Member John-Erik
MemberForum Replies Created
-
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
-
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
-
Jerry
Yes, you can say that everything is in a free fall, since the equivalence principle means that ether wind tells matter how to move, and thereby converts ether wind into acceleration.
Tides are explained by the fact that different parts of our planet are falling a little bit differently due to the fact that Sun and Moon contribute in range dependent way.
The mistakes regarding MMX are described in details in many of my articles. You must read them, since I cannot repeat all details here.
With best regards from _______________ John-Erik
-
Jerry
Gravity from distant bodies is compensated due to the fact that we are in a free fall. Only small effects from Sun and Moon cause tides. Therefore, we get in horizontal plane 0.46 km/sec at the Equator and zero at the poles, and in vertical direction we have an ether wind if 11.2 km/sec, causing gravity and equal to the escape velocity.
MMX:s four errors:
- Ether wind is 0.46 (not 30) km/sec in horizontal direction.
- Assumed effect is compensated.
- Assumed ‘half’ effect in reference arm does not exist.
- Failure to fulfil prediction means no existing result (not zero result).
All these ideas are described in many articles available on many databases. Why do you not write my name on Google? This is described in detail there.<div>
With best regards from __________________________ John-Erik
</div>
-
The matter in a body, A, causes an ether wind radial in relation to A, but not in relation to B. So, the deviation from symmetry in B causes gravity to emerge inside B. NO ABERRATION.
-
THE BIG BANG IS AN ILLUSION
Fatio presented an ether model that could explain gravity, but the model was abolished on false grounds, since the wrong assumption of ether collisions with matter was expected to cause aberration. However, ether particles are instead are instead ABSORBED by matter, so no aberration is caused since gravity instead is emerging inside matter due to the ether wind.
Absorption creates a radial ether wind causing gravity, and this ether wind causes a blue frequency shift when light is generated on a not moving celestial body. However, the same ether means a red frequency shift in relation to a not moving observer. These 2 shifts creates a red shift of second order together. Therefore, the radial ether wind creates second order Doppler effect. THE COSMOLOGICAL RED SHIFT IS THEREFORE AN EFFECT OF ETHER MOTION – NOT BODY MOTION.
John-Erik
See
https://www.academia.edu/90134483/The_Big_Bang_illusion_from_Newtons_mathematical_idealism
-
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
-
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
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
-
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.
-
Jerry
We must have an ether, and light is a behaviour inside that ether. Therefore, light speed is constant is relation to that ether. Light is therefore independent of the motions of the source, as well as of the observer.
With best regards from _______________ John-Erik
-
Big Bang illusion
Fatio and Le Sage explain gravity by a radial ether wind. The ether wind is not larger than light speed c. Therefore, no black holes.
Assume not moving observer and not moving celestial body. The radial ether wind causes therefore a blue shift in the ether frame, and this ether motion means a red shift is observed in the observer’s frame. so, we get red as well as blue shifts. Together this means a red shift of second order. So, cosmological red shift is caused by the motion of the ether.
With best regards from _________________ John-Erik
-
Aberration is a phenomenon in moving light, since observer motion transverse to light direction affects observed direction.
Gravity has been assumed to have aberration, but this is a mistake. The reason is that gravity does not move, and instead gravity emerges inside matter due to ether wind inside matter. Gravity cannot be real until after information exchange between the 2 bodies regarded, since gravity is a caused by the product of the 2 masses.
Fatio and Le Sage models were therefore abolished in error.
-
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.