this theory without question. However, c = 0 is exactly what relativity "impeccably" leads itself to, with its own mathematical derivation. Not only this conclusion must violate a well-known fact c = 300,000 km/sec, which relativity takes as an indispensable assumption for the development of its calculation, but c = 0 thus also directly destroys the Lorentz factor: 1/ [ 1−(v/c)^ 2]^(1/2). How much tolerance can the Lorentz factor have if c = 0 is forced in its denominator? If the Lorentz factor’s validity must be removed, all concepts found in relativity, such as length contraction and time dilation and speed limit brought up by relativity, will no longer find any space to survive in the science world. However, c = 0 is a result that relativity’s derivation inescapably leads itself to. The Lorentz factor is an inevitable and solid mathematical outcome of the phenomena called aberration. Invalidating the Lorentz factor by putting up c=0, relativity must ruin its own validity. To see how the Lorentz factor is inevitably brought up by the aberration of a light source, which is typified by the so called stellar aberration, a reader is cordially invited to visit the other two articles of the same series by this author: Relativity Is Self-Defeated (2 of 3) —in terms of physics, and Relativity Is Self-Defeated (3 of 3)—Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether.


  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated(2 of 3) —In Terms of Physics (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]

    The velocity addition theorem that witnesses the "impeccability" of relativity is actually an exact declaration rejecting the existence of the physical world fantasized by special relativity. The physical reality brought up by frequency shift related to movement, or the so called Doppler effect, must also ruin the concept of time dilation advocated by relativity. As relativity can only end up invalidating the physical world it promotes, human beings should have good reason to revive the concept of ether that relativity asserts not existing. 

    The Michelson-Morley experiment, devised to verify the existence or nonexistence of ether, turns out that it has just placed itself in a wrong environment for its performance. Therefore, this experiment has actually never done anything to confirm or reject the existence of ether. Of course, then, it has never offered any physical evidence that relativity can use as a support. Possibly it is to many people’s surprise that the Ives-Stilwell experiment and stellar aberration are actually physical evidence demolishing the credibility of relativity while they are still thought supporting.


  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated(3 of 3) —Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]

    The Lorentz factor is an inseparable mathematical outcome of the so called aberration phenomenon. This article will show that the aberration phenomenon, an illusion, potentially appears in all observations in which an observer has movement in relation to the light source that he examines.

    Detailed analysis on the true nature of aberration ends up giving us confidence on the existence of ether. Without ether, no aberration of anything is possible. Unfortunately, the conventional explanation of this illusion has been misled even long before the debut of relativity, but relativity, with its miss in calculation, just "legitimizes" the misleading, which then in turn gives relativity physical "evidence" galvanizing the "indisputable" look of relativity.

    The conventional explanation about stellar aberration relies heavily on one equation, which is tanβ = v/c, where v is the orbital speed of the earth and c is the speed of light. Simple trigonometry mandates that this equation requires the existence of a right triangle that has a hypotenuse of value of √ c^2 +v^2 > c . During the observation of stellar aberration, on the inertial frame attached to the corresponding telescopes, it is exactly along such a hypotenuse that the light leading to the discovery of the apparent position of the star is found. As such, an observer directly facing the oncoming light traveling inside the telescope cylinder must determine whether the light hitting his eye is traveling at speed c or √ c^2 +v^2  . If the observer has doubt, he can just simply asks himself what if this light is the only light that he ever sees in the world during the time he finds this star. No known reason can support him if he chooses to claim that the light he sees is traveling at speed √ c^2 +v^2 .

    A more thorough study on stellar aberration helps us to prove that time as one physical element is absolute; time advancement has nothing to do with any clock movement. The Ives-Stilwell experiment, thought to have helped confirming the nonexistence of ether, turns out to be solid evidence confirming the existence of ether.

    With the invalidity of relativity displayed in the articles Relativity Is Self-Defeated (1 of 3) and (2 of 3) by this author, all the upcoming consideration in this article has no need to make separate argument to exclude the interference from relativity


  • Newton’s Gravitational Law over Dark Matter (2016) [Updated 1 year ago]
    Observation of stellar movement of the Milky Way galaxy shows that celestial objects at distance beyond 10 kpcs from the galactic center appear to move at speed higher than what Newtonian gravitational law predicts and that celestial objects in the inner range at distance between 1 and 8 kpcs from the center appear to move at speed lower than predicted (Please refer to Fig. A in the main text). It appears to a group of people that this phenomenon is suggesting certain failure of the Newtonian gravitational law and that remedy to repair the failure is therefore needed. They mainly propose two ideas as the remedy: (1) dark matter, (2) to modify Newton’s gravitational law.
     
    To promote the acceptance of dark matter, it has been popularly advocated that the validity of relativity has enabled the dark matter to exist with unchallengeable legitimacy. A term called space-time fantasized out of relativity plays a key role for dark matter to enjoy a niche where verification never seems able to reach. To reject the existence of dark matter, someone needs first to have relativity refuted. It is so unfortunate to dark matter, however, relativity is exactly a theory that defeats itself, both in terms of mathematical derivation as well as in terms of physical explanation***. Space-time as an independent fourth dimension in the universe does not exist, but space and time as two separate physical elements being absolute can be proven***. If relativity cannot even defend itself, it can only be obvious that it is unable to support the existence of dark matter. Subsequently, the concept of dark matter is refutable.
     
    Finding no support from dark matter, this article can only go by the restricted application of the Newton’s gravitational law in exploring the reason governing the speed distribution displayed in Fig. A. However, then, we must encounter the argument that Newton’s law needs to be modified. But how? We will soon find that Newton’s gravitational law can lead someone to have unlimited quantity of dark matter —if it is misapplied.
     
    Allowing Newton’s gravitational law to be modified in the science world, we just end up placing ourselves to confront with a school principle that is as ancient as human beings ever have schools: Should a student taking a test be given the flexibility to modify a rule or law from a textbook only because he found this rule or law fails him from arriving at an answer at his satisfaction? In the auditorium of science, we all are students of Mother Nature. Never has she given us the privilege of arrogance with which we can claim that "I have no fault in study. If no answer can be arrived at my satisfaction, it is the fault of the law that I am taught to follow." Nevertheless, Newton’s laws in mechanics study are put up by great minds of many generations including those well respected pioneers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler...besides Newton. It is for sure that we need to have an open mind toward all natural laws that are summarized by human. However, to anyone attempting the modification of a natural law that has been confirmed by numerous practice, he must present the following two indispensable elements before so attempting: (1) miscalculation or mistreatment in the derivation of the law in concern is found, (2) some part of the derivation is found having been decisively misled by irrelevant facts, or inadequate facts, or improperly explained facts. Plunging into modification without presenting these two gravely critical elements is only an excellent expression defining the word recklessness. Frankly, no such attitude should be accepted in any serious business.
     
    This article presents several cases needing the scrutiny guided by Newtons gravitational law. After the examination of these few cases, a reader can easily arrive at a conclusion regarding whether the science world has come to a need to modify Newton’s law or a need to modify some people’s attitude of attempting the modification of Newton’s law. Through applying Newton’s law, it also appears to us that the Magellanic Clouds cannot be expected to have been traveling on a close orbit about the Milky Way, but instead, they are only one time visitors to our galaxy. No close orbit means no satellite. It therefore means that the Magellanic Clouds are of no satellite to the Milky Way. Newton’s gravitational law also gives us explanation why two-rotational-arms is a prominently popular phenomenon among rotating galaxies.
     
    ***Please refer to the following three articles: Relativity is Self-defeated (1 of 3)in terms of mathematics; Relativity is Self-defeated (2 of 3)in terms of physicsRelativity is Self-defeated (3 of 3)Lorentz factor, Aberration, and Ether . All these three articles by Cameron Rebigsol are presented in the CNPS conference of July 20-23, 2016.

  • Relativity Is Self-Defeated (3 of 3) - Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether (2016) [Updated 11 months ago]

    The Lorentz factor is an inseparable mathematical outcome of the so called aberration phenomenon. This article will show that the aberration phenomenon, an illusion, potentially appears in all observations in which an observer has movement in relation to the light source that he examines.

    Detailed analysis on the true nature of aberration ends up giving us confidence on the existence of ether. Without ether, no aberration of anything is possible. Unfortunately, the conventional explanation of this illusion has been misled even long before the debut of relativity, but relativity, with its miss in calculation, just "legitimizes" the misleading, which then in turn gives relativity physical "evidence" galvanizing the "indisputable" look of relativity.

    The conventional explanation about stellar aberration relies heavily on one equation, which is tan(beta) = v/c, where v is the orbital speed of the earth and c is the speed of light. Simple trigonometry mandates that this equation requires the existence of a right triangle that has a hypotenuse of value of sqrt(c^2+v^2) > c . During the observation of stellar aberration, on the inertial frame attached to the corresponding telescopes, it is exactly along such a hypotenuse that the light leading to the discovery of the apparent position of the star is found. As such, an observer directly facing the oncoming light traveling inside the telescope cylinder must determine whether the light hitting his eye is traveling at speed c or sqrt(c^2+v^2) . If the observer has doubt, he can just simply asks himself what if this light is the only light that he ever sees in the world during the time he finds this star. No known reason can support him if he chooses to claim that the light he sees is traveling at speed sqrt(c^2+v^2).

    A more thorough study on stellar aberration helps us to prove that time as one physical element is absolute; time advancement has nothing to do with any clock movement. The Ives-Stilwell experiment, thought to have helped confirming the nonexistence of ether, turns out to be solid evidence confirming the existence of ether.

    With the invalidity of relativity displayed in the articles Relativity Is Self-Defeated (1 of 3) and (2 of 3) by this author, all the upcoming consideration in this article has no need to make separate argument to exclude the interference from relativity.


  • Mathematical Inconsistency in Relativity's Original Paper of 1905 (2010) [Updated 1 year ago]
    by Cameron Y. Rebigsol   read the paper:

    A criticism has been found quite popular in scientific study that the acceptance of relativity is based on faith. Tragic to relativity, this criticism is found to be supported by the most fundamental equation from relativity's original paper ?On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies? (herein after referred to as The Paper), published in 1905. Believing in relativity, two observers moving with respect to each other may not feel troublesome to accept that they do not have the same time readings regarding the same sequence of events. What must trouble them is to accept whose time reading should have dilated to match the time reading from the other observer. Of course, to someone who has followed relativity well with an unshakable faith, it may be only a simple mathematical matter to find out. However, can relativity really make things so simple for the two observers? With the same principle that relativity allures them to accept the concept of time dilation, relativity also agitates arguments that are equally legitimate between them to disagree with each other. When they finally settle some physical quantities that both can commonly accepted for time comparison, they found relativity has only left them with 1=0. Faiths from each of them toward relativity only end up with confronting each other, as well as confronting with acceptable mathematical rules.


  • Relativity's Length Measurement Inconsistency (2009) [Updated 7 years ago]
    by Cameron Y. Rebigsol   read the paper:

    1=0? One must feel inconceivable after he found that he is so led by one of the most revered mathematical piece in human history. To expose what is found as an error is to confront, no pleasure but only shock can be found when one feels to be compelled to slip into such a stand. This author wish so much that this 1=0 is a result of his mistaken calculation, but not something led by relativity. However, even setting this inconceivable result aside, calculation via different route shows that zero speed is found to be the only physical state in which special relativity can claim validity for itself; and the equations generated by special relativity can verify just that. It can be found, as demonstrated in the case study presented in this paper, that relativity dismantles the constancy of speed of light, and that relativity ?enables? material points of a moving rod to complete extraordinary distance without time consumption in the process of ?length contraction?.

    It is well known that constancy of speed of light is the absolute foundation for this theory to be constructed. If light cannot maintain its constancy on speed, it must be of interest to know what is left to support the validity of this theory. While relativity has equations to forbid the appearance of speed that exceeds the speed of light in nature, the same equations either pushes some speed to exceeding such a speed limit or imposes c/2 as another speed limit. Shouldn't we feel irresistible to ask: Why the key points have been so well camouflaged in the derivation of this theory that it can escape the fine-combing done by so many scientists for more than a century? This author believes it is time for us to answer this question. In presenting this review, this author never ceases to wish some people would come forward to help this author realizing how mistakenly this author has been but relativity's integrity is left unchallengeable. Immeasurable thanks to the people who would spend time to examine this paper, or even to correct this author if he would like to do so, are hereby given in advance.


  • Letters (2000) [Updated 7 years ago]

  • Mathematical Description on Hubble's Law (2000) [Updated 7 years ago]