[Jerry]

Hi Jan.

What I’ve mostly heard is that when an object approaches the velocity of light, it is its length that allegedly shortens. That the object doesn’t get smaller, it gets thinner. This was FitzGerald’s idea, and its sole purpose was to show why the MMX failed to detect the aether. Also, according to various seemingly reliable sources, while the length of an object decreases, the mass of the object is said to increase. And strangely enough, Lorentz’s idea of mass increase was allegedly mathematically based upon FitzGerald’s idea. Of course, Einstein incorporated these two ideas into his Special Relativity, maybe since they were already accepted, even though, at the time, Einstein didn’t even believe in the aether, or at least thought its existence was irrelevant, superflous, and undetectable. Maybe over a decade later, it is said that Einstein reclaimed the aether, saying it was necessary. To me, it always seemed similar to the space-time continuum. 🙂

• This reply was modified 3 months, 4 weeks ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi. I just read your paper. When you mentioned the ether causes gravity, you explained why quickly, though I didn’t quite comprehend. Could you possibly clarify and elaborate how the ether causes gravity within two or more objects? I remember in previous conversations, that you had spoken of a “falling ether”. I can’t recall for sure if you meant specifically this is the cause of gravity though. If I may ask, please describe more of what the ether is, and how it works. You had also stated that the ether consists of tiny particles that travel in all directions. I would guess that this is a much different view than what Fatio, Newton, Michelson and Morley ever thought. So would you say in your view that the ether is “unfixed and flowing” instead of “rigid and stationary”? Thanks. 🙂

• This reply was modified 3 months, 4 weeks ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Also, would you say the velocity of light is currently known, or possible to find? How does light propagate in your view? Is it always relative to the ether? Does c seem to vary given our earthly perspective? Is the ether “stationary”? Have we ever found out how fast the earth travels through the ether?

[Jerry]

Hi. Please read this one. I couldn’t find out how to delete the other two.

Thanks!

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Of course, it has taken me quite some time to respond. My apologies for that. I guess this is the main reason why.

When you say to read your papers, where you go into more detail, why couldn’t you just copy and paste the relevant sentences or paragraphs, so as to prevent me having to search to find them? Or at least, could you name the specific paper(s) so it’ll seem easier to find what you want me to read?

Thanks.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

It would seem the most improbable coincidence that the mirror a light reflects off of, would align perfectly with the ether. And if it did, how would we know? How exactly to determine how fast the earth or anything else travels through the ether? Has this ever been discovered? and if so, how?

If the earth absorbs the ether, why isn’t it also the other way around? What is the difference? Why isn’t it simply seen that they absorb each other?

Which papers? and where to find them?

Thanks. I’ll respond more later.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

So would you suggest that light travels at a different velocity (such as slower, or faster) after it reflects off of something? Or is it possible to know or find out? Why would light travel at a different velocity after it reflects?

How much does the ether actually absorb the earth as it orbits the sun? Is your view that the ether is sort of “densely concentrated” around large celestial objects? and more “sparsely scattered” in outer space? Does the ether somewhat “conform” to the external shape of objects, or does it thoroughly absorb them? What is your view of length contraction? Where the ether is theorized to “push” and shorten objects? Of course, many etherists accept the idea.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your response.

If the aether exists, and if the velocity of light is always constant relative to the aether, that would mean that from our earthly perspective, that c is always variable and transforming its perceived value, given that the earth is always in motion relative to the aether. If this is so, how could we possibly discover the velocity of light?

[Jerry]

Of course, you have provided some explanations of which you seem certain. I have often questioned if gravity could somehow exist as a sort of ongoing energy field, or otherwise currently unexplainable effect that is “stacked in a three dimensional juxtiposition” that “delivers” the gravity. Though that would seem to require that gravity is in motion. So that would mean it would take time to travel to reach and affect another object, often thought at the same velocity as light. Would you say that gravity travels at all, or at least that the ether travels to bring the gravity with it?

[Jerry]

Thanks, John-Erik.

It is definitely puzzling to say the least, to consider that the gravity of objects directly affect each other, where there is (as the popular expression goes) “action at a distance”. Where they don’t seem to physically meet at all.

With the ether though, does it get more dense (more particles at close proximity), when in the presence of objects (particularly large ones, such as stars and planets)? And does the ether (or the particles which compose it) get “sparsely scattered” in outer space? Would the ether particles have physicality? What is their size or mass? If they’re composed of tiny particles, is there sometimes empty space between them? Or would the particles always exist right next to each other, without any gaps?

Is the ether theory mainly theoretical, or is there experimental evidence? or even thought experiments which could illustrate some valid points?

[Jerry]

Thanks, John-Erik.

It is definitely puzzling to say the least, to consider that the gravity of objects directly affect each other, where there is (as the popular expression goes) “action at a distance”. Where they don’t seem to physically meet at all.

With the ether though, does it get more dense (more particles at close proximity), when in the presence of objects (particularly large ones, such as stars and planets)? And does the ether (or the particles which compose it) get very “sparsely scattered” in outer space? Would the ether particles have a <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>physical existence? What is their size or mass? If they’re composed of tiny particles, is there sometimes empty space between them? Or would the particles always exist right next to each other, without any gaps?

Is the ether theory mainly theoretical, or is there experimental evidence? or even thought experiments which could illustrate some valid points?

[Jerry]

I had the thought that the moon could possibly absorb much of the gravity of the sun, instead of just preventing gravity’s further propagation to the earth. Is this sort of what you meant, except that the ether is also involved?

Here’s a thought I had as to why a pendulum might “wobble”, when the complete solar eclipse is in effect. If a metal coin, for instance, were placed between the poles of a horseshoe magnet, it doesn’t ever just “stay there”. It is always quickly assigned to one pole or the other. And even if you try to hold the coin perfectly between the magnet poles, you can feel the constant unsteadiness of the coin’s ever-present condition, as it is drawn quickly to one pole or the other. The more you try to keep it in the mid-point position, the more it seems to vary to which pole it is drawn to. </font>

Is a similar principle possibly at work with the eclipse? The moon is in the way of the sun, and you can actually see the light that exists all around the edge of the eclipse. It creates a sort of “silver lining” around the moon. This bright thin circle is possibly the main source of gravity that the sun propagates that reaches the area of earth with which the complete eclipse is visible. So when the pendulum is present through the eclipse, maybe it can’t quite (figuratively) “decide” which direction to sway?

• This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Thanks, John-Erik.

When you mentioned “Sun contribution”, did you mean the Sun’s gravity? So does the Sun and Moon’s gravity each combine with each other to generate more gravity than usually experienced on Earth? or that the Moon “gets in the way” of the Sun, thus creating a reduced degree of gravity, except only within the area the eclipse is visible?

When you wrote “the effect becomes converted to motion” was this meant as the effect of why the pendulum wobbles? Does the area affected by the eclipse either compress or expand? or something else? This seems sort of similar to length contraction. Where the area undergoes a temporary physical transformation. How was all this discovered? When I looked it up there didn’t seem much documented knowledge about it. Is there a link you could provide? Thanks!

[Jerry]

Hi Marco. You wrote,

Why I write “on earth”? Because the theory is based on 2 hypothesis :

1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer.

I think the first hypothesis is more theoretical then the second one.

I would say the first postulate is theoretical, though easy to apply with real life “experiments”, such as simple as bouncing a ball on the “stationary” ground, and comparing that to bouncing the ball on a bus that travels at a constant velocity. This seems easily demonstrable. My view is that the second postulate seems inaccurate, which is the constancy of c. It is this that leads to inconsistencies that time dilation is said to fix.

[Jerry]

Hi Marco.

Is the concept of time dilation accurate in your view? What of the theory of Special Relativity, in General (get it? lol)? Would you completely agree with it?