[John-Erik]

Jerry

Electrons are just particles — and never waves. However, like a boat moving in water, they also can create a bow wave. But when they are stationary, they only can cause stationary Coulomb force, in the same way as a stationary boat only creates a constant and small increase in the surrounding water level. So, electrons are particles only.

Light is just waves — and never particles. Light is motion of behaviour — not of matter. Planck’s constant is representing electron behaviour — not behaviour of invisible light. Planck was wrong, and Einstein’s support with photo-electric effect was also wrong. Waves are all we need for light. Light is waves only.

Ether s ultra-small and ultra-fast particles moving in all directions. The state of motion of the ether is the cause of gravity. This fact was independently discovered by Fatio as well as by Le Sage. However, they both presented wrong theories by assuming ether particles to collide with matter (aberration). Ether particles are absorbed by matter (no aberration). This ether is transmitting light as well as gravity. So, ether is particles only.

Wave/particle dualism is an illusion only. This illusion is caused by the fact interference effects are present between oscillations in waves and in particles. No dualism — interferences only.

With best regards from _____________ John-Erik

PS More details in my last articles DS

[Marco]

Hallo Jerry and Erik,

I want to show you a little video in wich is displayed the beheaviour between wave and particle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

At minute 1:50 there is the 2 silt experiment done with a wather drop on his standing wave:

behaviour of drop is like a particle (elektron) and wave is like aether.

I think elektron is like an aether ruffle, like the drop of wather, made of wather as the wave, but inclosed in a membrane and separate from the wather wave.

Drop is separate from wave while his velocity il low, when his velocity became fast respect to sound velocity of wather the drop return in wather but wave travel at sound speed.

If the wave hits an obtacle (protons or nucleus) drop can resurface creating a new standing wave.

I hope I have been clear enough.

Best regards Ing__mm

[John-Erik]

Marco

The video is interesting, but not very important since the video is about an interaction between 2 liquids, and not about particle oscillations and ether wave oscillations.

[Marco]

Hallo @JoP,

what do you mean for particle?

In phisics a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties, such as volume, density, or mass.

A particle of a fluid can also be defined inside an omogeneous fluid.

A drop is a good example of particle even if liquid.

You define yourself that “Ether is ultra-small and ultra-fast particles” but being not measurable how do you know they are solid, liquid, gas, plasma or other?

You can critics my link because represents reality only in 2D instead of 3D o 4D, but you can’t think that a liquid particle have a different behaviour then solid in this experiment.

I share your model of ether and I think there are not diffetence if ether particles are solid, liquid or plasma because their effect is due to quantity of motion, not to its phase or state.

The reason escape me for thinking ether particles are solid?

The only reason I think is only for semplicity, but rain is also a good example.

See you soon,

best regards Ing__mm

[John-Erik]

Marco

Particles?

When we study light we use electrons since light is not visible, therefore I mean electrons, and Planck’s constant means not quanta of light but quanta of charge in the electron. h can be miss-understood. <i class=””>h does not represent quanta of light but instead of quanta of electron charge,

The video demonstrates instead interactions between liquids.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

I do not believe in collapse. I think that a changing field becomes a static Coulomb field.

Waves are realistic, since the high value on c indicates motion of behaviour, and not of matter constituted as particles. However, if neutrino-like particles constitute the ether, light is only a shift in their behaviour. A have also described in The wave function gives better explanations to key phenomena in physics to PHYSICS ESSAYS that we do not need the particle model for light.

John-Erik

[Jerry]

“I do not believe in collapse. I think that a changing field becomes a static Coulomb field.”

Okay. I don’t believe that the wave-function collapses either.

However, it seems well established that when a detector is attached to the wall that has the double slit, to determine which slit the particles actually go through, turns the image on the screen to the image of two thick lines (the non-interference pattern), instead of the interference pattern of a series of lines with a variety of intensity.

It is said this is caused by the presence of the detector itself, or a consciousness, such as a person who observes.

If what you said instead explains the strange effect, then what causes a changing field to become a static Coulomb field?

[Jerry]

It seems well established *in the mainstream* that is. I doubt that their “findings” were valid.

They attached the “which way” detector to the double slit experiment to find which slit the particles actually go through, since they were allegedly observed to go through “one slit, the other slit, each slit, and neither slit”. They thought the detector could help them to find the truth, except somehow, something around or within the experiment “turned the quantum tables” on them, and showed them what was completely expected. One of the main quests of Quantum Mechanics was how to understand or interpret these baffling experimental results, which was what they called the wave-function collapse.

Have you seen the scenario from “What the Bleep Do We Know”, that illustrates the alleged WFC effect? It’s animated, so it isn’t as convincing as a live video would seem. I’ve searched online quite a few times for an actual real-life recording, yet without luck.

[Jerry]

That is, “what was completely unexpected”

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Would you say that the first observers of the original wave-function collapse, had somehow mis-read the evidence (or were possibly somewhat deceitful) of what they claimed to find? And that there just haven’t been many objections to their “discovery”? That maybe few have tried to duplicate the same results?

Where could I find your essay “The wave function gives better explanations to key phenomena in physics”? I agree with you that light isn’t a particle either.

What of how electrons (allegedly) don’t have mass, or even a size? Would you say instead, that they’re composed of a thick, dense material, instead of a “cloud” or “flowing energy”?

Is the idea that the ether is composed of miniscule particles that popular? I hadn’t heard of that. Is there available evidence?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Jerry.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

We should expect the following for electrons: since charged electrons generate waves, like a boat moving in water. These generated waves make interference with other ether waves, and that means also that we get interference between particles and waves. Not duality between them.

So, electrons move through one hole, and generated wave through both holes, and thereby generate a pattern. This pattern can act back on the electron and cause a pattern to be visible in electron behaviour. Therefore, we have a wave-particle interference in electrons. Electrons are particles causing waves.

For light it is different, since light is just waves, or wave packets, but not photon particles, the explanation is easier and self evident. For light we need only waves.

There is no wave-particle dualism. We have bad understanding oh the wave model, and we need 2 concepts for light:

1) Most important (in coherent systems) is the (abstract) ray concept representing the reality that exists only in the wave front, transverse to the ray (not regarding ether wind inside wave fronts; phase detection).

2) If we also regard ether wind inside the wave fronts we get the beam direction representing real motion of light (observable in amplitude detection).

3) In most tests ray is relevant, but we have always used beam.

With best regards from ________________________ John-Erik

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

“We should expect the following for electrons: since charged electrons generate waves, like a boat moving in water. These generated waves make interference with other ether waves, and that means also that we get interference between particles and waves. Not duality between them.“

Okay. If we were to consider that the truth, what is it that causes the non-interference pattern (of only two thick lines) to show up, instead of the series of a few lines, of a variety of intensity? That is, when the “which-way” detector is set up, the act of observation, whether through the device, or even if a human being were to observe too closely? Did you get to watch the video? Would you say they’re conveying a false claim? What you’ve said thus far, however possibly correct, doesn’t explain the wave-function collapse. Actually, I haven’t ever heard of any observation or explanation that does. This is why I highly doubt the claim.

“So, electrons move through one hole, and generated wave through both holes, and thereby generate a pattern. This pattern can act back on the electron and cause a pattern to be visible in electron behaviour. Therefore, we have a wave-particle interference in electrons. Electrons are particles causing waves.”

Then why does the image on the wall of the experiment transform into the non-interference pattern when the detector is in place? And if the detector is removed, the interference pattern once again shows up?

“For light it is different, since light is just waves, or wave packets, but not photon particles, the explanation is easier and self evident. For light we need only waves.”

I also agree that photons don’t exist. Actually, I’m maybe just extremely skeptical of them. How is your view self-evident though? Also, what evidence is there for “wave packets”? That sounds very similar to Einstein’s idea of the “quanta”, except “wave packets” might seem much larger than “quanta” or photons, however, they’d each seem to exist as separated units. Why couldn’t light exist as a smoothly flowing wave? That is, until it is interrupted somehow?

[John-Erik]

Jerry and Marco

The article you wanted is titled “The wave theory of light gives better explanations to key phenomena in physics”. It is published in PHYSICS ESSAYS 35, 1 (2022).

There is copyright, but I can send it to your personally if you request it on my profile on ResearchGate.

About wave packets

X-ray wave packets are generated when an electron is absorbed in a crystal. I assume this process to work also in opposite direction. Therefore, waves (or wave packets) can cause an electron to be emitted. This emission explains photoelectric effect by the wave model, much better than Einstein’s model stating that light particles moving towards a crystal can cause electrons to move away from the crystal at a right angle.

The wave model is also much better for the Compton effect. First step is a primary wave packet to cause electron emission. Second step is when this electron is captured by another atom and then generates a secondary wave packet.

ALL YOU NEED FOR LIGHT IS WAVES

With best regards from ……………………………… John-Erik

See also:

https://www.academia.edu/90134483/The_Big_Bang_illusion_from_Newtons_mathematical_idealism

[Marco]

Merry Chrismass @jop and @jerry

Excuse me if I had few time for answer to your posts.

I want to say that I’m 99% agree with Erik’s model of ether, we differ only for interaction from ether and matter but all other ideas on ether are supported from a lot of experimets and Erik explain it very well on his documents.

For the double slit experiment, when there is “the observer” in a slit, it adsorb the wave that pass trought that slit and vanish the interference returning in the case of single slit.

best wishes Ing.___MM

[John-Erik]

Marco

Gravity is a product of 2 masses, m and M, so gravity is not real until information is exchanged between m and M. Therefore, gravity emerges after this exchange, by the ether, since only the ether has information about BOTH masses. Emerging gravity explains NO aberration in gravity. Therefore ether particles must be ABSORBED by matter.

Regards from _______________ John-Erik

[Marco]

Hallo @JoP ,

this is a discussion between 2 great scientist who look trought centuries of history of physics and find a good model to explain almost all of human knowledge.

The only diffenrence is in infinitesimally smoll:

you don’t like singularitys but Absorbtion cause an infinite increase of ether inside matter and this is hardly explainable.

If you consider a Stagnation point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_point_flow<b style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>) when ether particle became sufficiently near matter, then they are forced to change their direction and becames orthogonal to the original direction, walking away from matter but trasferring the same quantity of motion and conserving kinetics energy respect Absorbtion.

This model explain better the 2 negative bumps in Alais effect descript in your document Wang Eclipse http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=About_the_Wang_Eclipse%2C_Part_4

The 2 bumps are in corrispondence of the stagnation point alligned with circumference of the Moon.

Thank you for the interest

Ing.___MM

[John-Erik]

Marco

Yes, we do not know what happens to the very small mass in the absorbed ether particles. However, this does not disprove the idea. Perhaps, there is a kind of compensation in an emission of other ether particles inside matter, since ether particles must have some kind of an origin.

In the Wang observation a gravimeter was used, but gravity on Earth is compensated by an acceleration away from Sun/Moon of a part of our planet with the size of our Moon. Therefore, no effect at the centre, but negative effects before and after, as I explained in the article.

With best regards from ________________________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

All

MORE OPTIONS

Relativity contra preferred reference frame, Third option: preferred reference field, since the reference can have a speed changing with position. See “The third option”.

Big Bang contra tired light. Third option: radial ether wind (causing gravity) causing red shift of second order, since ether wind in relation to source creates blue shift, and ether wind in relation to observer means red shift.

Regards from _________________________________ John-Erik

Microsoft Word – The Third Option (gsjournal.net)

[Marco]

I agree:

Fatio’s model explain reality better then Newton’s model.

Aether was not necessary (noone never demonstate that eather not exiist) for expalin special relativity,

but is a big misteke to exclude it also from general relativity because only with mathematics we loose reality contact and cause/effect dynamics.

Regards Ing.___MM

[John-Erik]

Marco

Einstein abolished the ether and later wanted the ether back, since he found that gravity and light demand an ether.

Best __________________________________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

(9) The Big Bang illusion -from Newton’s mathematical idealism | John-Erik Persson – Academia.edu

[John-Erik]

More options

We (in the western world) are thinking binary, meaning that with 2 options we get stack. Thereby we are missing not just the third option, but also the fourth and the fifth and…

Best regards from _______________ John-Erik