The falling ether

Tagged: , , ,

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #1385

    John-Erik
    Participant

    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

  • The falling ether

    John-Erik updated 1 week, 5 days ago 6 Members · 101 Replies
  • John-Erik

    Member
    August 10, 2022 at 11:03 am

    Marco

    “Correction” Yes, escape velocity from sun is 42 km/sec at i AU and nothing else. Thanks.

    v(orb) is about 0.3 km/sec? Because horizontal ether wind on Earth is somewhere between zero and 0.46 km/sec.

    I think there is an important difference between our ideas.

    With best regards from ________________ John-Erik

  • John-Erik

    Member
    August 10, 2022 at 9:06 pm

    Andy

    You seems to have forgotten that the subject for this discussion of mine is my theory that is called “THE FALLING ETHER”. You only talk about your alternative and that debate should be located on another discussion. So, I will not take up your ideas at this discussion. I can comment on another discussion if you have any.

    With best regards from __________________________ John-Erik

  • John-Erik

    Member
    August 10, 2022 at 9:18 pm

    Andy

    There was one detail that had connection to my theory. You seems to like Big Bang and I said that it was an illusion due to ether motion instead of body motion. My motivation further is that gravity is falling fast with range as inverse square. Therefore, I think that gravity can be stationary over large distances.

    With best regards from ___________________________ John-Erik

    • Andy

      Member
      August 10, 2022 at 9:49 pm

      “You seems to like Big Bang and I said that it was an illusion due to ether motion instead of body motion.”

      No John, I don’t agree with the Big Bang at all. I don’t know where you got that notion from. It’s an absurd theory that has been disproved many times over. Galaxies alone take billions of years to develop. Hubble revealed entire galaxies fully formed in a few millions of years. Web is going to roll us closer to instant galaxies. Absurd.

      An ether theory cannot be compartmentalized into a neat little topic of discussion. It is fundamentally the entire scope of the universe. It is the foundation that the universe exists on.

      You must get into a completely new paradigm to support it.

      Where does all the matter come from? Where did the ether come from? Where is it all headed?

      You seem to like a static steady state universe. I don’t understand how that’s any better than a big bang.

      As I said, perpetual existence is simply another label for perpetual motion. Our observable universe cannot be the cause and effect of itself perpetually over time. Motion cannot keep causing motion indefinitely. Matter cannot keep causing matter indefinitely. The universe would have fizzled out eons ago.

      I don’t think a static steady state is any substitute for a Big Bang. I see it as more of the same old same old.

    • Andy

      Member
      August 10, 2022 at 9:52 pm

      What lead you to believe what I’m saying has anything to do with the big bang?

      • John-Erik

        Member
        August 10, 2022 at 11:50 pm

        Andy

        Sorry. I did a mistake when you said: …Big Bang is gaining…Thanks for correcting.

        However, you did not like steady state either and that is the only alternative and I think it is reasonable since gravity falls fast with inverse square.

        With best regards from ____________________________ John-Erik

        • Andy

          Member
          August 11, 2022 at 2:50 am

          Likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it. Steady state is as wrong as the big bang. Our universe is not the cause and effect of itself and that is exactly where both lead. Big bang is overunity, and steady state is perpetual motion. They violate the laws of physics.

          Two bad choices are all those amount to John.

          And that’s what I’m trying to explain. Ether won’t hold up under either.

        • Andy

          Member
          August 11, 2022 at 11:08 am

          “However, you did not like steady state either and that is the only alternative”

          No it’s not the only alternative. I’m describing a persistent universe, not a big bang or a static steady state. It does not violate the laws of physics, it follows them to the letter of the laws. The creation of matter is a continuous process. A wave of creation swept over our region of space leaving matter behind in its wake. It kept going until it was well out of our range of motion. Never ends. We’re part that result. Time is a two way street. Expansion leads to new time, and contraction leads to old time. Matter contracts backwards in time, and space expands forwards in time.

          As I’ve repeated many times.

          My conception begins at 1. My journey through life is ∞. My death is 0.

          It looks nearly identical to the big bang, because it is an inverted perspective from our vantage point. Big bang attempts to pack the Genie back in the bottle by hitting an imaginary rewind button, and pulling everything to an imaginary central point of origin. It doesn’t work like that. Matter does not come from a central point of creation, because that leads to [0].

          The center is everywhere matter exists, and the direction of motion is 1-dimensional, inward and outward. Matter comes from the outward direction, [1], not [0]. Something cannot come from nothing [0], it comes from something else [1]. Matter contracts, space expands. But it’s all space.

          [0] < ∞ < [1]

          Steady state assumes matter just randomly exists for no apparent reason. And somehow it’s just compelled to move around and crash into things, causing more and more things to happen while creating more and more matter in the process perpetually. Makes absolutely no sense.

          I don’t know how anyone could buy into a static steady state frankly. It’s like having and empty soda bottle randomly fill itself with more soda. That’s not the way anything even remotely works.

          Matter is created on a universal scale, like the big bang suggest, but not from an overunity machine like the big bang. Science has the universe flipped around 180 degrees heading in the wrong direction. It would be a very easy mistake to make from our perspective on Earth. It’s a 1-dimensional inverse problem. They’ve inverted the universe after observing the redshift. They stopped imagining alternatives.

          • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Andy.
          • Andy

            Member
            August 11, 2022 at 11:22 am

            Small semantics correction.

            Science has the material part of the universe flipped around 180 degrees heading the wrong direction. Matter contracts inward, and the space we traverse expands outward.

            The big bang is 1/2 right or 1/2 wrong, depending on how you want to look at it. But that means 50% of it is garbage. GR is studying expansion, and QM is studying contraction. They just don’t realize they’re studying two halves of the whole.

        • Andy

          Member
          August 11, 2022 at 2:25 pm

          This is Static Steady State:

          A. ∞

          This is Big Bang

          B. [0] < ∞

          This is Persistent Universe

          C. [0] < ∞ < [1]

          You tell me which one looks correct mathematically and logically.

          A and B are incomplete. Math wouldn’t work. They don’t follow logic and reason and only lead to violations in physics. They both become the cause effect of themselves.

          C ties into our numeric system of linear order. Math works perfectly which matches precisely with what we observe, and it’s following the laws of physics. The universe is not the cause and effect of itself. It’s driven by the potential in [0] and [1], endlessly searching for its beginning and end, which it can never reach. That’s why we exist.

          • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Andy.
        • Andy

          Member
          August 12, 2022 at 4:40 pm

          Understand John, I have nothing to lose here, and probably nothing to gain either. I’m just a lowly random armchair theorist of sorts. I can’t prove anything mathematically, not even to myself. I’m reasonably confident in my assertions because they fit every observation and define them in plain English. I can understand the universe plainly. And that’s the way it should be in my humble opinion. It must make sense, contrary to what science believes. Conveying what I see is always the challenge. Getting anyone to take anything I say seriously is even a bigger challenge. Who cares what random me has to say? No one really. And I do get it. The odds of someone like me having anything to offer science is 1 in 8 billion, literally. And I could always be wrong. I don’t know. It’s very easy to dismiss me, is the bottom line. I don’t take it personally.

          Here’s the thing, I know where some proof might lie. Might, I stress. Not 100% confident.

          In my view, everything is relative, from motion, right down to time, mass, and even distance.

          I suspect the answer to the galaxy rotation phenomena might be related to distance dropping off at the inverse square from the center of galaxies out. We’re superimposing our perspective of distance on top of entire galaxies in the form of light years. We’re treating distance as a static feature of the universe, where I suspect it’s more of a relative feature of the universe. At the center of all galaxies lies a super massive black-hole. It’s the eye the galactic storm. Distance contracts the closer to the center, and it expands the further away from center. It may look like galaxies are spinning faster than they should on the outer edge, but I suspect if someone were to serious examine distance from the inverse square perspective, it may answer the riddle. The outer edge might be a bit shorter than the inner edge, giving us a rotational illusion of sorts. We’re essential using a straight line to represent distance from the center out, resulting in a straight line of motion across the diameter. I think that distance line should curve, or compress closer to the center. Things in the middle are traveling a greater distance than we physically see, and things on the outer perimeter are traveling a shorter distance than we physically see.

          I wouldn’t know where to begin sorting something like that out. There’s a lot to take into consideration. I see in general terms how it could work mechanically.

  • John-Erik

    Member
    August 29, 2022 at 9:04 pm

    David

    BIG BANG

    I have listened to a discussion regarding BIG BANG some days ago. The concept ETHER was not discussed. The medium for transmission of light and gravity was ignored. The fact that I have sent descriptions for BIG BANG based on the falling ether, with a speed equal to the escape velocity was also ignored. I think this is arrogant of you.

    The radial ether wind at the surface of a celestial body generates a blue shift in the ether frame. The ether is moving away from an observer in the same state of motion as the body. So, we get a red shift also. Together we get a red shift of second order although body and observer are in the same state of motion.

    THE COSMOLOGICAL RED SHIFT IS CAUSED BY A SECOND ORDER RED SHIFT

    PIONEER ANOMALY

    At r(AU)=1 escape velocity from Sun is 1+-1.41×10^-4. Changing as inverse square root of r(AU). Therefore, we get 2-way speed as 1-2×10^-8/r(AU). Increasing 2-way light speed simulates a decreasing speed in the space station. This explains the anomaly as an illusion.

    Pioneer anomaly and Big Bang are both illusions due to ether motions NOT BODY MOTIONS

    John-Erik

    • Marco

      Member
      September 6, 2022 at 7:44 pm

      Hallo @JoP ,

      I like your theory, but sometimes it is hard for me to understand and follow your explantion:

      you wrote “At r(AU)=1 escape velocity from Sun is 1+-1.41×10^-4. Changing as inverse square root of r(AU).”

      It’s hard to understand that it’s the ratio with c (1.41×10^-4 = 42.3/300’000).

      I would have written ” [1+-(1.41×10^-4) /√r(AU)]*c “, in one formula…

      I’m doing your reasoning and I understand what you mean, but if you want to be heard from others you must be as clear as possible.

      You are doing a great job, but someone can’t appreciate because it seem harder then it is.

      Best regard Ing.MM

      • John-Erik

        Member
        September 7, 2022 at 6:23 pm

        Marco

        Yes, you are making my ideas clearer. Thanks for that.

        Best _______________ John-Erik

  • John-Erik

    Member
    September 3, 2022 at 7:03 pm

    David and all

    In the post above I gave an explanation to Pioneer anomaly by a 2-way light speed proportional to 1-2×10^-8/r(AU). This expression is in agreement to observations as easily can be calculated.

    The falling ether explains the anomaly as an ILLUSION. Second order red shift is caused by the falling ether, when source and observer are in the same state of motion.

    Or?

    Best ______________ John-Erik

  • John-Erik

    Member
    September 16, 2022 at 1:05 pm

    David

    I contribute to the discussions regarding Big Bang. As I said the falling ether can explain Big Bang as an illusion. I send an article to demonstrate that idea:

    Mathematics is powerful and dangerous

    John-Erik Persson

    <b align=”center”>john.erik.persson@gmail.com

    It is very important that we always remember that mathematics is just a tool for doing physics. The fact that math really is very powerful, has a negative side in the high risk that we may forget to see this important distinction, and thereby be fooled by math. This fact is here demonstrated to be true in many areas of science.

    Euclidean geometry

    In the geometry regarding straight lines in a flat surface the concept parallelism between two lines is defined by the statement, that parallel lines have no common point. The fact that the point in question does not exist leaves the definition empty and without substance. Euclid used a definition based on a concept that did not exist and his definition is just a dream. A definition must be real and not imaginary.

    Vi must base our definition on something that is essential for the defined concept. A characteristic property of parallelism can be constant distance, or separation. So, we can state that: Two lines are parallel if, and only if, two arbitrary points in one of the lines are on the same distance to the other line. Based on this definition we can see that one point and one line define a unique line, that is parallel to the given line. This means that a line has only one parallel in a given point.

    An interesting effect of Euclid’s mistake is the invention of non-Euclidean geometry. A 2-dimensional surface in the model was bent and regarded as a property of 3-dimensional space. This was also regarded as a property of nature. Although the ether was abolished, and space regarded empty, gravity nevertheless was explained as the bending of nothing. This absurd idea was inspired by the idea that the number of parallels to a point and a line can be different from one.

    Planetary motions

    Tycho Brahe devoted his whole life to studies of planetary motions from an island between Sweden and Denmark. He moved his observations from a tower to an underground observatory, and thereby reduced disturbances from wind and background light. He also made his instruments by himself, and improved precision several times, in relation to earlier observations for hundreds of years. Brahe was the most important astronomer, and he produced a large database.

    Johannes Kepler was an assistant to Brahe and Kepler made the mathematical analysis of Brahe’s data. Due to the high precision in the data Kepler could see that ellipses described observations better than circles, as earlier was assumed. He derived 3 laws describing planetary motions. He also tried, in vain, to explain the separations between planetary orbits, by the use of Platonic bodies.

    Apparent motion of fix stars

    When the telescope was invented, the astronomical observations could be done with even higher precision and Bradley observed an apparent motion of fix stars. The maximum value of this aberration is a small angle of the same size as the relation between the orbital velocity of Earth and the velocity of light. One explanation to this phenomenon has stated that an ether motion, transverse to light direction, should alter the wave front orientation. However, this idea is in conflict with the wave model for light, stating that an ether wind inside the wave front has no relevance in coherent systems like telescopes, that are based on detection of phase – not of amplitude. Phase based detection means therefore that ether wind inside the wave fronts is irrelevant, and light in coherent systems should be described as wave velocity plus longitudinal component of ether wind only (the ray concept). The vector sum of ether wind and wave velocity is of interest only if light is focused into a beam and max amplitude is of interest (the beam concept). This distinction between beam and ray is important.

    However, there is a more realistic explanation to stellar aberration based on the fact that an observer motion, transverse to moving light, changes the direction of the relative motion between observer and light. This means that observer motion creates an illusion of wave front tilting.

    The reasoning above applies also to the behaviour of light in the reference arm of the test (MMX) that Michelson did together with Morley. Coherent detection in a telescope (and light generated in a collimator) means constant wave front orientation in relation to the ether wind. So, no tilting (suggested in error by Potier 140 years ago) means no effect of ether wind in the reference arm of MMX – according to the wave model. No effect in the reference arm means no support for time dilation in MMX. In the measuring arm the predicted effect is real, but not observable due to a compensating effect due to length contraction. See below about the ether.

    Gravity

    Newton found the law of gravity by pure mathematics, based on the laws for planetary motions. The law of gravity predicts a spherically symmetric field of gravity. But Newton did not observe that this math demands spherical symmetry for involved bodies also. This demand, for perfect spherical symmetry, is hidden by the fact that gravity produces approximate spherical symmetry. Therefore, when Newton’s law is used in physics, we must regard the law as an approximation. This fact was observed in space stations navigated at very low altitude over the Moon. It was observed that gravity over a mountain is a very small amount larger than over a valley for very low altitudes. As an alternative Newton’s law should be applied to small volume elements, to avoid the demand for spherical symmetry, and then integrated in order to gain better relevance and provide more explanation power.

    Fatio sent a quantum theory for ether and gravity to Newton about 300 years ago. This model was based on small and fast ether particles moving in all directions. But Newton said that he did not need this explanation. Fatio’s model was abolished – in error – by the fact that the model did not predict aberration, like the aberration that is observed in light. The error here was that the ether particles were assumed to collide with matter. Instead, they are absorbed by matter, and this means that the force of gravity emerges inside matter due to effects from the ether. This explains no aberration in gravity. Therefore, Fatio’s model can be united with Newton’s model expressed by an integration. By disregarding Fatio’s idea Newton made a devastating mistake, and a good explanation to gravity was missed. We can see this by observing that attenuation (by absorption) in a body, A, reduces the number of particles leaving A and produces a net effect of an ether wind in radial direction towards A. This effect causes an asymmetry in the ether inside a nearby body, B. Gravity is two effects: A on ether and ether on B. Therefore, this asymmetry causes a force to emerge inside B in direction towards A due to an asymmetry in the absorption. So, the force of gravity can be explained by a radial (in relation to the gravitating body) ether wind. This ether wind can also explain the illusion of Big Bang.

    In order to explain Big Bang, we can regard a celestial body, not moving in relation to an observer. The radial ether wind causes blue-shifted light to be generated in ether’s frame. But the ether is moving away from the observer and therefore light is red shifted in relation to the observer. Together these two effects are causing a second order redshift. Therefore, Big Bang is an illusion caused by ether motion – not body motion – a second order Doppler effect.

    The Doppler effect has been regarded as caused by the difference in speed between source and observer. But when we introduce an ether, we get two effects. We get one effect between source and ether and another effect between ether and observer. With B<sub>n</sub> equal to observer and source speeds divided by light speed we get total effect on f’/f equal to (1+B<sub>1</sub>-B<sub>2</sub>-B<sub>1</sub>·B<sub>2</sub>). If B<sub>1</sub>=B<sub>2</sub> we get only second order term or (1-B<sup>2</sup>). So, the ether wind generates a second order Doppler effect although source and observer are in the same state of motion. By introducing an ether, we can explain cosmological red shift without Big Bang.

    The very large red shifts of second order that we observe in celestial bodies indicates that these bodies have very large masses.

    Atomic clocks

    The special theory of relativity (SRT) is said to be supported by time dilation, whereby clock frequency is changed from f to f’, due to a satellite speed of v<sub>O</sub> in the relation f’=f(1-v<sub>O</sub><sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>. Here v<sub>O</sub> is around 0.3 km/sec on Earth (rotation) and 3.9 km/sec in the GPS satellite.

    The general theory of relativity (GRT) is said to be caused by gravity potential. However, this potential is related to the escape velocity v<sub>E</sub>, and this is a more concrete concept than the abstract energy concept. So, we use this concept instead. We therefore get f’=f(1-v<sub>E</sub><sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>. Here v<sub>E</sub> is 11.2 km/sec on Earth and is 5.5 km/sec in the GPS satellite.

    This relation can be united with Fatio’s model, indicating a radial ether wind. Apparently, the radial ether wind is equal to the escape velocity, v<sub>E</sub>. This assumption means that SRT and GRT are united, not only by their predictions, but also theoretically, if we regard v<sub>O,</sub> as well as v<sub>E</sub> as ether winds. So, we get one model only. Instead of 2 kinds of time dilation we get 1 kind of clock dilation due to the ether wind.

    The ether

    Most of our knowledge about the ether emanates from Faraday, who studied the electromagnetic properties of the ether in almost his whole life. His work was (together with works from others) converted to mathematical form by Maxwell. This resulted in an ether specification in 4 equations, to a large extent a work of Faraday, although named after the translator, Maxwell. These equations are printed on T-shirts, although scientists deny the existence of the defined concept.

    The effect of ether wind in 1-way light was demonstrated by Sagnac for a closed light path. The same effect in an open light path is demonstrated by VLBI (very long base interferometry) instruments in the pulsar aberration. This aberration (Sagnac effect) disappears when calculations are transferred to the velocity of the Sun – not the position of the Sun.

    The Sagnac effect in 2-way light failed in MMX, since the combined effect in 2 antiparallel light motions is compensated by the effect in 2 antiparallel motions of forces controlling atomic separations. However, the 2-way Sagnac effect in microwave signals is demonstrated in the Pioneer anomaly, where the effect is not compensated. This depends on the radial ether wind (equal to the escape velocity) implied by Fatio’s quantum gravity. Therefore, 2-way light speed is increasing with range to the Sun, and this fact simulates Pioneer speed to be decreasing with range. The illusion is caused by ether motion – not by body motion.

    Reality and model I

    Brahe did a lifelong unique work in astronomy and Kepler did a normal mathematical analysis but became the most famous. Fatio provided an explanation to gravity and Newton did mathematical modelling and became more famous. Faraday did a lifelong work on the electromagnetic ether and Maxwell translated it to mathematical form and became more famous. Therefore, it seems as we are valuing mathematical models more than physical explanations, and form more than content. We are fooled by math. It also seems unhappy that we preferred Newton’s mathematics instead of Fatio’s physics, since these two theories are not in conflict.

    Quantum physics

    Quantum physics starts with the radiation from hydrogen with spectral lines indicating that a bound electron has stability over long time only for discrete values on the radius of the orbits. We can explain this by assuming that the period of orbiting must be a multiple of periods of an internal process in the electron – perhaps spin. Possible explanations may exist in energy considerations. However, this does not necessarily demand energy itself to be structured into quanta, although this is the common opinion. But this conclusion may be a devastating mistake caused by ignoring all disturbances from other electrons and other atoms. Instead, we can assume that this electron behaviour just is an adaptation between electron and kernel. We do not need quanta of energy.

    An assumed argument for quanta of energy is also found in the fact that radiation from hydrogen does not contain radiation from stable states themselves. Instead, the radiation contains interferences from the differences in frequency between these states. This phenomenon is said to demonstrate that electrons radiate only when they are jumping between states, although the simple model used not even allows for jumping. There exists no motivation at all for how an electron, by itself, can switch radiation on and off. Therefore, this explanation must be regarded as wrong, and another explanation searched for. So, this radiation most probably is continuous.

    If the radiation is continuous, we have to find an explanation to the fact that radiation at the primary frequencies is not observable. We can easily see a possible explanation in a well-known wave phenomenon called destructive superposition. This follows from the fact that all electrons in the same state produce, and sense, radiation at the same frequency. It is therefore very realistic to assume that these interactions can result in almost zero radiation, and we need contributions from many electrons to be able to detect radiation. The production of radiation at the frequencies of interference is distributed over the whole volume and can therefore not be neutralized by the same mechanism.

    Another false motivation is found in the law for black-body radiation where the constant h is said to indicate quanta to exist in light. However, light is not visible, so instead of light we observe matter in the form of electrons produced by the photo-electric effect, since this effect can cause quantization in the form of charges in a its output. This means that Planck’s constant, c, seems to be a property of the electron’s charge – not of energy and not of light.

    The photo-electric effect is an effect in opposite direction in relation to thermal radiation and is also used as an argument for quantization. Light particles moving towards a crystal are said to cause electrons to move away from the crystal. This is not logical and a wave, instead of a particle, for light can explain the effect by the assumption of an absorption instead of a collision. We see this by regarding an interference effect between periodic light motion and periodic electron motion at the same frequency. So, a light wave changes the potential energy of the electron (interference), according to Lenard. This contrasts to the current idea that a light particle changes kinetic energy in an electron (collision). So, we see again that the wave model is more logical. We do not need quanta based on h in light either. Since the electron’s kinetic energy is not changed, we can explain why this energy depends on frequency of light and not of intensity of light.

    We have seen how the wave model for light gives more logical explanations than the particle model. The tricky explanations based on light particles seem to be an effect of very bad understanding of the wave model, and also due to the fact that the ether concept was abolished; and without the ether we could not unite Fatio’s physics with Newton’s model. We could not explain gravity without aberration either. By the use of the wave model, we have seen that we do not need energy quanta and not light quanta at the Planck level. The only quantization we need is in Fatio’s quantum gravity/ether. The abolishing of the ether has also had the effect that the law of energy conservation has been applied in error.

    Light waves are all we need

    According to the wave model bound electrons can generate light waves continuously and absorption of an electron can generate X-ray wave packets, and this process can also go in opposite direction whereby an X-ray wave packet causes an electron to escape. Therefore, we can explain the Compton effect, in accordance to the wave model for light, by assuming a process in two steps. First an X-ray wave packet causes an electron to escape, and in the second step capturing of the same electron in another atom generates a secondary wave packet. Photo-luminance can also be explained in almost the same way, and we have earlier seen explanations to thermal radiation and photo-electric, effect based on the wave model. So, we can therefore conclude that waves are all we need for light. We have not understood the wave model for light and therefore we have got tricky explanations based on particles and collisions instead waves and absorption.

    Reality and model II

    Modern physics predicts electrons to switch radiation on and off. Particles moving towards a crystal are said to collide and cause an electron to move away from the crystal in the explanation to the photo-electric effect. So, the particle model for light is tricky. We can very easily avoid these conflicts by abolishing the particle model for light and describe light just as electromagnetic waves. So, it is difficult see any reason why we have not given up light particles long time ego. However, it is not difficult to see how the problem started, since we have lots of experience about particles but not about the abstract wave model. So, we chose the tool we know – not the tool we need. We are also lazy and prefer Newton’s math instead of Fatio’s physics, perhaps fooled by Occam’s razor, and we are often tempted to export mathematical concepts (like discreteness and probability) into physics.

    Fooled by math

    So, we have seen that we are really fooled by math in most areas of physics. In the area of particle physics this phenomenon has got an interesting analysis in a book by Sabine Hossenfelder<sup>1</sup>. Our bad understanding of the wave model is described by this author<sup>2,3</sup>.

    Summary

    Newton was fooled by mathematics when he stated that “hypotheses non fingo” and ignored Fatio’s suggestion. He did not observe a mathematical demand on spherical symmetry in bodies in his theory, that predicted spherical symmetry in the field of gravity. So, application of his law in physics means that the law should be used on small volume elements and integrated, in order to get rid of the demand for spherical symmetry. If we use the law without doing so, we must remember that we are using an approximation. The reason to Newton’s mistake is that Nature is hiding this fact by producing approximate spherical form in large bodies. So, the Devil is in the details.

    In the physical model presented by Fatio we also find an important error on detailed level, caused by our preference for well-known particles (collisions) instead of unknown waves (interferences) to cause the effect we observe in electrons. Therefore, Fatio’s model was abolished in error, since it was not observed that absorption of ether particles can explain the lack of aberration in gravity, since gravity emerges inside matter. In the same way we regarded ether as a difficult concept, and abolished it, which means that we apply the law of energy conservation in error, by not regarding energy exchange with the ether. We also were unable to explain the Big Bang and the Pioneer anomalies, since these phenomena are caused by ether motions – not by motions of bodies.

    Coherent systems like telescopes and collimators operates on phase, and not on amplitude. Therefore, wave front normal, and not total light motion, is conserved. So, no wave front tilting in stellar aberration and not in the reference arm in MMX either. Therefore, MMX does not support time dilation according to the wave model. MMX is useless also in the measuring arm, since the predicted effect – although real – is compensated due to length contraction.

    In quantum physics we have made an absurd assumption about electrons to be able to turn electromagnetic emission on and off, instead of assuming a well-known wave property of destructive superposition to explain a phenomenon in hydrogen radiation. Instead, electrons can radiate continuously. Since we cannot see the light, we observe matter in the form of discrete electrons from a photodetector. So, the constant named after Planck may indicate an electron property – not a light property. We find conflicts in quantum physics and the problem here seems also to be related to a bad understanding of the wave mode. There appears to be explanations to most phenomena based on the wave model. So, we seem to be fooled by math to use the particle model for light by the simple fact that we do not understand the wave model. We seem also to be fooled in another way by assuming mathematical properties in the model to have physical reality, like probability and not continuous functions.

    Conclusions

    · No quantization of energy and of light at the Planck level.

    · Quantization of ether into neutrino-like, small and fast particles is constituting an ether. This ether transmits gravity by an ether motion (in radial direction to a gravitating body) equal to the escape velocity. This ether also transmits light.

    · Big Bang and Pioneer anomalies are caused by motions of the ether – not motions of bodies.

    · The behaviour of atomic clocks in the GPS system is caused by motions of the ether – not of dilation of time.

    · We have not understood the wave model for light and missed the distinction between beam and ray.

    · Scientists seem not to be very interested in looking backwards.

    References

    <sup>1</sup>Sabine Hossenfelder, “Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.” Basic Books (June 2018).

    <sup>2</sup>John-Erik Persson, “The wave-particle dilemma in light.” Phys. Essays 34, 211 (2021).

    <sup>3</sup>John-Erik Persson, “The wave theory of light gives better explanations for key phenomena in physics.” Phys. Essays 35, 1 (2022).

Page 3 of 3

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now
X