The falling ether
February 27, 2022 at 7:13 pm #1385
The ether must explain light and gravity and the longitudinal force of gravity means that ether must have mass. So, it is reasonable to assume ether to behave like matter and also tell matter how to move. This can be done if the ether (like matter) is falling with the escape velocity towards Earth. Although you cannot see the light you nevertheless can an feel the effect of the ether wind in your bottom just now.
Newton’s law was derived by math from Kepler’s laws. The mathematical origin seems to contain a mathematical demand ignored by Newton and the spherical symmetry in gravity can demand a perfect symmetry in the gravitating body. So, Newton’s law is a mathematical relation that needs a generalization to be valid in physics with aspherical bodies. This can easily be done by applying the law to small volume elements and do an integration.
In this modified form we find that unification is possible with the mechanism for gravity that Newton got from his friend Fatio. So, it appears to be a great mistake by Newton to say that he needed no hypothesis.
I started to advocate a falling ether 20 years ago and after that I have found more and more arguments in this direction. In this long time period I have got no comments on this falling ether. In my opinion we should help each other by critical thinking but no one has commented on the falling ether, neither pro nor con. David said that we should think outside the box but when I do so I am told that I am ignorant. I have become a dissident in relation to dissidents and most members will not talk to me.
In my opinion a falling ether is a very natural idea and I agree to the statement that physics without an ether is unthinkable (an experienced professor) not superfluous (a young patent clerk).
I hope to get more feedback on this thread.
With best regards from _______________ John-Erik
MemberFebruary 27, 2022 at 11:34 pm
The falling aether seems quite an intriguing concept. Given that falling objects accelerate to the earth (or I suppose any other planet or star), that the aether (if it exists) would seem affected within gravitational fields, that is, if the aether actually does have mass. However, how to detect or provide evidence for the aether’s possible mass?
MemberFebruary 28, 2022 at 9:27 am
Thanks for interest
The ether transmits gravity and therefore has mass. However, the ether is constituted by very small neutrino-like etherons moving with light speed. So, the ether contains dark matter and dark energy, not easy to see. Not individually.
We have indirect effects:
- Gravity explained.
- Cosmologic red shift explained by motion of ether – not of celest bodies; no Big Bang.
- Pioneer anomaly explained by a change in 2-way light speed – anomaly is an illusion.
- Horizontal ether wind can also explain how GPS clocks slow down 7.2 microsec/day. No time dilation. No SRT.
- Vertical ether wind can also explain how GPS clocks increase speed with 45.4 microsec/day. No time dilation. No GRT.
With best regards from _______ John-Erik
MemberFebruary 28, 2022 at 8:35 pm
I can relate to the term “falling ether”, but indirectly so, with a few reservations. Is the term ‘falling’ the best word to choose?
Here are aspects I have potentially related to the open-source-concept of aether, perhaps only for boldly tolerant thinkers.
I’m fine with any analogous words to support freedom of thoughts, which offer contrasts of meanings. Do you suppose “falling aether falls” continually like a waterfall, splashing or hitting a sieve representing earth’s atmospheric levels and surfaces, while continually falling inwards, to become absorbed internally in the planetary mass?
I have been considering some particular analogies such as the following, inspired by the expandion tectonic and expanding earth ideas, way back on the early web, (and more recently updated here on the forum, but separately focussed as far as I recall. Rather, I visualized ‘aether’ as an involutional medium aggregating all material forms and all energy forms, isotropically, universally and locally, successively into larger and denser aggregations of forms, which are more obvious to observe as humans have observed.
More recently the “wave energy theory” (posted here in 2020), got me geometrically re-exploring platonic solids for conceivable symmetries of isotropic resonance and as the effects of involution, bearing various known laws, and not absolutely restricted to the analogy of water bloating-up an infinite sponge.
In other words, the involution initiates energies of a form too fine for human forms of energy to contrast and therefore too fine to detect, (energy = matter = energy, and encouraging subtler methods of observation for evidence).
Therefore an analogy of AC frequencies, patterned modulations, and circuits came to mind, to hypothesize geometrically, and this pulled in other collected ideas, which I attempted to post here. http://harmoniouspalette.com/TrihedralHelixFundamentalParticle.html
MemberMarch 1, 2022 at 9:04 am
Yes, ‘falling’ can be misleading, since the number of falling particles is just a small amount larger than the flow in opposite direction. So, ‘radial ether wind’ is better.
Yes, I think that the number etherons per time is slightly reduced by absorption in all points in the gravitating body. See Fatio’s model.
Yes, just because we have no capacity to ‘see’ the dark ether with dark energy and dark matter we are not allowed to abolish the ether.
With best regards from ________ John-Erik
MemberMarch 1, 2022 at 4:25 pm
I had not seen Fatio’s work yet, and appreciate your mention of it, and finally searching around, I found your article here: http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/2020/07/13/gravity-2/ … But the additional link at that page bottom is not in English. Thanks for your www publishing about the subject. Some of the associated work like Poincaré’s thesis took me half an hour without getting ‘permissions’ to dig further, but another source said he thought atoms were voids in ether – not for me.
I’m usually just scanning until something is particularly relevant, at a given time. I never got into the formulaic math of physics like speed formulae unless it solves an immediate engineering project, at which point a chart is usually sufficient to continue with work. A photo copied library booklet of La Sage was very inspiring to me, long before the public internet, and I was never an academician, but always independently studied analogies with “backyard science” instead.
It is indeed very hard for works in progress to be adjusted by contrasting works, ie: Newton and Fatio, and neither of these works are in my mental toolbox, nor is most of mathematical physics. I appreciate it all at a distance, while fascinated with other tidbits here and there. Geometric software has taught me a huge amount of physics in the last 20 years, with much less formulaic burden which is now built into the code, without need of slide rules anymore. Engineering is slowly emerging for the public through CAD apps, (like finite element analysis), most of which corroborates with science.
MemberMarch 1, 2022 at 5:10 pm
The page not in English can be automatically translated with open software. I have also articles that prove that Big Bang is an illusion. See “How Newton’s gravity gave us Big Bang”. You find it at Science Journals – Papers written by John-Erik Persson (gsjournal.net)https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/763/John-Erik,%20Persson
Yes, Fatio and Le Sage are interesting.
With best regards from ____ John-Erik
MemberApril 28, 2022 at 9:16 pm
I like your post and I saw your link and your good works.
I like theory and I’m depeening aether theory after seeing this article of my old internet friend Fabio.
He said a lot of things you bring back in your works.
He began his work doing practice experiment on microwaves interferometer…
It’s in italian and this is a summary link of some works:
Here there is a little section of theory, but experiment seem confirm a flow of vertical eather.
Best regards_________ Ing MM
MemberApril 29, 2022 at 10:42 am
You asked how to detect mass in ether. I think that the best evidence for motion in the ether is the feeling that you have in your bottom just now. Thanks for interest in my falling ether.
I first mentioned that idea in Galilean Electrodynamics 1999 July when I said that light traveled down faster than up and Cynthia Whitney said the ether is falling.
I am glad that you also are interested in Fatio’s model. It is a pleasure to get supporters now since I have advocated falling ether for 2 decades with little response.
Thanks for the link. It is in agreement to my ideas in some parts but is also different in other parts.
However, there seems to be some confusion between Fatio and Fabio. Fatio sent a hypothesis to Newton 300 years ago. Fabio is not that old.
Thank you for your interest.
I hope that you will come up with some ideas in relation to my latest post to you
With best regards from ______________ John-Erik
MemberApril 29, 2022 at 5:09 pm
MemberMay 2, 2022 at 12:00 am
David, Glenn, Marco, Jerry and all of you.
I have described why the assumption that there is no aberration does NOT disprove the model for ether and gravity that was presented by Fatio and by Le Sage. So, a falling ether is a possible concept that can explain gravity.
This a very important issue. So, I am disappointed that no one will discuss with me that idea. So, come on!
With best regards from _________ John-Erik
MemberMay 2, 2022 at 2:53 am
I’m sorry, John-Erik. I have to admit that quite a few times when I read through some of your posts, that there was terminology that I wasn’t familiar with. Could you possibly state the main points you want to convey, in “plain English”? 🙂 At least that you define the crucial words? Thanks.
MemberMay 2, 2022 at 9:22 am
Thanks for interest. I give short version here and hope to give more details later.
Gravity without GRT and without Big Bang:
- Fatio’s gravity is not disproved by no aberration in gravity, since etherons do not collide with matter, but are absorbed by matter.
- Fatio’s gravity introduces a falling ether by a difference between pushing and pulling and this ether wind causes gravity.
- The falling ether explains also Pioneer anomaly and Big Bang as illusions caused by ether motions – not body motions.
Clock behavior without SRT and without time dilation:
- Stellar aberration is not caused by transverse ether wind, but due to observer motion. Copernicus said that we (in astronomic observations) must compensate for position in relation to Sun. He forgot to say that we also must compensate for velocity in relation to Sun.
- Transverse ether wind does not change light behavior in the reference arm in MMX. So, no effect there and no motivation for time dilation.
- Instead, electrons move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. So, the ether wind has second order effect on clock frequency. A classical effect.
So, dependency on the ether wind explains the same as SRT plus GRT with one model.<div>
See “The illusions of time dilation, Pioneer anomaly and Big Bang”
MemberMay 4, 2022 at 6:56 pm
Hi. I looked up “etherons” the other day, and couldn’t find a definition. Is that simply what is said to compose the ether?
Is the “falling ether” a push or pull? Does it somewhat “transport” objects to accelerate towards earth, or to any other high gravity field?
I read about the Pioneer anamoly, though the falling ether wasn’t mentioned as a possible cause. How could falling ether have that effect? How much of all ether, is falling ether? Is your view that all of gravity is falling ether?
- This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by Jerry.
MemberMay 5, 2022 at 10:40 am
Of course, you have stated your views for “falling ether”. When there isn’t much gravity within a given area of space, is the ether “stationary”? If the ether is so “fluid” and “un-fixed” that it is allowed to “fall”, how to understand its function and position within the universe? Is it possible to identify “how fast” the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. travels through the ether?
MemberMay 10, 2022 at 8:22 pm
Would you say that one dimension of the interferometer is shortened by the ether? Does this, in your view, cause the shortening itself to appear undetectable, since any measuring device next to the apparatus is also shortened?
MemberMay 2, 2022 at 10:36 am
Dear John and all of you,
Sorry for my later answer, but I’m working for an electronic private company and I have very bit time for this very intersting forum.
I read also other author who develop theory on Fatio-La Sage hypotesys.
Some example are this:
(in 2018, but now i cant’ find this site: if someone if someone find it again find it again I’d like to recive the new link, thanks)
In my little free time I’m deepen fluid dynamics of vortex and solutions of Navier-Stokes equation, because it seem connected with gravitational behaviour.
did you never tought aether cause gravity force trough Coanda effect? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect)
Best regards Ing MM
I haven’t explored your article yet, but I think aberration is compatible with Fatio theory.
MemberMay 2, 2022 at 6:27 pm
No, I have not considered the Coanda effect.
What do you think about my model?
Best from ________ John-Erik
MemberMay 2, 2022 at 10:15 pm
I like a lot your aether model, it explain a lot of phenomena using clasical phisics.
I don’t understand well your explantion of aberration (phereps I need a picture for clarity)
Some years ago I studied the possiblity of gravity with aether (like LaSage model) considering elastic collision because using absorption the grow rate of earth was too hi.
Considrinig aether with a velocity of 11.2km/s (escape velocity) to produce an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, this need a flux of mass of absorption aether equal to the accelerate mass multiply by the ratio of accelerations/deceleration that is about 1/1000 (for conservation of quantity of motion).
So it’s a grow rate extremally hi, and not realistic, for this reason I thought for other mechanism of transfert force like in fluiddinamic Coanda or Magnus effect that don’t change the original mass.
It’s a very difficult problem, but some progress in 300 years have been made.
If it was easy it would be yet resolved.😉
I admire you John because you have a great constancy and I know how it’s difficult (Fabio said me his effort to explain its ideas, often misunderstend)
MemberMay 3, 2022 at 1:48 pm
You like my theory but have problem with aberration. Just as Copernic said that we must compensate for sun-related position we also must compensate for sun-related observer velocity u by vector addition. Since, light is moving. When u is transverse to c we get aberration arctg(u/c) independent of ether wind v.
I do not understand your opinion on the grow rate of Earth. I think you made an error when deriving the factor 1/1000. Think about it.
With best regards from ____________ John-Erik
MemberMay 3, 2022 at 10:24 pm
😅 I badly explained myself about aberration…
I didn’t understood “your example on pulsar” and how it technically was made, not meanining aberration in general.😅
I hope this is the fault of my low-level English.
Today I read a your article and I understud a little more:
the measure of front wave of pulsar are delayed/anticipated of 4.2 microseconds ( = 640m) if measured in nearest point towards star compared to measure made 6400km behind nearest point, on earth surface…
Is this right?
I usually made measure of electronic compnents and I have all instruments near to me, this measure in 2 points so far is not simple for my usually environment…
It was a my understanding problem not your bad explain.
Second question on absorbtion.
Ok, I did an example of aether wind of 11.2 km/s and if its mass is adsorbed occours a 1/1000 of rest mass for second to produce a variation of velocity of 9.8 m/s.
If I understood your aether theory, the aether have a mean velocity of 11.2 km/s but every etheron have a larger velocity respect mean.
In this case what result by energy conservation law?
Mass of aether decrease with ratio of velocity/g, but energy lost (by aether) increase with square of velocity, so energy lost for hi velocity is about
1/2mv^2 =1/2*(M * 9.8/v)*v^2 = 1/2 M (9.8) v.
Energy lost is proportional to acelerated rest mass and velocity of aetherons.
To accelerate the same rest mass is dissipared an energy proportional to the velocity of aetherons.
Is a lot of energy, where goes this energy?
It’s too late now, goodnight
MemberMay 4, 2022 at 5:52 pm
You’ve mentioned the word “aberration” a few times. I looked it up and the definition is, “a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected”. Could you possibly describe the type of aberration you’ve spoken of? What exactly is the difference that the aberration causes?
Also, I might need to study up on “vector addition” and such related concepts. I looked up those terms. Is there a somewhat easy way to understand your second sentence there, of what Copernicus said?
MemberMay 3, 2022 at 1:54 pm
I said that the ether can define an ether velocity although no ether particle is moving with that velocity. What do you think?
Best regards from __________ John-Erik
MemberMay 4, 2022 at 8:02 pm
About pulsar aberration:
Two radio telescopes separated by diameter of Earth (42 millisec for light) correctly are simultaneous when observed in the frame of our Sun, but in the frame of Earth they are separated 4.2 microsec. This does not depend on change in position but on change in velocity, since the speed of Earth is 10^-4 times c. Therefore, this is a Sagnac effect and therefore in conflict with SRT.
I described this in “The scandalous Sagnac effect”. This is also in conflict with an article by Ron Hatch “Those scandalous clocks”, who states that this phenomenon instead confirms time dilation.
You must also remember that ether wind is many orders of magnitude lower than speed of ether particles as the speed of light.
Regards from __________ John-Erik
MemberMay 5, 2022 at 11:37 am
thanks for your quick expain about pulsar aberration.
Before jour post, I had just read your articles “Aberration and Sagnac effect” & “The Scandalous Sagnac effect”
and I understand better the set up of the experiment and the relation between the 2 measures, thank you for indications.
I completely agree.
Do you think absorbtion cause looses of energy respect moving free “things”? (considering “things” as atoms and aetherons with their respective mass)
I wrote you an estimated value of that looses caused by aetheron absorbtion.
That looses are loosed by aether field and transferred to atoms in form of vibrations that evolves in termal or electromagnetic or gravitational energy.
Aether, when encountring mass, cools down and atoms heats up, this is the main effect of absorbtion: did you valued this effect?
I think absorbtion is not the right way to tranfert energy: it’s a dissipative way and it became an irreversible transformation.
I remember you that first flight is dated 17/12/1903 and so 15 yars later 1887 M-M experiment and 54 yars later 1849 Fizeau speed of light experiment.
In this storic context fluid dynamic behaviour was almost completly unknow to the scientist and they developed theyr theory without this knowledge.
Aether was considered like a static fluid sea of pico-particles, trascuring fluid dynamic effects.
What’s happend when you move a body in the sea?
It’s braked, but non by absorbtion but from fluid dynamic forces.
A fluid dynamic flux produce a potential field (without dissipation if fluid is ideal and it becames reversible).
Think about it.
MemberMay 5, 2022 at 8:07 pm
‘Falling’ ether may be misleading since the radial ether wind is a difference between a pushing and a pulling force. So, A small unbalance from spherical symmetry in flow. This is gravity.
A radial ether wind from Sun means that 2-way light speed is increasing with range, and cause an illusion of Space station motion. See my article about Pioneer anomaly.
MemberMay 6, 2022 at 2:04 am
How is gravity a small unbalance from spherical symmetry in flow? Could you please describe with slight detail what that means?
Also, I asked earlier, if it is possible to identify “how fast” the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. travels through the ether?
- This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by Jerry.
MemberMay 5, 2022 at 8:23 pm
Good that you agree
We often make mistakes by using the conservation law of energy by not regarding energy flow to and from the ether.
Remember that ether particles move with speed c in all directions.
What happened in 1903?
Regards ____________ John-Erik
MemberMay 8, 2022 at 6:49 am
Good morning John,
you say ether particles move with speed c: how much energy have each particle?
If you assume a finite energy you must assume a null mass of that particles too, is it right?
They are like neutrinos particles.
What differences are from neutrinos and etherons?
For your question on 1903, I remember you that before the first Wright brother fly, a lot of scentist thought no object heavier than air would ever fly.
Fluid dinamic forces could not be considered in aether studyes because there are only a few studys about it.
Francis_Herbert_Wenham discover law on lift in 1866 but it’s pratically applied only on flying kites or in unlikely flying machines.
For this reason I think the time is came to consider this effect in aether theory, because if their effect is macroscopic, they must have a microscopic effect too.
I hope see you soon because your works explain a lot of effect inexplicable with other theorys, bat the fluid dynamic part is missing and I hope you add that soon.
Regards ___ Ing MM
MemberMay 6, 2022 at 12:01 pm
…gravity= a small unbalance?…
I have explained that many times in almost all of my many articles. Read! In matter absorption reduces the flow and less particles are leaving. A small difference causes a net flow in neg radial direction -> a radial ether wind – equal to the escape velocity.
…possibility of speed detection…
No, Ether from distant bodies tell matter how to move. So, speed is zero in relation to distant bodies. Instead you find only radial component generated by the body itself.
However, you can see motion in relation to the ether in a satellite (small mass). This follows from the fact that bound electrons move faster along the ether wind than towards the ether wind. Clock frequency becomes f’=f(1-v^2/2c^2). So, we have explained the behavior of atomic clocks a an classical effect inside clocks without using time dilation.
Best __________________ John Erik
MemberMay 6, 2022 at 6:28 pm
I hadn’t read specifically those exact words before. Much of what you write is filled with technical terminology, some of which isn’t readily found on the internet. I could probably understand the ideas more if you could present them with detailed definitions of the crucial words. Some of the ideas may seem completely obvious to you, though maybe isn’t to everyone else.
Also, asked earlier, if it is possible to identify “how fast” the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. travels through the ether?
MemberMay 6, 2022 at 8:26 pm
I just said: no, you just find radial component.
Instead you can find speed of satellite.
Best ______________ John-Erik
MemberMay 8, 2022 at 2:59 pm
Good afternoon Marco
I write this answer at the bottom of this list, since the other way is tricky
Yes, etherons move with speed c and they have a finite and very, very small mass and small amount of energy. Finite energy does not mean zero mass (Einstein staff). Etherons seems to belong to the class of neutrinos.
I am glad that you like my ideas and say good words about what they can explain. Not many scientists admit what they get from others. Thanks.
I do not see that something is missing in my ideas, like fluid mechanics. Instead we perhaps need to define a fifth state of (almost no) aggregation. We have solid, liquid, gas and plasma and perhaps ether does not belong to any of them. If we accept etherons to very, very seldom interact with matter and never interact with each other we have a fifth state of aggregation.
If you think we need more fluid mechanics you must give me more motivation.
With best regards from ____John-Erik
MemberMay 17, 2022 at 10:43 am
I was very busy with my work, excuse me for later answer… 😢
I take some days to think how answer to your question on need of fluid mechanics.
We agree on very seldom interact with matter, but we have a different view on energy in the in interraction to generate force/acceleration on matter.
I gave a numerical esteem of that in my old post:
I understand finite energy of etherons at c velocity, but you never give a value of that energy.
I think you think it’s negligible, but you should argue this, elsewhere how matter acquire energy, do you think?
With fluid mechanics like actions forces is generated by pressure/depression who need minor energy because it is intrinsecly generated by movement.
I mus go to lunch, good afternoon.
Log in to reply.