[Shiva]

I’d be glad to join.

Given that was paying for the promotion of anti-relativity.com almost 20 years ago now and I’ve written over 1000 articles on Quora, as well as published multiple papers in a peer reviewed journal on the topic. Have lectured at various conventions, Berkeley, and speak with a wide array of scientists on literally a daily basis, including experimentalists in optics… I can say with confidence I’ve been the greatest background force for aether in the past couple decades.

Secondarily, I have a software package designed for live broadcasting and recording. Most professional podcast shows now use it instead of zoom which is pretty clunky overall.

I’ve already paid for the higher resolution version that can broadcast to multiple stream channels simultaneously so we could make it a channel collaboration. Generally up to 6 participants can be present and it integrates the live questions from the channel audience, like youtube and twitch, seamlessly into the broadcast portal.

I’d be glad to show you how it works beforehand. It not only live-streams it also records in the background in case you want to also put out an edited version but it does so on a server so your live broadcast machine isn’t bogged down.

Let me know what you want to do.

[Shiva]

“We cannot substitute a vector with a scalar.”

Wow, I say semantics digression is counter-productive and you go right into semantics digression.

Destructive interference… that’s the subject. Pedantic posturing about irrelevant terminology when you know exactly what a person meant, is not the subject. (Though perhaps such conversational maneuvers should be the subject?)

“No new idea just a typing error that i had corrected.”

The new idea I was referring to was using positive and negative to represent the peak and trough of a wave. If you already do that somewhere, I really don’t care. Seems unlikely, but fine, we’ll just say you’ve always considered the peak and tough to be positive and negative.

Still irrelevant. Still does nothing for destructive interference.

“Destructive superposition follows from the fact that fields are linear and additive. This is not in conflict with a flow in ALL directions.”

No it doesn’t. There’s nothing “natural” about your philosophy here. If you’re going to just posit something that I must religiously believe …that there is something subtractive about light, then why even talk about particles? You can just use hand-wavey “fields” and require that I believe they work in he way you say without any mechanical or rational reasoning whatsoever. That’s what field theories already do without any aether.

You are just saying moderate particle per time transmits zero light while high and low particles per tie do not and then giving a field-based explanation. You’re asking that I just believe utter nonsense that has no explanation. You asking me to believe your nonsense over the mainstream nonsense without any physical reasoning. A modern field without a medium can behave magically and light need not have a carrier whatsoever in the mainstream explanation. We can just wave our hands and say it does whatever. (Natural philosophy be-damned)

But if you are going to abandon mechanical reasoning, then your theory is just another religious belief system. It’s not natural philosophy; it’s modern field woowoo.

If you’re going to posit a mechanism for waves, then they better be mechanically reasonable otherwise you’re putting lipstick on a pig. There’s no reason whatsoever for you to posit streams of particles if they have no reasoning or rational behaviors. If you’re going to use modern fields, then you don’t need anything under them for that magical belief system. It works just fine as an abstraction.

If you’re going to explain what’s below them without reasonable mechanics, then you could just as easily talk about the vector potential of fairy farts. It’s additional nonsense for me to gulp down carte blanche and I refuse.

You’re at an impasse because the fact is that it just doesn’t work but you don’t want to face the facts. “Fields are additive” is not an explanation, it’s an article of faith.

There may be recoverable work that you can find within your current theories if you just bite the bullet and see the truth. Your theory of wave mechanics is physically untenable. Period. No way out.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s science. You have failures. That doesn’t mean everything you ever did was worthless or completely wrong; it wasn’t. Sometimes there are new perspectives on old work that revitalizes it or even rescues it.

Did you know that Maxwell’s work that used regular elasticity (as per Green) was a failure and had to be updated by Fitzgerald to include rotational elasticity?

[Shiva]

John-Erik

You still haven’t replied to my single issue with the basis of your theory.

Your theory cannot produce destructive interference. Without this mechanism, you theory cannot represent reality.

You need to address this before addressing anything else. It’s a fundamental and irreconcilable problem that invalidates 100% of your forward theory development from the particle model. (though your very good critiques of the mainstream remain valuable regardless)

How do you create destructive interference when low particle density is a trough (which gives the same light intensity as a peak) and high particle density is a peak, (which also give unaltered light intensity) when medium particle density of overlapping peak and trough somehow grants no light.

Interference is the most crucial aspect of light’s behavior and you currently cannot account for it.

This is a no-go.

If this community is to have any forward progress, eliminating falsehoods in proposed alternatives must be part of the process or we become an infinite garbage generator of no use or interest to the cause of science.

[Shiva]

It’s interesting because Laplace calculated that if there was a lag time for gravity, the earth would crash into the sun in just a few centuries because of aberration.

This discussion below, however, is useful for grasping the commonplace understanding of this quirk since GR posits a non-instant gravitation.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/5869/is-the-influence-of-gravity-instantaneous

[Shiva]

Simply saying -1+1=0 is not a description of physical phenomena.
When we associate the numbers with something real where -1 represents sparse particle bunching and +1 represents dense, the answer of zero is garbage. Math must be mapped to reality properly and is meaningless without the map. Math can represent things that DO NOT occur in reality. (any videogame can show you that…. it’s all math)

If you do not give a mechanical reasoning then your theory has just as much magical thinking and presumption as the mainstream without the millions of people checking it for error.

Longitudinal or transverse is irrelevant. Destructive interference needs mechanism, not simple insistence. That’s faith and religion, not science. Real science requires reason.

If your theory of waves is a bunching in the timing of particles, the higher and lower levels of particles can average out to give us a bright spot on a surface, but if light is created by the particles striking the surface then you either cannot explain, or need to explain in far more detail how sparse particle bunching and dense particle bunching transmit light to a surface but moderate particle bunching somehow does not.

Currently, it’s complete nonsense. Labeling it with numbers hides the nonsense. Such numbers jiggering is numerology, not scientific progress. (a very common habit of the past century)

[Shiva]

Yes when they are in opposite phase. If you have projecting particles as the reason for the wave phenomena, there is no mechanical reasoning for opposite phase waves to cancel each other out.

Though this visualization should have the peak of a wave aligned with the maximum compression point, it seems to have gotten everything else right when I skimmed it: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class9th-physics-india/in-in-sound-india/in-in-longitudinal-waves-speed-of-sound/v/speed-of-sound

Here is another discussion on waves:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-physics/x215e29cb31244fa1:wave-properties/x215e29cb31244fa1:waves/v/wave-properties-wave-properties-high-school-physics-khan-academy

When I saw one of your discussions on light waves, it indicated a ballistic-like model. (Or projected medium if you like) When we discussed it above I mentioned this idea. Your idea of light as I gathered from your materials is not a typical wave – where the medium remains stationary while the waves propagate through it.

Your idea of a wave is that particles (as expressed elsewhere) <font face=”inherit”>move at the speed of the wave and the bunching of these moving particles or “etherons” is what creates a waving phenomena.</font>

<font face=”inherit”>This idea is what will produce the “medium density” (upon superposition of waves 180 degrees out of phase) that we discussed earlier. It will not </font>produce<font face=”inherit”> destructive interference and this is the idea I’m saying is unworkable.</font>

Projecting substance of etherons or otherwise describing particles moving at wave speed with a bunching phenomena, is NOT normal wave phenomena and will not function like a mechanical wave. It will not have destructive interference.<font face=”inherit”>.</font>

[Shiva]

I have seen your explanation of light waves as alternating amounts of particles projecting in a ballistic sort of form where the wave nature is explained by the spacing between the particles alternative between greater and lesser spacing.

If this is still the basis of your theory of light, the point still stands that it cannot produce destructive interference, therefore it CANNOT be a tenable theory of reality.

Your statements about water depth are irrelevant and non-functional since destructive interference happens on tiny waves at the very surface of an ocean miles deep.

“I regard light as a pure wave phenomenon that we can describe without the use of particles.”

From this apparently conflicting statement, it seems you’re now saying I’ve misinterpreted your current opinion and current theory. A “pure wave” intimates a non-physical idea of waves and fields which run entirely counter to the very nature of the primary arguments of the natural philosophy society as I’ve understood it.

It’s a mainstream idea that allows waves to just exist without any explanation for the action, (magic) and in-fact claims that an action occurs without anything performing the action… like saying a “jog” is a real thing in reality without the need for “joggers” to perform “going for a jog.”

1) If you are now rejecting the ballistic particle model of light waves you’ve represented elsewhere: Please state only that here now clearly.

2) If you now espouse mainstream ideas of fields and mechanics-free waves, then please also clearly state that here now.

“Available ether wind in horizontal direction is between 0 and 0.46 km/sec. MMX is useless.”

Presuming on the front end that there is no toroidal vortex of ether around the earth as directly and unambiguously represented by the primary communicators of Maxwell’s equations (FitzGerald, Heaviside, and Lodge) is useless nonsense.

Thus simply taking the measurements of the actual experiment with the knowledge of how it works gives a north-south bias in the direction for the wind of around 8-12 km/sec which precisely matches the tens of thousands of experiments done by Dayton Miller.

However, under a Lorentzian regime it represents a much larger speed which is a longer explanation I will put off for a different time, but suffice it to say that you are neglecting the coefficient of ether drag for air. (predicted by Fresnel, proven by Fizeau)

All Michelson experiments in vacuum should be null, even in lorentz-poincare relativistic ether.

[Shiva]

“Instead you only talk in very general terms and use terms like ‘lipstick on a pig’. Therefore the discussion leads nowhere.”

No, the reason it’s going nowhere is that you don’t address the problem. I’ve already said the one single thing that needs to be said and you’re going round in circles so I have to say more about the one thing to get you to focus on it.

It’s not general to say you can’t explain interference with your model. It’s direct and concise statement of the problem. The rest of the words are to get you to focus on that one fact.

“Therefore light travels down faster than up.”

Oh, for the love of Mike! …here we go again!! — INTERFERENCE IS THE SUBJECT — STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS! PLEASE!!!

“It seems that you are not willing to discuss with me anymore. It is a pity, since there is an important distinction between our ideas that needs to be discussed.”

Actually I just focused on other things for a couple days. This is a very minor forum within the sphere of conversations I’m keeping up while trying to finish two papers and write a book.

…but yes, as you keep changing the subject I do feel very offput. Perhaps without saying it you’re wanting to give assent that it is a problem in your theory but you feel like there are pieces that are still recoverable regardless???

“In your theory you use a density concept instead.”

No, that was a decade ago. I now recognize it’s rigidity that is critical and an appropriate model will not work via the density concept, though eventually I’m sure it will play some role as well, but as a minority aspect of the mechanics instead of majority.

Most of the problems in relativity stem from the vast majority of people misunderstanding General relativity and it’s difference from special …and nobody even knowing how relativistic ether works.

If we can establish that you have a problem with interference, then we can move forward in looking at he other aspects of your theory and how they might be recovered because I can see that you do address some of the important experimental problems and oversights.

[Shiva]

” I did never talk about density of particles I regarded the number per time unit instead”

Yes, and that equates to particle density of the stream of particles at any given point. This is demonstrated in your illustrations. It’s an irrelevant distinction. You know what I mean and using semantics as crutch is always counter-productive.

So, you can take any of my comments above and substitute the word “density” for “average number of particles per unit time” and the conversation remains perfectly the same. (because that’s what I meant)

“Yes the pos/neg cannot be much larger. Typing error, and you did not regard my correction.”

There were too many things discussed for me to have known what you were referring to. But not let’s address the new idea. You’re now saying that then total deviation of number of particles that make up the wave is very small.

Again, this has zero effect on the conversation. Small or large deviation creating a wave; you lack a mechanism for destructive interference when a peak shares a space with a trough.

“this small difference is the ether wind causing gravity.”

Gravity?? STOP changing the subject! You’re avoiding the problem. Destructive interference, nothing else!

All the rest is irrelevant. This is a fundamental failure that invalidates everything that relies upon your theory of light. (which is everything)

I know about the pioneer anomalies; not the subject.
I know about cosmological redshift; not the subject.

I know about newtonian gravity; Not. The. Subject.

Destructive interference is the subject. FOCUS!

It just won’t work in a stream of particle-based theory.

(you need to abandon streams of particles and return to aether and I can show you how)

[Shiva]

John, you haven’t explained it. I didn’t say anything about quantization and we’re not talking about constancy. Please focus and don’t change the subject.

Saying pos/neg is higher than mean makes absolutely no sense. Why would there be no light when the particles are moderately spaced but plenty of light when sparse or dense? You’re just grasping at straws by trying use opposition of pos/neg when your explanation of a wave is what’s at stake.

There is no opposition whatsoever to dense and sparse, and the combination is medium. You’re pulling things out of the “ether.”

[Shiva]

“I also have very minor disagreement with some of your interpretations, and I will explain why.”

Not sure what the specific disagreement is with but I’m not sure what experimental or mechanical basis you have for your spin ideas, so it makes sense we’d deviate at that point. I currently know of no experimental regime or basic mechanics that fit with the brief explanations you’ve given thus far.

“Without a physical linear timeline, time dilation is also impossible.”

No, you don’t need for there to be a physically extant future or past for the rate of change to be different in one place versus another. All you need is a variable speed of light.

Time is just a measure of change and the present moment certainly changes. One can, therefore, certainly measure the relative rates of change of things and discover an alteration of those relationships. This has occurred in numerous experiments.

What is impossible without a physically extant future and past is relative simultaneity. And with this I agree. There is no such thing as relative simultaneity. That’s an artifact of Minkowski attempting to justify isotropic constancy by conjoining space with time.

“The reason why clocks will read slightly different times when one clock travels through a higher altitude than another clock at lower altitude is because of an Aether density gradient that surrounds all massive objects.”

Yes, aether density was what I posited and explained back when I first started anti-relativity.com and that view has become dominant among aether theorists. That, however is a mistake I’ve corrected in recent years. It’s a mistake that comes down to us all the way from Fresnel. (and my personal mistake back then was not considering the independence of rigidity and density and their opposing effects on wave speed)

“With more space density at higher altitudes, there is more Aether per length than there is at lower altitudes. This means that an atomic clock must travel through more dense space at higher altitudes, and within each quantum of space (Aether unit) the clock must tick. More space density means more ticks per length.”

I’m afraid you’ve gotten something a bit muddled here. “Time” passes more quickly in space than on earth. (atomic processes occur more swiftly)

More ticks of a clock …to do what? You must apply this reasoning to a specific task to understand it better. If there is more space to traverse then the same processes will occur more slowly by comparison. Please think this through critically for a moment. If light must traverse a space and there is more of it, then, further, if the rate of its traversal is left the same, more time is required to perform the same action.

I believe your idea that “more ticks per length” has been left arbitrarily assumed and you need to revisit it. Why would a clock tick more? By what mechanism? We can’t just have a statement that it does so; that’s circular reasoning or statements of faith, not an explanation.

More particles cause more ticking? How? Why? You appear to be making this leap of faith without a reason. If there were more particles traversing matter per unit of comparative time and somehow each traversal of an aether particle interacting with the parts of a clock somehow mediated time, then, sure maybe it could work, but that’s not what you’re saying. (and it would require a theory of aether flow mediating time, not aether density)

A clock’s rate, if determined by interparticle interactions, would require more time by comparison to a clock’s rate governed by fewer particle interactions or less intervening space. (or quanta of aether)

More particles equals more time, yes, but the “more” here refers to the amount of time required to accomplish the same task compared to a place with less. (more time to accomplish a single tick of a time keeping device) Thus more time to accomplish the same ticks is slower time, not faster.

In an aether density model, one requires that the aether be more dense near the earth and less dense in space to alter the wave speed within the medium in the way desired, to make light faster in space and slower near the earth. (in accordance with experiment)

The mistake I believe I personally passed along (and improperly influenced a generation of aether theorists) is the impression from things like steel that density and rigidity were basically the same and therefore faster wave speed occurs in denser things. However it is not greater density, but greater rigidity that increases wave speed and greater density slows wave speed. The confusion from hard metals comes from the fact that rigidity goes up much faster than density in these materials compared to others.

“If the Riemann solution could have been calculated in Minkowski coordinates, then why bother with Riemann curvature?”

Because curvature provides a preferred frame and makes Minkowski coordinates just Lorentz coordinates which then allows GR to behave like an aether theory again and not be nonsense. It destroys the one thing Minkowski gave, frame independent constancy, and gives us a variable speed of light. (and gives a single and defined direction of relative simultaneity at worst)

“then photons can only move through space one Aether unit at a time, which is the Compton wavelength times the quantum frequency.”

…and this would make time occur more slowly in denser space instead of more quickly, as is verified by numerous experiments.

“all they would need to do is turn the interferometer up on its edge”

Unfortunately that’s functionally the same as Pound-Rebka and would do nothing to convince people that GR is in any way related to aether. (even though it is)

Either way it seem you have some drawing-board issues you need to revisit. “More ticks” of a clock compared to another ticking clock, does indeed, indicate faster time but more space and more particles or more things to accomplish or traverse for an equivalent task of ticking, means slower time.

You’ve mapped more-to-more instead of more-to-less.

More space to traverse = less accomplished.
Less accomplished = slowed time.

You currently have time running slower in space when, via experiment, we know it runs faster.

I used to make, basically, the same mistake.

[Shiva]

Hi David, I thought I was the only one who still used “MMX” as an abbreviation, haha.

I prefer Miller’s 1933 paper because of the maturity of his experience by that point: https://www.anti-relativity.com/Miller1933.pdf

As for the time aspect for special relativity, time was already part of Larmor’s contributions before even Lorentz. Einstein simply was concerned with the electrodynamics and didn’t learn the meaning of the kinematics well enough before using the system. Time dilation, however, is still part of aether, it’s just that it’s within absolute simultaneity.

It was actually Minkowski that really screwed the pooch (1907) when he codified constancy by conjoining space and time. That is what made the time-travel nonsense possible.

I think you’ll enjoy my paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01846

[Shiva]

It actually leaves me a little puzzled still but I haven’t cared enough to work it out because there’s such a snarl of BS surrounding relativity. From people misunderstanding the fact hat it’s a preferred frame theory (constancy is discarded) to the religious-like defense of it polluting every set-up or discussion of experiment in the past century. …I’ve left his one for later.

GR is an extension of MacCullagh’s ether, however, through Hilbert who was using Mie’s work which was based on MacCullagh, so there’s a good reason it works really well. The understanding of what the math means however, is hopelessly polluted. Those who support it NEVER separate the map from the territory so you can’t even talk to them about the meaning of the math.

Aside from all that, however, you’ll notice in the discussion that light is electromagnetism and stellar aberration is a well known effect where light is not directed at an instantaneous location, but the guy with the best answer there says:

“As an analogy, the electric field of a uniformly moving electric charge is directed toward the instantaneous position of the charge – not where the charge used to be”

…so then what does this mean for stellar aberration?

Like I said, too much of a smokescreen of BS for me to work on right now because there are tens of thousands of failure points like this that can get you lost in the weeds when it’s far better to track down the roots of everything and dig them up.

That’s what I do. I know the roots and I attack them directly by making people understand the root misunderstanding.</font>

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Shiva. Reason: Site adds a bunch of HTML garbage

[Shiva]

Sorry, John-Erik, but that just doesn’t work. It’s not rational or functional.

The peak of a wave and a trough of a wave completely cancel out. No light is transmitted, but the trough of a wave does show up and transmits light.

IE: You’re saying the low density particles show up and transmit light but medium density doesn’t. That just doesn’t track or make any sense whatsoever.

Let’s stay on topic, however because I agree with a lot of arguments against relativity since I’ve been creating, promoting, and spreading them for 20 years and that’s not the subject. (I used to to discuss the pioneer anomaly on Anti-relativity.com)

There’s no point right now talking about the many things we agree about.

The topic we need to focus on is this issue with your model. Destructive interference is a critical aspect of conventional waves and it is used and observed everywhere with light. Your idea of particles streaming at a cycling rate will not produce what is observed.

Unless you can provide some sort of explanation, you should abandon that claim and return to a proper aether. If you still feel unsatisfied with aether and wave-particle duality, I’d be glad to introduce you to a system you are not familiar with.

[Shiva]

Oof… after a quick review of your Dad’s material, it looks like you have no explanation for destructive interference.

Given that everything relies upon your processions of particles being spaced to create waves, this is a central and inescapable problem that would cause the entire theory to fall apart from the base. (totally ignoring other arguments against ballistic mechanics)

Let me quickly explain:
If one sparsely spaced (trough of wave) portion of a wave is overlaid (share the same space) on top of a densely spaced portion (peak) then the result is a medium spaced bunch of particles.

Thus the intensity of a light beam on a surface would be medium, not gone. Does that make sense to you?

Have you addressed this fundamental point of failure somewhere?