Member John-Erik
MemberForum Replies Created
-
Andy
You talk about ether or velocity. You did not observe that my suggestion is motion of ether instead of matter. Doppler can be caused by motion of ether just as by motion of matter . You have missed that possibility. You said you could not imagine.
Why should you accept the mainstream? Your only argument is that they are brighter than you. That is not a scientific argument.
Perhaps you should try if you can find an error in my idea. That is analysing instead of referencing to mainstream.
From ____________________ John-Erik
-
Andy
…Everything we use to investigate the universe is matter based….
Yes, and the ether is matter based, although in so small parts that we cannot see it. So, we call it dark energy and dark matter and this is in reality the dark ether.
The title is Decontamination of physics. So, it is about time now for you give more concrete and detailed aspects on Decontamination of physics.
From __________ John-Erik
-
Andy
Yes, group thinking is interesting. However, it is problematic also since scientific discovery is done by solitary individuals – but spreading the result demands a group.
From _______________ John-Erik
-
Andy
…right or wrong does not matter…
Yes, truth in nature is disregarded in favour of politically correctness in relation to group. This explains why hundreds of years old mistakes can survive in physics and how people can get fired from work or their thesis refuted for being critical to Einstein’s work.
However, there are exceptions. I have got 3 articles excepted by PHYSICS ESSAYS. An article was refuted by PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, with the motivation that it was based on ideas hundreds of years ago. They did not even see that these ideas actually were refuted instead, although still accepted to day.
Yes, humans are animals living in herds.
With best regards from ______________ John-Erik
-
I have put my article also my CNPS blog:
JoP
-
Andy
Thanks for very interesting view points in philosophy about we humans and scientists. These ideas seems very important to me. I sometimes read an article about “The resistance amongst scientists to making scientific discoveries”. Have you read it? I think the explanation is that we are afraid of giving up old ideas and we are not so much resistant to new ideas. Or?
Your contribution was very interesting although you did not say so much about physics.
With best regards from ________________ John-Erik
-
Marco
Absorption versus aberration.
Absorption instead of collision means that gravity (instead of moving is emerging inside matter). Therefore, no aberration. Fatio’s model was therefore refuted in error.
Newton’s model demands perfect spherical symmetry. So, application to not spherical bodies must be done by using the model on small volume elements and then integrate. After that it is easy to see that Newton and Fatio can be united. Newton probably thought about integration but did not observe that this idea leaded to unification with Fatio.
John-Erik
-
Gravity does not travel – and is not instantaneous either.
See article below.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361094474_Gravity_does_not_move
-
Marco
Bon apetite
John-Erik
-
David
If you do not accept my ideas give me at least one argument.
With best regards from ________________ John-Erik
-
David, the link did not work.
The article is “How stellar aberration gave us individual ageing”.
John-Erik
-
David
Potier started a debate between 1882 and 1887 that light (in conflict with the wave model) takes a different way in the reference arm due to transverse ether wind. This mistake gave us the idea that observed light direction was believed to be reduced by a factor 1/GAMMA. This opened the way for the absurd idea of time dilation. It was not observed that in coherent systems mirrors are used to define c – not c+v.
The mistake was that orientation of wave fronts is assumed to be tilted in the reference arm in MMX. Such tilting was also in error assumed for stellar aberration. However, stellar aberration is independent of ether wind, but instead caused by observer motion, since light has a finite speed. Copernicus told us to compensate for position in relation to Sun, but he forgot to tell us that we also should compensate for velocity in relation to Sun. Such a compensation explains pulsar aberration as a Sagnac effect, that can be united with an existent ether.
So, Potier long time ago made a mistake that we still are suffering from in our belief in individual ageing and the acceptation of the absurd Lorentz transform.
We do not need time dilation indicated only in atomic clocks and that behaviour has a classical explanation in the fact that bound electrons are moving forth and back in relation to the ether wind.
The transition from light particles to light waves is not yet finished since we not understand the wave model.
John-Erik
-
Andy
Your explanation is complex and hard to understand. I have an explanation that is much simpler.
Ether particles moving in all directions are absorbed to a small extent by matter. So, less number of particles are leaving a body. Therefore, a net ether wind in negative radial direction is caused. This ether wind is the cause of gravity.
This can explain Big Bang as an illusion, since ether wind towards source increases frequency as 1+v/c and ether wind away from observer decreases as 1-v/c. So, total effect is 1-(v/c)^-2. We get a red shift of second order that can explain Big Bang illusion.
THE COSMOLOGICAL RED SHIFT IS CAUSED BY ETHER MOTION (NEAR THE OBSERVED OBJECT) – NOT BY MOTION OF BODIES. NO BIG BANG.
We can also explain The Pioneer anomaly. The radial ether wind (from Sun) reduces the 2-way light speed to a lesser extent far away. Increasing 2-way simulates a decreasing speed of the space station. Pioneer effect is an illusion.
THE PIONEER ANOMALY IS CAUSED BY ETHER MOTION (FROM SUN) – NOT BY MOTION OF BODIES. NO PIONEER ANOMALY.
From ___________ John-Erik
-
Andy
You do not accept Big Bang.
Can you explain red shift in another way?
From _____________ John-Erik