A few possible examples,
of light and the aether,
of how the meter is defined,
of how to find the velocity of light,
of the constancy of the velocity of light,
of electricity and magnetism,
if light is possibly instantaneous,
of the particle and wave effects of light,
if objects could reach or exceed c,
if light has mass, inertia, or physicality,
of light being affected by gravity
of possible flaws involving the meter
January 25, 2022 at 1:13 am #1238
What of the metric system? How were metric units arrived at? The metric system was set up according to specific features of the world and universe, for instance, distance, volume, weight, and temperature. These units of measurement were almost always based upon verifiable facts, which could allow or provide the way for any thorough re-checking.
This approach to measurement was designed to account for the various properties of physical phenomena. For every unit devised, whatever the value is found there, with all except the meter and its derivatives, represent their numerical functions through specific “rounded-off” designations.
The meter was at first divisible by the distance from the equator to the north pole, which is allegedly 10,000,000 meters. However, the meter was later said to have been based upon the velocity of light, or c. The value of c is allegedly 299,792,458 meters per second, or m/s. Though this value is often rounded off at 300,000,000 m/s.
The way light is measured, of particles or waves detected, of how a meter is based upon the velocity of light, why isn’t that exactly 300,000,000 meters per second? What about all the other “rounded-off” metric units? Why would they purposefully choose the “off-handed” value of 299,792,458 m/s? Why is this designation much different from the “rounded-off” values of the gram, liter, and the Celsius and Kelvin temperature?
For instance, the freezing and boiling points of the Fahrenheit temperature range from 32° to 212°, compared to the metric or Celsius scale which is based upon the actual freezing (0°) and boiling points (100°) of water. Water is also the basis for the units of volume and weight.
So, if the meter is actually based upon c, was it ever at first, exactly 300,000,000 meters per second? If it was, why was the decision made to lower that value? If it wasn’t, why would they voluntarily choose a value that isn’t “rounded-off”?
Also, considering the “off-handed” value of the meter, compared to the other “rounded-off” metric values, why would anyone suggest, for instance, that we say the freezing point of water is slightly over zero, that is, instead of exactly zero?
I actually thought for years that the seemingly odd and near-exact value of the velocity of light within the metric system was just a coincidence. According to Rupert Sheldrake, the value of c found within older physics textbooks had appeared to fluctuate during the years 1928 to 1945. That many different values for the velocity of light were arrived at through those years and were simply “averaged out”. This is an example of what has been called “intellectual phase-locking”. Of course, this approach doesn’t seem scientific at all.
There was finally a fixed position of c in 1972. The value of c that was decided upon was 299,792,458 meters per second.
How could scientists have known that they had eventually arrived at the correct amount if they had been mistaken in the past? Why did they decide once and for all, to “fix” c? If they were already guessing, how could we know for sure what the actual truth is from days since that time?
If they thought they had to “fix” the definition of the meter, to correspond with the velocity of light, why didn’t they “fix” it to have the “rounded-off” units? of exactly 300,000,000 meters per second? even if the meter had to have been slightly adjusted to accommodate the new data? if even only for a “neat appearance”?
MemberFebruary 20, 2022 at 6:03 pm
I have sent 2 articles and you have possibility to give detailed comments on a basic level in relation to these articles. This could be leading to concrete discussions. Instead you only talk in very general terms and use terms like ‘lipstick on a pig’. Therefore the discussion leads nowhere.
There is an important difference between our theories in the fact that you only use density. Instead, I use particles moving in all directions. In one direction the flow is reduced by attenuation in abody, but not in opposite direction. This unbalance is the gravity in my opinion. On Earth more particles are moving down in relation moving upwards. This difference is the ether wind (11.2 km/sec), low in relation the speed of individual particles (c=300 000 km/sec). Therefore light travels down faster than up.
Einstein used time dilation by GRT as gravity potential divided by squared light speed. Instead of gravity potential I use minus sguared ether wind as the escape velocity equal to 11.2 km/sec near Earth and 5.47 km/ sec in a GPS satellite.
In SRT Einstein used time dilation by speed as minus squared speed plus square root afterwards. Instead I use minus squared ether wind plus division by 2. The factor of 2 is caused by satellites being stabilized only in direction towards Earth and therefore clocks are rotating in a plane transverse to direction towards Earth. Therefore we have to take an averaged value of a sqared cosine function and get 1/2. This is also easily checked since the satellite speed is 3.87 km/sec. No time dilation.
The same as Einstein but one model instead of 2. However, in GRT the interpretation is different, since my theory predicts en effect on 2-way light only in radial direction. One way of light is changed +-escape velocity. This in perfect agreement to GPS results.
These calculations are easily done.
With best regards from ____________ John-Erik
MemberFebruary 22, 2022 at 10:28 pm
“Instead you only talk in very general terms and use terms like ‘lipstick on a pig’. Therefore the discussion leads nowhere.”
No, the reason it’s going nowhere is that you don’t address the problem. I’ve already said the one single thing that needs to be said and you’re going round in circles so I have to say more about the one thing to get you to focus on it.
It’s not general to say you can’t explain interference with your model. It’s direct and concise statement of the problem. The rest of the words are to get you to focus on that one fact.
“Therefore light travels down faster than up.”
Oh, for the love of Mike! …here we go again!! — INTERFERENCE IS THE SUBJECT — STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS! PLEASE!!!
“It seems that you are not willing to discuss with me anymore. It is a pity, since there is an important distinction between our ideas that needs to be discussed.”
Actually I just focused on other things for a couple days. This is a very minor forum within the sphere of conversations I’m keeping up while trying to finish two papers and write a book.
…but yes, as you keep changing the subject I do feel very offput. Perhaps without saying it you’re wanting to give assent that it is a problem in your theory but you feel like there are pieces that are still recoverable regardless???
“In your theory you use a density concept instead.”
No, that was a decade ago. I now recognize it’s rigidity that is critical and an appropriate model will not work via the density concept, though eventually I’m sure it will play some role as well, but as a minority aspect of the mechanics instead of majority.
Most of the problems in relativity stem from the vast majority of people misunderstanding General relativity and it’s difference from special …and nobody even knowing how relativistic ether works.
If we can establish that you have a problem with interference, then we can move forward in looking at he other aspects of your theory and how they might be recovered because I can see that you do address some of the important experimental problems and oversights.
MemberFebruary 22, 2022 at 8:14 pm
It seems that yu are not willing to discuss with me anymore. It is a pity, since there is an important distinction between our ideas that needs to be discussed.
My idea is that etherons are attenuated in matter creating an unbalance between two opposite flows represented by fields. This unbalance creates an ether motion in radial direction and equal to the escape velocity. This velocity is the cause of gravity in my opinion.
In your theory you use a density concept instead. We should discuss these ideas more.
In both theories the destructive superposition is easily explained by assuming that changes in the ether (etherons moving in all directions) is extremely small in relation to the averege values in the ether. (The effect of that ether wind you can feel in your bottom just now.) This assumption implies also that the ether contains an enormous amount of energy. Therefore, we use the law of energy consevation in error by disregarding energy to and from the ether. This is very important.
I also demonstrated that the only proof of time dilation found in GPS by SRT plus GRT can instead be explained by only one model by the ether wind. The same fenomena as you easily can see by a simple calculation and just substitute a square root by the averege of a squred cosine function.
However, the interpreatations are different. RT indicates change in <i style=”font-weight: bold;”>one way light moving in all directions and my theory indicated a change in <i style=”font-weight: bold;”>two way light in radial direction only.
Think about this and come back.
With best regards from _____ John-Erik
MemberFebruary 23, 2022 at 12:19 pm
Your replay happened to be placed before the post by me, that you were responding to.
I regard light to be very, very small behavior changes on top of an ether with a very rich content of energy. Therefore, by comparison to water with height of waves very small in relation to the depth of water, light should also show destrutive superposition. I regard light as a pure wave phenomenon that we can describe without the use of particles. This does not exclude the possibility that ether must be described by etherons moving in all directions. We have used the law of energy conservation in error by disregarding energy to and from the ether.
Since the title we are discussing under is LIGHT we cannot avoiding also discussing ETHER and GRAVITY, since they are intimately connected on this basic level. I do not understand why you are limitted to destructive superposition.
Shiva and all
A galactic ether wind of 300 to 400 km/sec should easily be detected. Therefore, ether is entrained by Sun. However, an ether entrained by Sun must also be entrained by our planet (Tellus). Available ether wind in horizontal direction is between 0 and 0.46 km/sec. MMX is useless.
However, the ether is not entrained by a GPS satellite, due to a very small mass. So, an MMX equipment in a GPS satellite would detect a speed of 3.87 km/sec due to a second order Sagnac effect as a phase in the time domain.
However, this second order effect in 2-way light is also manifested as a second order Doppler effect in the frequency domain. And this effect is already observed, since this speed is slowing down clocks by 7.2 mirosec/day. Clock orientation is assumed to rotate in a plane transverse to Earth. This rotation reduces the effect by a factor equal to the mean of a squared cosine function giving 1/2.
The contemporary explanation emanates from the mistake, between 1881 and 1887, of assuming an effect in the transverse arm in MMX. This was inspired by particle thinking. Instead the wave model states that moving mirrors inside their own plane has no effect, since the ether is the reference. This error gave the same effect by taking the square root of a quantity ner 1.
Time dilation is just a cover up for a real Doppler effect. We do not need individual aging.
With best regards from _________________ John-Erik
MemberMarch 1, 2022 at 3:35 am
I have seen your explanation of light waves as alternating amounts of particles projecting in a ballistic sort of form where the wave nature is explained by the spacing between the particles alternative between greater and lesser spacing.
If this is still the basis of your theory of light, the point still stands that it cannot produce destructive interference, therefore it CANNOT be a tenable theory of reality.
Your statements about water depth are irrelevant and non-functional since destructive interference happens on tiny waves at the very surface of an ocean miles deep.
“I regard light as a pure wave phenomenon that we can describe without the use of particles.”
From this apparently conflicting statement, it seems you’re now saying I’ve misinterpreted your current opinion and current theory. A “pure wave” intimates a non-physical idea of waves and fields which run entirely counter to the very nature of the primary arguments of the natural philosophy society as I’ve understood it.
It’s a mainstream idea that allows waves to just exist without any explanation for the action, (magic) and in-fact claims that an action occurs without anything performing the action… like saying a “jog” is a real thing in reality without the need for “joggers” to perform “going for a jog.”
1) If you are now rejecting the ballistic particle model of light waves you’ve represented elsewhere: Please state only that here now clearly.
2) If you now espouse mainstream ideas of fields and mechanics-free waves, then please also clearly state that here now.
“Available ether wind in horizontal direction is between 0 and 0.46 km/sec. MMX is useless.”
Presuming on the front end that there is no toroidal vortex of ether around the earth as directly and unambiguously represented by the primary communicators of Maxwell’s equations (FitzGerald, Heaviside, and Lodge) is useless nonsense.
Thus simply taking the measurements of the actual experiment with the knowledge of how it works gives a north-south bias in the direction for the wind of around 8-12 km/sec which precisely matches the tens of thousands of experiments done by Dayton Miller.
However, under a Lorentzian regime it represents a much larger speed which is a longer explanation I will put off for a different time, but suffice it to say that you are neglecting the coefficient of ether drag for air. (predicted by Fresnel, proven by Fizeau)
All Michelson experiments in vacuum should be null, even in lorentz-poincare relativistic ether.
MemberMarch 1, 2022 at 10:02 am
Destructive superposition is when 2 oscillations are in opposite phase. You have not motivated your opinion in detail, so I canot see your point against that.
My idea is Fatio’s idea with etherons moving in all directions. Inside a gravitating body the flow is attenuated. So, the number of particles moving away from the body is slightly reduced and gravity is a difference between a pushing and a pulling force. Details in articles on CNPS, GSJournal, RG and Academia.
Light is waves or wave packets but not particles. No energy quanta, no light quanta only ether quanta in the form of etherons. Light is a behavior described by waves or wave packets.
Yes, saying that light is waves means that we must have a wavor.
- Light is waves not particles Planck’s constant is derved by observing matter in the form of electrons from a photodetector. Planck’s constant is therefore an electron property, not a light property.
- Quantization of energy and of light is an illusion. Quantization exists only in the ether, in accordance to Fatio’s 300 year old quantum theory of gravity.
MMX was a failure not fullfilling the prediction. This means gaining no result at all and gaining a zero result.
Take a look at my discussion THE FALLING ETHER under ETHER.
With best regards from _____________ John-Erik
MemberMarch 1, 2022 at 11:33 pm
Yes when they are in opposite phase. If you have projecting particles as the reason for the wave phenomena, there is no mechanical reasoning for opposite phase waves to cancel each other out.
Though this visualization should have the peak of a wave aligned with the maximum compression point, it seems to have gotten everything else right when I skimmed it: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class9th-physics-india/in-in-sound-india/in-in-longitudinal-waves-speed-of-sound/v/speed-of-sound
Here is another discussion on waves:
When I saw one of your discussions on light waves, it indicated a ballistic-like model. (Or projected medium if you like) When we discussed it above I mentioned this idea. Your idea of light as I gathered from your materials is not a typical wave – where the medium remains stationary while the waves propagate through it.
Your idea of a wave is that particles (as expressed elsewhere) <font face=”inherit”>move at the speed of the wave and the bunching of these moving particles or “etherons” is what creates a waving phenomena.</font>
<font face=”inherit”>This idea is what will produce the “medium density” (upon superposition of waves 180 degrees out of phase) that we discussed earlier. It will not </font>produce<font face=”inherit”> destructive interference and this is the idea I’m saying is unworkable.</font>
Projecting substance of etherons or otherwise describing particles moving at wave speed with a bunching phenomena, is NOT normal wave phenomena and will not function like a mechanical wave. It will not have destructive interference.<font face=”inherit”>.</font>
MemberMarch 2, 2022 at 6:31 pm
…no mechanical reasoning… Why?
The references are longitudinan forces and light instead contains 2 transverse forces.
Remember that the ether is etherons moving in all directions (c) and light is just a behavior of the ether many many orders of magnitude smaller than the mean. Light is oscillations and ether is a small unbalace in the originally spherically symmetry. The unbalace gives a mean velocity many orders of magnitude (11.2 km/s on Earth surface in vertical direction) smaller than c ( 300 000 km/sec).
In Pioneer anomaly light moves with c-v out and c+v back (v=escape velocity from Sun). Mean velocity is c^2-v^2 changing with range and explaining the anomaly as an illusion. You know the escape velocity from Sun and the calculation is easily done.
…unworkable… No, 2 opposite effects add up to zero.
Best ___ John-Erik
MemberMarch 9, 2022 at 4:51 am
Simply saying -1+1=0 is not a description of physical phenomena.
When we associate the numbers with something real where -1 represents sparse particle bunching and +1 represents dense, the answer of zero is garbage. Math must be mapped to reality properly and is meaningless without the map. Math can represent things that DO NOT occur in reality. (any videogame can show you that…. it’s all math)
If you do not give a mechanical reasoning then your theory has just as much magical thinking and presumption as the mainstream without the millions of people checking it for error.
Longitudinal or transverse is irrelevant. Destructive interference needs mechanism, not simple insistence. That’s faith and religion, not science. Real science requires reason.
If your theory of waves is a bunching in the timing of particles, the higher and lower levels of particles can average out to give us a bright spot on a surface, but if light is created by the particles striking the surface then you either cannot explain, or need to explain in far more detail how sparse particle bunching and dense particle bunching transmit light to a surface but moderate particle bunching somehow does not.
Currently, it’s complete nonsense. Labeling it with numbers hides the nonsense. Such numbers jiggering is numerology, not scientific progress. (a very common habit of the past century)
MemberMarch 10, 2022 at 9:51 pm
You must see the difference between longitudinal and transverse.
I have provided articles and you have not pointed out any error on detailed level. You only talk about what you do not like and what you believe to be missing in very general terms. This discussion is useless if you will not take up some inconsistency on detailed level.
MemberMarch 10, 2022 at 11:13 pm
Well yes, I can actually see an argument -not a good one- for transverse but it seems like you’re just moving the goalposts.
That wasn’t the demonstration I saw nor was it the subject. My point stands about the original demonstration you give for how light behaves. (bunching)
So now you’re intimating that, instead of bunching, it’s a direction of motion of the particle that is cancelled out. It changes the problem but far from solves it.
The extension of this new claim is that particles striking a surface have to be wiping back and forth across it to transmit light but if that wiping motion is cancelled then the light isn’t transmitted. IE light particles (or whatever you’re calling them) striking a surface at exactly a 90 degree angle should NOT transmit light. This is the only way destructive interference could work in this new claim.
Unfortunately this means that the cancellation would make the normal intensity of a wave flicker at the frequency of the wave. It doesn’t. Furthermore it would make it such that various interference experiments would give a completely different fringe pattern based upon angles of incidence since a wiping motion of ballistic particles is just a change in angles of incidence.
This new goalpost that we’ve now traversed, also leads to complete failure of a ballistic theory.
I’m sorry but there are a hundred other problems for ballistic light beyond these I’ve mentioned. I wanted to keep it simple and direct instead of touching on the other problems. It’s just not workable and moving the goalposts wont save it.
Ballistic light absolutely, positively will not work within experimental record.
MemberMarch 12, 2022 at 7:00 pm
You have not understood my model. It is not a ballistic model. It is just waves not particles.
Ether is ether particles that are neutrino-like particles moving in all direction penetrating all material. They are not bunching.
Gravity is caused by attenuating ether particles by matter. So, fewer particles are leaving a body in relation to the number of arriving particles. This causes an ether wind in radial direction (falling ether) and this fact creates gravity. Fatio’s 300 years old model of quantum gravity.
Falling ether is equal to the escape velocity. So, falling ether (from the Sun) changes 2-way speed of light by ether wind. (Instead of Einstein’s change of 1-way speed due to gravity potential).
The Pioneer anomaly is therefore an illusion due to increased 2-way light speed.
The Big Bang theory is an illusion due to falling ether and not caused by motion of celestial bodies.
Light is a behavior of ether transverse to light motion. We know little about light.
With regards ____ John-Erik
OrganizerMarch 12, 2022 at 9:57 pm
If what you say here is the truth, “<b style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Ether is ether particles that are neutrino-like particles moving in all direction penetrating all material.”
Then how does the “falling ether” create gravity?
If the “falling ether” does exist, does it accelerate towards the earth or other massive celestial objects?
Also, is the “falling ether” precisely equal to the escape velocity, every step of the way? The same way that a falling object would equal the escape velocity? How would the “falling ether” factor in the acceleration within its free-fall?
OrganizerMarch 12, 2022 at 9:58 pm
Sorry again about the “codes”, I can’t seem to prevent them! lol
MemberMarch 13, 2022 at 5:08 pm
Ether transfers gravity. Therefore has mass. So, ether behaves like mass and has the same escape velocity (changing with range).
I have described details in articles on this blog. I repeat some here:
Regards _____ John-Erik
MemberMarch 13, 2022 at 5:15 pm
Codes: try to write in normal font and convert afterwards.
MemberMarch 14, 2022 at 7:25 pm
No I never said that.
…no shifting…no medium…
No, I never said that. Two wrong statements. Ether is the medium.
…ether not related to light…
No, I never said that. I said that ether transmits gravity and light.
I suggest that you read the 3 articles I was sending lately. Then you can define more detailed and interesting questions or remarks. There are models for ether wind and gravity. Unfortunately we have no detailed model for light and we are not understanding the wave model. I hope that we then can have a better dialog.
With best regards from ________ John-Erik
MemberMarch 13, 2022 at 11:09 pm
So you’re saying that light is not mechanical or explicable in any way, it just IS, like most people teach in relativity classes today?
There’s no shifting back and forth (round and round) of any substance in a transverse wave and there’s no bunching of any kind in a longitudinal wave. There is no medium whatsoever doing anything at all. There’s just waves existing on their own with no explanation other than they simply exist, just like light in today’s explanation
Please answer the extended and detailed question above before touching on anything else.
Your idea of aether (completely unrelated to light) is some sort of particles in space moving in all directions and then because matter casts a shadow for these particle streams. That shadowing effect leads to more particles moving toward than away and this mediates gravity.
Therefore there is no luminiferous aether in your view, only gravitational, in your view. Correct?
MemberMarch 14, 2022 at 7:31 pm
Sorry I happened somehow to write above your post.
MemberMarch 15, 2022 at 7:50 am
Ah yes, that is a little strange. This bulletin board software has a few kinks. David may kick me out soon, so sorry if I exit the conversation unexpectedly. Jerry knows how to get a hold of me.
Okay can you give me the shortest roadmap to the features of your model of light in particular? Specifically the issue with light is the one where there was an infeasibility I can’t let go but if that’s something you’re not married to and you would like to still support the aether, then I think we can come to an agreement on forward development.
I actually would like to collaborate with this community but if here is something that strongly falsifies an idea I simply cannot let it go until it is worked out.
It could just be that I’ve totally confused your model with someone else’s because I thought you had this idea of ballistic particles that were bunched by their timing alone as the method of wave mechanism.
So please send me your shortest and most concise bullet list or something on your model of light. Thanks
MemberMarch 15, 2022 at 9:58 pm
My theory is in 2 parts:
- 300 hundred years ago Newton disregarded a model for quantum gravity presented to him by his friend Fatio. The ether was explained by particles moving in all directions providing a mechanism for gravity (and light is a wave behavior of that ether). This would easily been observed if he had seen that his mathematical derivation from Kepler’s laws had a mathematical demand on perfect spherical symmetry in a gravitating body. So, Newton’s law must be generalized to be usable in practical physics with not perfect form. PIONEER ANOMALY AND BIG BANG ARE ILLUSIONS.
- 150 years ago Potier said that light must take a longer way in the reference arm in Michelson-Morley’s tests due to the transverse ether wind. This is wrong according to the wave model, since coherent systems define wave front orientation (vector c) – not not total motion (vector c+v) – to be constant. THE MOTIVATIONS FOR TIME DILATION AND LORENTZ TRANSFORM ARE ILLUSIONS – GALILEAN TRANSFORM INSTEAD.
More details are found in my post 3 days ago containing 3 links.
With best regards from _____________ John-Erik
MemberMarch 15, 2022 at 10:30 pm
- Pioneer: 2-way light speed changes due to ether motion (the escape velocity from Sun).
Big Bang: Instead of body motion (escape velocity) as ether motion near body.
- Clocks: Ether wind changes clock frequency due to a mechanism in side clocks.
One model instead of 2 theories of relativity.
With best regards from __ John-Erik
- Pioneer: 2-way light speed changes due to ether motion (the escape velocity from Sun).
MemberMarch 16, 2022 at 12:30 am
Okay we’re still at an impasse on the mechanism for light. It seems you are focused more on gravity and leaving wave mechanics to others. Unfortunately this leaves a huge problem.
Some places we do agree is that:
1) Light speed is not isotropic. It is faster in space.
2) Matter causes a slowing of light
3) Pioneer anomaly is caused by these changes in light speed
4) Big bang and galactic red shift are an illusion
5) Aether is moving rapidly in all directions (however, in my theory not in straight lines for long distances)
6) Aether state causes clock changes (not spacetime coords… but I also do not require a wind)
Places we disagree:
1) Aether sinks and sources are not part part of my view (*though there is minute amounts of it occurring in perfect balance)
2) Radial aether wind is not necessary to explain gravity
3) “Coherent systems define wavefront orientation…”
This is an aspect of relativity that is garbage. It doesn’t fit with mechanical wave theory and requires all the baggage of 4D spacetime to work mathematically.
The apparent vector of a coherent beam without reference to the frame of the medium is nonsense and illusion. It causes all sorts of problems with doppler and the speed of light under the “wiping” condition. (plane waves striking a surface barely off the 90 deg angle)
So yes, there is an illusion created by Lorentz… He did it on purpose. But there is real time dilation in the mechanical wave system of Lorentz before Einstein ever got involved. It’s Minkowski and spacetime that confuse everything. Einstein eventually admitted the need for an aether.
There’s real mechanics developed by Heaviside and Kelvin to describe all the how’s and why’s of time dilation and length contraction under a physical wave system in a medium that conforms to Maxwell’s equations. Those developments and conversations have just been lost to history and forgotten about.
Nothing in present science needs to change dramatically other than the understanding of what the math represents. Time dilation IS real, and apparent time contraction is also therefore a real effect.
That’s where it all goes wrong. There is an “anti-relativity” that is automatically present when you understand Lorentz-Poincare relativistic aether.
“Anti-relativity” = There is also apparent time contraction and length dilation. (via frame comparison) And this perspective is determined by one’s motion with repsect to the preferred frame.
General relativity already infers this!! That’s clocks in space don’t ALSO think clocks on earth are running faster too. That irrational nonsense comes from a lack of preferred frame… GR IS A PREFERRED FRAME THEORY.
All the weird and crazy logic problems are solved by embracing anti-relativity that comes automatically from a preferred frame.
None of this actually contradicts Einstein’s later work… it’s only Minkowski’s trash that is the problem and it’s only there because he died abruptly after Einstein ridiculed him and then everyone jumped Einstein’s case in public papers about it.
MemberMarch 16, 2022 at 7:35 pm
I gave 2 important errors in physics 300 and 150 years ago and you gave no comments on both.
You seem not to have read my 3 articles that gave links to lately. Doing that would improve our dialog.
You stated agreement, but 5) is not correct: Ether particles move in all directions with high speed. However, ether itself is constituted by an average value of all particles and therefore adjusted by attenuation in matter. This unbalance is gravity or ether wind.
You stated disagreement, and I take up only one of the points, namely 3). You said it was very important that I was wrong by stating that “coherent systems define wave front orientation and not total motion” – defining c and not c+v.
A flat wave front, parallel to a flat mirror, is still parallel after reflection. This is independent of changing ether wind inside the planes of wave fronts and of mirror. So, ether wind inside the wave fronts is irrelevant in coherent systems. Moving our test equipment inside the plane of the mirrors does not change light behavior, since light is defined in relation to the ether. Coherent systems, based on phase, are defining constant wave fronts in collimators, detecting constant wave fronts in telescopes and therefore interferometers also operate with constant wave fronts. NO WAVE FRONT TILTING IN MMX (TRANSVERSE ARM) AND NOT IN STELLAR ABERRATION EITHER.
No effect in reference arm means no theoretical argument for time dilation. No empirical argument either, since clock behavior can be explained inside the clocks. One model instead of SRT plus GRT.
With best regards from ______________ John-Erik
MemberMarch 20, 2022 at 10:27 pm
8 days ago I gave you my ideas about 2 very important errors in physics 300 and 150 years old.
Do you have any comments?
Regards ______ John-Erik
MemberMarch 23, 2022 at 2:59 am
Yeah sorry for the long delay, along with a lot of crazy events in my personal life, I also had to fit in an important event. Some of the progenitors of modern science and technology were listening (one of them a Nobel laureate who told me his work is paralleling my own)
Here’s that presentation I captured on my channel if you’re interested: https://youtu.be/jDXMS7mCqzw
Let me see if I can catch up a little and get back to you
MemberMarch 23, 2022 at 3:23 am
“Ether particles move in all directions with high speed. However, ether itself is constituted by an average value of all particles and therefore adjusted by attenuation in matter. This unbalance is gravity or ether wind.”
Our theories are analogies at this point but the specifics are different. Have you read any of my papers? (I’ve read yours) https://philpeople.org/profiles/shiva-meucci
In my theory the average vorticity of the aether is the cause. Aether is in motion, but in very short range turbulence-like effects. It’s based in Kelvin’s vortex atom model to a certain extend, but instead of there being particles flying around through emptiness, it’s a super-rigid structure whirling around and the focal points of that motion are matter.
This comes from reversing the assumptions of Fresnel’s equation for wave speed in a substance. (refraction) Instead of increased aether desnsity, it’s decreased rigidity caused by vorticity. (with near or beyond light-speed rotations occurring at ultra small scales.
This is what is described in my papers above, but I also link it with neuroscience and computer engineering as well as advancements in information theory which result in a new theoretical framework for consciousness.
“A flat wave front, parallel to a flat mirror, is still parallel after reflection. This is independent of changing ether wind inside the planes of wave fronts and of mirror.”
Here you are deviating from known mechanical wave physics which is something In strongly adhere to. Wave mechanics are based upon the stationary or average location (when turbulent) of the medium in question. Thus, when you drop a pebble in a placid river, the center of the circle moves alongside the riverbank but retains a circular look upon the moving frame of the river.
There are TONS of confusions given by modern EM engineering and things we’ve learned how to make work like phased arrays and it takes a long time with a person to teach them to re-integrate the mechanical wave consequences that have been lost in the past century of signal analysis.
“So, ether wind inside the wave fronts is irrelevant in coherent systems.”
Here’s the major deviation. For my theory ALL phenomena are just motions of the aether or cavitations in it. You’ve expressed something above that makes it such hatn you are NOT treating light as a mechanical wave. This is a crucial point of classical wave mechanics. The idea of a wave without a medium is COMPETE CRAZY NONSENSE.
It’s been accepted for over 100 years as part of a religious-like belief system, but it’s pure superstitious magical thinking. A behavior of equilibrium dynamics between components of a substance, cannot exist on its own. An action cannot happen without an actor. A “jog” cannot exist without a “jogger.” It’s pure (but mainstream) BATSHIT INSANITY.
“Coherent systems, based on phase, are defining constant wave fronts in collimators, detecting constant wave fronts in telescopes and therefore interferometers also operate with constant wave fronts. NO WAVE FRONT TILTING IN MMX (TRANSVERSE ARM) AND NOT IN STELLAR ABERRATION EITHER.”
Wait, what? Are you denying that stellar aberration occurs? A coherent wave can be created in a medium. Phased arrays of ultrasonic emitters create directionalized sound because of he organizational effect on the medium itself creates a nonlinear situation vaguely reminiscent of solitons.
However, in an air wind that beam will be bent instead of straight, and in an aether theory a laser will be bent in a wind.
The Michelson was NOT NULL, and neither were the tens of thousands of experiments by dayton miller. The reason for the replication problems is the fact that he replicators don’t understand the theory behind the design and don’t understand the optics correctly.
Only Michelson and Miller use white light which requires exact arm length matching and they always do it in open air. THESE TWO THINGS ARE REQUIRED for an interferometer to be non-null in Lorentzian Aether. (this is a very long discussion I’m shortening immensely)
MemberMarch 23, 2022 at 6:33 pm
Flat wave fronts are hitting a parallel flat mirror in all points at the same time and also leave at the same time. So, parallel after reflection and ether wind inside the wave fronts is not relevant. This is self evident according to the wave model based on phase. In the wave model only phase is relevant and phase does not change with ether wind inside the wave fronts. So, v is added to c without changing c. No effect of ether wind in transverse arm of MMX and not in stellar aberration either. We must think in wave fronts not in particles.
Vector sum describes direction of max amplitude in a beam, but in coherent and phase based systems only wave fronts (no max) are important and describing wave front normal or ray that is relevant due to phase. So, ray must be used in coherent systems like star light in telescopes where detection is based on phase. c and v are different and cannot always be added together. When you cannot see max intensity you must detect wave front normal.
No, I am not ignoring the medium, but you have not understood that many, many very, very small particles in the ether is the medium and light is just a behavior of that ether. So, light is described by waves only and particles are needed only in the ether model. No photons. No tilting in reference arm in MMX and not in the stellar aberration. The illusion of tilting is the cause of the twin paradox and time dilation. Quanta in etherons but not in light and not in energy.
No, I am not ignoring stellar aberration. I have said that observing moving light means that you must compensate for own motion and that compensation is the stellar aberration. Astronomical observations with light must be compensated not just for positional vector (Copernic) in relation to Sun but also for velocity vector in relation to Sun.
Pulsar aberration of 4.2 microsec exist in the frame of Earth but not in the frame of Sun. This depends on change in motion (not in position). This is Sagnac effect and can be united with ether theory.
We have a bad understanding of the wave model and the transition from particles (Newton) to waves (Maxwell) is not yet finished.
Regards from ______ John-Erik
MemberMarch 27, 2022 at 10:21 am
What do you think about my post in March 23?
I have said that we are confused by errors as old as 300 and 150 years back in time. See earlier contributions from me. Waiting for answer.
MemberMarch 28, 2022 at 1:23 pm
The illusions of time dilation, Big Bang and Pioneer anomaly
A classical mechanism in atomic clocks explains the behavior of atomic clocks in the global positioning system (GPS), by the state of motion of the ether, inside the clocks. Therefore, the concept dilation of time is a not needed and is just an illusion caused by dilation of clocks, instead. False support for time dilation has been given by an assumption, of a transverse ether wind to cause wave front tilting in stellar aberration and in the reference arm in Michelson-Morley’s tests (MMX).
An explanation to radial gravity by a radial ether wind, equal to the escape velocity explains Big Bang and Pioneer anomaly, by motions of the ether – not of light. Newton’s refusal to use Fatio’s hypothesis has relevance for the mistake of not observing the radial ether wind and thereby also missing an interpretation of gravity.
Atomic clocks produce frequencies, that are controlled by the frequencies in the electron’s orbiting. However, electron speed can depend on the ether wind and if the ether wind is falling inside electron’s orbiting plane than the electron motion has a component parallel to the ether wind. So, during one half of the orbiting period, this component is in the direction of the ether wind and in opposite direction during the other half period. The electron’s speed is therefore changing during each orbiting period. Therefore, the ether wind has a reducing effect of second order, in the clock frequency.
In MMX tests we see a comparable phenomenon, since the ether wind changes light speed in proportion to 1+v/c and 1-v/c, in 2 opposite directions. This reduces the 2-way light speed in proportion to 1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> in MMX. We can expect an effect of the same type in atomic clocks. However, the ether wind affects only in one dimension of 2, in the orbit. So, it seems reasonable to assume an effect in atomic clocks to be half the effect in MMX. (We can also explain this idea by regarding that this component in the speed changes with time as a cosine function. So, effective value in speed is max value divided by 2<sup>1/2</sup> so we get a factor of 1/2 in resulted effect). Therefore, we have reason to assume an effect of ether wind equal to 1-v<sup>2</sup>/2c<sup>2</sup> in atomic clocks for an ether wind inside the plan of orbiting.
The ether wind can also fall transverse to the orbiting plane. Perhaps this ether wind also has the same effect of 1-v<sup>2</sup>/2c<sup>2</sup>, since we have not observed clock frequency to depend on clock orientation. However, this problem is not analyzed in detail here, and therefore we can have alternative explanations on this point.
We have found that the relation Δf/f=-v<sup>2</sup>/2c<sup>2</sup> can explain the same effect as SRT (theory of special relativity) in GPS clocks. However, we assume v to represent an ether wind due to clock motion instead of clock motion itself (equal to 3.87 km/sec) in SRT. But the same ether wind dependency can also be used to explain the same prediction as GRT (theory of general relativity). We can see this by using the escape velocity to give the same prediction as GRT. We use the escape velocity as a radial ether wind of 11.2 km/sec near Earth and 5.5 km/sec in a GPS satellite. But it is now important to regard that agreement to GRT is valid in radial direction only, since ether wind is a vector and gravity potential (used in GRT) is a scalar. Another important difference is that GRT predicts a change in 1-way light speed and ether wind indicates the same value to predict an effect on 2-way light speed.
We have found that the radial ether wind can explain, with only one model, the same effect as SRT and GRT can explain together, in atomic clocks. The misunderstood behavior of atomic clocks is not the only false support for time dilation. Another false support is the aberration in pulsar signals of 4.2 microsec in time of arrival of 2 signals from 2 synchronized signals received in 2 points separated by the diameter of Earth. This anomaly disappears when velocity vector – not positional vector – is changed from the frame of the Earth, to the frame of the Sun, with a difference of 10<sup>-4</sup> times c. (It takes 42 milliseconds for light to pass between the 2 receivers.) Therefore, pulsar aberration is a Sagnac effect, and can therefore be united with the existence of an ether. The hypothesis of time dilation is not needed.
The illusion of time dilation
If light is focused into a beam, we can detect the direction of max intensity (beam) by the vector sum c+v, detectable based on amplitude. However, in light from a fix star we cannot see max intensity and must instead detect based on phase comparison in a coherent system and thereby find the normal to the wave fronts (ray) instead. To see this, we can regard wave fronts parallel to a flat mirror, and find that they are parallel also after reflection, independent of the value of the ether wind falling inside the wave fronts. This component in the ether wind is therefore irrelevant in coherent systems. Therefore, in coherent systems light should be described as a wave vector c plus just the component in ether wind, v, that is parallel to c. This direction (ray) is relevant in coherent systems. This fact means that ether wind inside the wave fronts has no effect in coherent systems, since light moves in relation to ether – not to equipment. We have missed the distinction between beam and ray. So, no effect of ether wind in stellar aberration and not in MMX transverse arm either. This is an important error, unobserved for 150 years and indicating that we do not understand the wave model. So, this confusion means that the transition from particles to waves in light is not yet finished.
Astronomical observations, based on moving light, must be corrected for observer’s velocity vector in relation to our sun. This is analogous to the compensation for position vector in relation to the Sun according to Copernic. This velocity compensation is the stellar aberration. So, transverse ether wind does not tilt a wave front and it was an important error to introduce this idea between 1882 and 1887. So, light does not take a longer way in the ether’s frame in MMX, transverse arm. Light takes the same way in the ether frame instead, and hits therefore a changing point on the detector. This mistake played an important role in the false introduction of time dilation and Lorentz transform.
The radial ether wind
Newton disregarded the hypothesis sent to him by Fatio, based on fast and small neutrino-like etherons moving in all directions. If we assume matter to absorb a small amount of these particles, we can see that an ether wind, blowing in negative radial direction, is produced, since a reduced number of etherons are leaving the gravitating body. The force of gravity indicates mass in the ether and ether should therefore behave like matter. So, an ether wind equal to the escape velocity is thinkable.
The Pioneer anomaly
The radial ether wind from the Sun can explain the Pioneer anomaly as we can see by using the escape velocity as ether wind. We find that 2-way speed of light is increasing with range in relation to the Sun and this fact can create an illusion of a decreased speed in the space station. This effect corresponds to a Doppler effect of about 4 Hertz in the 2.3 GHz carrier, between 40 and 70 AU (astronomical units).
The cosmological red shift
We suppose a celestial body surrounded by a radial ether wind, and an observer not moving in relation to that body. The ether wind causes a blue shift, in frequency 1+v/c, when ether motion is towards the source and a red shift, 1-v/c, when ether moves away from the observer. So, observed frequency becomes f(1+v/c)(1-v/c)=f(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>). Therefore, a second order red shift is produced in 1-way light. This means that cosmological red shift is caused by a moving ether – not by a moving body. No Big Bang.
Newton said that he did not need the hypothesis sent to him by Fatio. This was a great mistake 300 years ago, and Newton seems to be confused by mathematics, since his law was derived from Kepler’s law based on pure mathematics. Newton did not see that his mathematical law demanded perfect spherical symmetry in a gravitating body, since nature is hiding this fact by producing approximate spherical forms in large bodies. This means that applying Newton’s law to physical bodies needs a modification of the law to make the law independent of spherical symmetry. So, we must apply the law to small volume elements and then integrate over volume in order to escape from the demand for spherical symmetry. This means that all parts of the body contribute to gravity in proportion to their densities, and also that the modified version can be united with Fatio’s model.
· Bound electrons in atomic clocks are sensitive to the ether wind due to classical mechanics inside the clocks. This means that one ether-based model explains the same effect as two relativity-based models in GPS clocks. And we do not need time dilation.
· A wrong assumption between 1882 and 1887 that light must take a longer way in the reference arm in MMX is in conflict with the wave model stating that light moves unchanged in the frame of the ether independent of motion of the MMX equipment transverse to light (no wave front tilting). This mistake gave us a false support for dilation of time and individual aging.
· Newton’s disregarding of Fatio’s idea was an important error and had the important effect that gravity has not been explained by a radial ether wind. This also means that we could not see that Big Bang and Pioneer anomaly are illusions caused by ether motions.
· Behavior of atomic clocks is due to classical mechanics – no time dilation.
· Gravity is caused by an ether wind.
· MMX is without wave front tilting.
· Stellar aberration is caused by observer motion and not by wave front tilting.
· Cosmological red shift is caused by ether motion. No Big Bang.
· Pioneer anomaly is caused by changing 2-way light speed due to ether motion.
We have not understood the wave model for light and the transition from Newton’s light particles to Maxwell’s light waves is not yet completed. More details regarding the confusion in modern physics are available in the article The wave-particle dilemma in light<sup>1</sup> available (after demand; copy right) on: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Erik-Persson/research
<sup>1</sup>J E Persson, PHYSICS ESSAYS 34, 2 (2021)
MemberApril 1, 2022 at 4:47 am
“So, parallel after reflection and ether wind inside the wave fronts is not relevant.”
This is not necessarily true in mechanical waves. If one considers different frames such as a river and the riverbank the reflection is dependent upon the frame of the mirror. there’s something called moving mirror aberration.
“This is self evident according to the wave model based on phase. In the wave model only phase is relevant and phase does not change with ether wind inside the wave fronts.”
Simply thinking about phase is NOT SUFFICIENT when considering mechanical waves. The doppler effect, for instance can be created two ways in a mechanical situation. Either they are inscribed into the medium closer together or further apart, or for someone moving wrt the medium they can be encountered more or less frequently. Wavelength and frequency are not a singular thing in a mechanical wave.
Phase relationships are relative to a single peak, yet the angle of incidence can be changed by the motion of the medium, this change can also results in changes to wavelength. (they call it relativistic doppler shift)
“In the wave model only phase is relevant and phase does not change with ether wind inside the wave fronts. So, v is added to c without changing c.”<div>
What c and What c? Where is the consideration of the medium??? Speaking about a wave model necessitates speaking about a medium. The belief that waves can exist without a medium is literally mentally handicapped. It’s mainstream and it’s stupid beyond any idiotic thing ever believed before. A wave is a disturbance of a collection of things with competing restorative forces. It is a disturbance of the equilibrium and CANNOT EXIST without a medium any more than an ocean wave can exist without the ocean. The belief that a behavior is a object is MORONIC. the fact that many people believe it makes no difference. It’s a verb not a noun!
So, again, you can’t just consider phase independent of the motion and most importantly, size, according to a specific frame of reference. When a mechanical wave is projected into a wind at an angle to that wind it is both bent and shortened in a way that will alter phase relationships.
This is irrefutable simple wave mechanics
“Vector sum describes direction of max amplitude in a beam, but in coherent and phase based systems only wave fronts (no max) are important and describing wave front normal or ray that is relevant due to phase”
You’re getting lost in mathematical abstractions. There’s a difference between theory and lab and you’re too disconnected from the real world effects because mathematics sometimes abstracts things too far.
A coherent beam of a wave (which can be done with ultrasound”) which is shot across a crosswind will be bent. It will NOT be straight. There are many other considerations that come in to play at other angles.
This is just wave mechanics, but if you you rely on thinks like simple vectors you’re going to miss things like curves.
“No, I am not ignoring the medium, but you have not understood that many, many very, very small particles in the ether is the medium and light is just a behavior of that ether”
That’s luminiferous ether from its inception. Mechanical waves are a behavior of a medium with restorative forces. I hope you mean just normal waving and not that weird semi-ballistic model I saw. Now I’m not sure if it was yours or someone else’s. Since we argued about it I was sure it was yours, now I’m confused whose it is. Regardless, it won’t work because it can’t create interference.
“So, light is described by waves only and particles are needed only in the ether model. No photons. No tilting in reference arm in MMX and not in the stellar aberration.”
You’ve got some really weird disconnect here in the way you are stating it. Ether as a medium, has waves in it, these are light in ether theory.
Photons are an abstraction from Einstein that are useful but descend from him have a pseudo-ballistic view circa 1905 which he later corrected.
Stellar aberration was literally part of aether theory for god’s sake the evidence for stellar aberration is ultra-voluminous and irrefutable!
You can create a Michelson interferometer for waves in the air and if you use a highly coherent sound source, you would have to aim it forward of the sound reflective surface out to the side of a wind. This is just like aiming ahead of the spot on a distant riverbank you want to arrive at when you are swimming.
This is normal wave mechanics. You are just confused about coherent light and all the relativity nonsense has made it so that you follow the mathematical forms that ignore mechanical wave effects. Mechanical waves MUST CONSIDER MEDIUM.
(and there’s no such ting as non-mechanical waves, the distinction is superstitious bullshit)
“The illusion of tilting is the cause of the twin paradox and time dilation. Quanta in etherons but not in light and not in energy.”
Here forward you start to make some semblance of sense again but it doesn’t fit with prior statements.
I’ve been teaching there’s an illusion in SR for nearly 10 years now and you’re the first to echo the word directly back to me, but the message seems garbled by the telephone game already. The illusion is isotropic constancy.
If you are saying that a spherical wave can allow you to capture its reflection at a point different from the one you think you are capturing, then sure I agree there is problem with angle of incidence from a spherical light source in a moving medium. If you tried to shine a laser at 90deg to wind in a michelson experiment with a very strong wind, the laser would miss the mirror altogether. You’d have to aim it forward because the beam would bend with the wind.
As for you etherons… I’m not sure what purpose they are supposed to serve. I’ll but that the apparent quantization is only in the medium and not in the particle model which is just an abstraction just like a phoNon.
“This is Sagnac effect and can be united with ether theory.”
Only if you consider a localized frame of reference defined by a medium or the average of he medium’s position. If you’re wanting to point out that we defined a local frame in previous considerations aberration, sure I can get on board with that.
“We have a bad understanding of the wave model and the transition from particles (Newton) to waves (Maxwell) is not yet finished.”
This is weird. Yes, I agree that having waves without a medium is stupid beyond repair. I also agree that the only division of the medium of aether hat makes much sense is at the plank scale, but there are certainly other ways to divide a continuous substance, especially with things like laminar flow where the shearing divisions are pretty obvious.
So the wave model of light was just fine until all the 1905 confusion where quanta were discovered, but quanta are an energy amount that doesn’t have physical reality. you can treat phoNons as quantum mechanical discrete entities but everyone knows they are energy amounts relative to he medium, not anything physically real and separate from the medium.
As for the paper you included, I’ve already read a lot of your papers. I’m not reading another paper by you until you demonstrate you’ve read some of mine.
MemberApril 1, 2022 at 8:18 pm
You seem not to understand all I say, since you point out that I cannot have light without an ether and not phase without motion. You do not have to ‘correct’ what I already have said. I regard ether as an entity and light as a behavior of that entity and also that phase is a part in describing motion of a surface.
…beam will be bent… Why do you point out what I said, namely that real motion will be bent (BEAM) but not apparent motion in coherent systems (RAY). You do not regard this important distinction between beam and ray, that was missed between 1882 and 1887. To cover up for this error the Lorentz factor was invented, resulting in the twin paradox.
Again, you point out that we have evidences for stellar aberration. I have not denied that, but I regard the cause to be observer motion and not wave front tilting. How could you miss that?
No, I am not talking about spherical wave fronts.
In my opinion we have no quanta in light. An illusion based on observing electrons (matter). No quanta in energy (observing electrons). But we have quanta in ether entities, (particles, etherons) as suggested in Fatio’s quantum gravity 300 years ago.
…wave model was fine… No, the wave model is not yet fine, but very, very wrong, since the large gaps in our understanding of light waves are covered up with absurd particle based ideas resulting in individual aging.
I agree to your statement that I should read something from you. So I will come back on that question.
Best ______________ John-Erik
MemberApril 15, 2022 at 12:45 am
You seem not to understand all I say, since you point out that I cannot have light without an ether and not phase without motion. You do not have to ‘correct’ what I already have said.
I may indeed be misunderstanding you. That’s just going to happen, so I apologize in advance for this unavoidable problem.
I do, however, need to “correct” three different things. What you believe, what I believe and what the mainstream believe. That is, the correction progress is a level above those three. What I believe about what you believe etc… We have to properly separate and compare these three worldviews and what each of us believes about them. (a set of 6 data objects) to be able to communicate so we’re going to fail that juggling act on occasion.
I regard ether as an entity and light as a behavior of that entity and also that phase is a part in describing motion of a surface.
Phase as motion of surface is not a description I would use. Phase is the relationship of arbitrary markers within two moving trains of virtual objects. Waves as peaks and crests are maxima and minima of behaviors that are propagating. But in a physical sense, when referring to a mechanical wave in particular, we must remember that the motion itself is virtual because the object is virtual. A peak and trough of behaviors called waving is an abstract concept not a physical object.
Can we agree this is an undeniable truth of mechanical waves?
I need you to answer this specific question directly because I must update my model of your understanding of mechanical waves with a yes or no that it matches my own. It is a possible source of confusion and miscommunication.
You do not regard this important distinction between beam and ray, that was missed between 1882 and 1887.
This idea of beam versus ray is going to only be clarified when discussing mechanical wave propagation. Waves which are usually spherical lead to bad conceptualizations in moving systems. But yes, you are right, I don’t frequently focus on this particular concept.
For instance, if it were somehow possible to travel faster than sound without significantly churning the medium, do you realize that a voice emitted from an emitter that exceeds the speed of sound would be heard in reverse by a ground based observer?
So when it is possible to emit a highly collimated beam of waves, that beam may match a “ray” or may not but a ray is virtualized conception.
Let us put this in particulars. If I could somehow emit a beam of waves from one bank of a river to the opposite, one could trace a straight line from emission to reception and call this a ray. It would not, however, represent the real world path of the first wavefront that traces a curved path across the moving water.
These concepts are extremely important for better understanding the difference between an aether theory and some field theories. I have not encountered anyone other than myself that has noticed this. So perhaps you have noticed this and thus you’re attempting to communicate some specific consequence of what I’ve just described.
I would not generally expect this because even professionals in a variety of scientific fields don’t typically follow this particular subtlety.
To cover up for this error the Lorentz factor was invented, resulting in the twin paradox.
I think you’ve got a tiger by the tail with this perspective. I mean that you’re on to something but it’s flung you off in he wrong direction. It’s not just this problem above. There is real world object shortening required for a michelson null. There are too many experiments that are indeed null (along with many other things) for shortening to be a completely false effect. The only reason Michelson and Miller’s experiments weren’t actually null is because of aether drag.
but I regard the cause to be observer motion and not wave front tilting. How could you miss that?
Well it’s not entirely clear what mechanics you are trying to communicate. You have said that Stellar aberration doesn’t occur, so that’s quite confusing.
I personally find your current short description to be matching my own but I’m pretty sure you don’t mean it in the way I do.
IE if we think of a specific beam emanating from a planet towards the location of earth, the motion of the earth will make that beam miss us. However, because multiple beam are emitted we run into a different one and still see the star. This results in the same effect as seeing rain seeming to come in at an angle toward you when you’re moving forward in a car when it’s actually falling straight down.
One might draw a false “ray” toward where they believe the raindrop originated based on the angle it is approaching from. This would be a difference between a beam and a ray. The virtual nature of the ray is misleading. the same would happen observing incoming waves across a river. A ray wouldn’t reflect the real path of the beam. Thus, waves in a medium, can create an aberration effect just like particles can.
In my opinion we have no quanta in light. An illusion based on observing electrons (matter). No quanta in energy (observing electrons). But we have quanta in ether entities, (particles, etherons) as suggested in Fatio’s quantum gravity 300 years ago.
Okay, I’ll provisionally agree. I too believe we’re just seeing phase transitions and drawing arbitrary borders where there aren’t real ones. I do however believe there may be something like particles at the planck scale. If you want to call those “etherons,” I’ve got no problem with it.
No, the wave model is not yet fine, but very, very wrong, since the large gaps in our understanding of light waves are covered up with absurd particle based ideas resulting in individual aging.
That’s not really the wave model you’re talking about. It’s called a wave model but it’s a field model. It’s a new thing altogether and doesn’t match basic science. It proposes waves occurring in nothing and cannot separate out a difference between a ray and a beam. There is no understanding of the necessities of a real travel time because light in the current model behaves in a way such that it’s effectively infinite and traveling at exactly C.
It’s mathematical pedants not understanding that rationality must come before numerology.
So it seems we are in agreement about some aspect of it if not all of it. It seems to me that you recognize a piece of the puzzle but not all of it yet.
This model assumes an attenuation in matter to create a radial ether wind that possibly can explain gravity.
Yes, I have problems with that approach. The approach by the Cosserat brothers is far superior in its ability to fit all phenomena and experimentation that is part of modern theory.
Therefore, an decreased motion of Pioneer can be an illusion due to this change
I also agree with this basis of explanation of pioneer anomaly. A variable speed of light is present in GR though and modern people just aren’t understanding that fact. GR is an aether theory and people have either forgotten or never understood its history and basis.
If you were ever on the anti-relativity site in the past 15 years you might have run into that basis of explanation I’ve been giving all this time.
However, my reason for the variation in the speed of light is closely linked with GR, gravity and how those things are mediated in an aether medium. The same thing that makes clocks run faster in space on satellites is the variable speed of light which is determined by the average bulk modulus of the local medium. (generally rendered as “rigidity”)
- This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Shiva. Reason: my keyboard is going bad on T and M in particular
MemberApril 1, 2022 at 8:22 pm
I think you will be interested in this article:
MemberApril 1, 2022 at 8:29 pm
The link did not work. Try this:
MemberApril 2, 2022 at 2:07 pm
MemberApril 4, 2022 at 1:22 pm
I have had a first very short look at your 3 papers on RG. However, you seems not to be very interested in the quantized gravity model that Fatio sent to Newton. This model assumes an attenuation in matter to create a radial ether wind that possibly can explain gravity. And a radial ether wind from the Sun can also cause 2-way light speed to increase with range from the Sun. Therefore, an decreased motion of Pioneer can be an illusion due to this change. This radial ether wind can also explain cosmological red shift as ether motion without body motion and without Big Bang.
I described this on this blog, but some program code appeared and I try here if can provide a link instead:
With best regards from ___________ John-Erik
MemberApril 15, 2022 at 12:47 am
It just stuck my reply up above…. this bulletin board system is really clunky
MemberApril 16, 2022 at 10:10 am
I do not regard waving as abstract – but instead the waver is not observable.
…usually spherical… They are flat in interferometers and in stellar light.
…swimmer… Use wave front instead of swimmer and find:
- Ray or apparent direction transverse to river.
- Beam or real direction deviated by water flow.
…ether theories and field theories… You have perhaps missed that my ether theory is a field theory, since the ether wind is radial – like gravity – and can explain gravity.
Yes, we cannot see planetary translational motion due to so called ether drag. (However it is Earth that is dragged by ether.) However, nevertheless rotational motion can also be not observable due to compensation by contraction of matter (no time dilation).
…stellar aberration does not occur.. I never said so. I said that stellar aberration is caused by the state of motion of the observer – not of the ether state of motion.
No, I did not accept light particles – and ether particles only on the Fatio’s scale – not on Planck’s scale.
…rationality before numerology… Yes, I agree really 100 %. We are confused by math (Hossenfelder). Already Newton was confused by not regarding that his laws gives spherical symmetry only from perfect spheres.
With best regards from ____________ John-Erik
Log in to reply.