[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

[John-Erik]

Jerry

There are no real lines of light. The ray is a mathematical tool representing the reality of a wave front that is transverse to the line. The ray direction is different from the beam direction. The difference is ether wind falling inside the wave fronts.

Best regards

[John-Erik]

Jerry

The double slit test is logically explained by the wave model. If you state that you do not accept you should point out a logical error. Just saying no is not science.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

What is wrong with light waves?

John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Jerry

You are sceptical to light waves. In my opinion we have good evidence for light waves. However, that means that there must be a substance doing the waving, and that is called ether. Therefore, it is unhappy that Einstein, as a young patent clerk, and misunderstood MMX abolished the ether. Einstein as an experienced physics professor failed for many decades to correct his own error. DEVASTATING.

Newton disregarded Fatio’s hypothesis that explained gravity as a radial ether wind, and this model can explain the illusions of BIG BANG and PIONEER anomaly as ether motions and illusions. DEVASTATING.

With best regards from ________________________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Yes, l light speed is constant, but that is not the important question. Instead: constant in relation to what? It is not constant in relation to observer, as Einstein said. Light speed is c in relation to the ether.

Yes, light speed actually is 3×10^8 m/sec, but this is a wave behaviour, not moving particles. No particles in light. Planck’s constant is an electron property, since we use electrons to detect invisible light.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

no reference frame Sorry. I should have said no reference frame in relation to light.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

Absorption of ether particles means also that gravity is EMERGING inside matter.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

Alternatives are, as you know, reference frame or no reference frame.

It is stupid not to regard more options.

A field is defined based on a frame.

If space contains an ether space is not empty.

Ether is needed to explain light and gravity.

The best idea regarding ether was given 300 years ago by Fatio. and abolished by Newton.

Fatio’s idea has been disregarded due to not predicting aberration in gravity. This was DEVASTATING to physics, since no aberration is explained by the fact that ether particles are ABSORBED by matter, and they are NOT COLLIDING with matter. Fatio is united with Newton and predicts a radial ether wind, and thereby explains gravity.

From ___________________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Jerry

Debating is positive, but many decades without more than 2 alternatives is stupid.

If the reference is a velocity field, it cannot at the same time be a frame.

Yes, there is an additional effect. So, we must add something, and that means we must add an ether.

I have nothing against inertial frames, but they cannot explain gravity.

From _____________________________________ John_Erik

[John-Erik]

Correction

…aberration in physics… should be …aberration in gravity…

[John-Erik]

Amin and Jerry

The debate regarding reference frame, or no frame, has been active for many years. When 2 alternatives are defined the discussion is stalled and no more alternatives are regarded. This is stupid binary thinking, and all the other alternatives are forgotten.

One of the alternatives is a reference with a state of motion that is different in every point in space. This means that the reference velocity is a velocity FIELD – not a FRAME with constant velocity.

A model for ether and gravity was presented by Fatio to Newton but was abolished in error due to no aberration in physics, since ether particles were assumed to COLLIDE with matter. However, ether particles are ABSORBED by matter, and gravity is therefore EMERGING inside matter due to the ether. This explains why there is no aberration in gravity. So, Fatio’s model can be united with Newton’s model, and this explanation to gravity demonstrates that gravity is caused by a radial ether wind. Support for this idea is found in the illusions of BIG BANG and of PIONEER ANOMALY, and both of these phenomena are caused by radial ETHER motions – not by motions of MATTER.

It was very, very bad for science when Newton disregarded the hypothesis from Fatio.

From _____________________________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

All

I explained that BIG BANG and PIONEER are illusions and also gave a link. No one answered. This is bad style.

Our problems in physics are caused by:

• No ether
• No understanding of the wave model.
• Not observed that Newton’s law is an approximation

I give a link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364087638_Real_and_apparent_motions_of_light

Best _______________ John-Erik

PS

Allowing the ether means a simple possibility to explain BIG BANG and PIONEER as motions of the ether

DS

[John-Erik]

David

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

Mathematics is powerful and dangerous

John-Erik Persson

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

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

Euclidean geometry

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

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

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

Planetary motions

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

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

Apparent motion of fix stars

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

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

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

Gravity

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

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

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

The Doppler effect has been regarded as caused by the difference in speed between source and observer. But when we introduce an ether, we get two effects. We get one effect between source and ether and another effect between ether and observer. With B_n equal to observer and source speeds divided by light speed we get total effect on f’/f equal to (1+B₁-B₂-B₁·B₂). If B₁=B₂ we get only second order term or (1-B²). So, the ether wind generates a second order Doppler effect although source and observer are in the same state of motion. By introducing an ether, we can explain cosmological red shift without Big Bang.

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

Atomic clocks

The special theory of relativity (SRT) is said to be supported by time dilation, whereby clock frequency is changed from f to f’, due to a satellite speed of v_O in the relation f’=f(1-v_O²/c²)^1/2. Here v_O is around 0.3 km/sec on Earth (rotation) and 3.9 km/sec in the GPS satellite.

The general theory of relativity (GRT) is said to be caused by gravity potential. However, this potential is related to the escape velocity v_E, and this is a more concrete concept than the abstract energy concept. So, we use this concept instead. We therefore get f’=f(1-v_E²/c²)^1/2. Here v_E is 11.2 km/sec on Earth and is 5.5 km/sec in the GPS satellite.

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

The ether

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

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

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

Reality and model I

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

Quantum physics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Light waves are all we need

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

Reality and model II

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

Fooled by math

So, we have seen that we are really fooled by math in most areas of physics. In the area of particle physics this phenomenon has got an interesting analysis in a book by Sabine Hossenfelder¹. Our bad understanding of the wave model is described by this author^2,3.

Summary

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

[John-Erik]

Marco

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

Best _______________ John-Erik