Pushing Gravity and Aether
Gravity
I agree to many of Glenn Borchardt’s ideas in the post below, but not to all of them. Since light is waves something must do the waving and thereby also explain the propagation of light and gravity. The ether, as assumed by Maxwell, must exist, as Glenn says. However, I do not agree with Glenn and van Flandern that Le Sage theory implies enormous gravity speed. Gravity in itself is constant and can therefore not reveal aberration in gravity from our sun. Gravity is a function of position but not a function of time. Therefore, speed of propagation becomes observable only if gravity is changing. LIGO can indicate a change, or an impulse, in gravity. This does not prove gravity to be constituted by waves. The separation between the 2 LIGO sites implies a time delay of something less than 10 msek, assuming light speed. The speed of gravity in itself is zero, but the speed of changes in gravity is c if ether particles move with the speed c. Le Sage assumes an ether with particles moving in all directions and gravity is produced by a disturbance in the spherical symmetry in this flow.
Ether
The model according to Le Sage explains gravity by an ether wind in radial direction. Therefore, on the surface of our planet we can expect to see a vertical ether wind causing gravity and a horizontal ether wind caused by the rotation of our planet. The horizontal component is demonstrated by the Sagnac correction in the GPS system. This idea is in line with experiments done by Ruyong Wang indicating that speed can be measured with the ether as the only reference. We cannot expect to see gravity or ether wind from other celestial objects since our planet is in a free fall. However, there is an exception during an solar eclipse. The reason is that the eclipse has effects only on parts of our planet. Therefore, we get a small difference in the effect in a point and the effect averaged over a larger area. This difference can probably be detected. Observations during solar eclipses confirm this idea.
The ether wind can have relevance for the orbiting of electrons in atomic clocks. The reason is that the electrons move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. The ether wind changes the form of the Coulomb force field and electrons are therefore accelerated and decelerated during each period of orbiting. This means that we get a clock dilation instead of a time dilation. This dilation is caused by vertical ether wind (instead of GRT) and horizontal ether wind due to satellite speed (instead of SRT in GPS).
Testing
The ideas presented here can be tested very easily by the use of an atomic clock. We need only to observe if clock speed is changing when we change clock orientation from horizontal to vertical.
Another method for measuring the one-way speed of light is to use 2 HeNe lasers with high frequency stability and very close in frequency. They should be mounted on a platform with very high mechanical stability and connected over a couple of meters by an optical cable and compared in an interferometer. The direction of measurement should be changed. This method can be seen as a scaled down version of de Witte’s method.
Detecting the ether wind
Detection of a focused beam based on amplitude means that the vector sum of ether wind and wave vector is relevant. However, orientation of wave fronts inside the beam does not depend on ether wind inside these wave fronts. Therefore, detection in a telescope based on phase means that transverse ether wind becomes irrelevant and wave front orientation is detected. However, this apparent orientation depends on the telescope’s state of motion. The reason is the finite time between focusing and detection. Therefore, stellar aberration contains no information about the ether wind (only about the telescope).
In a laser cavity light takes the fastest way between mirrors and wave vector is defined (and not vector sum). Transverse ether wind is irrelevant. No effect in the transverse arm in MMX. In Einstein’s light clock light’s behavior does not change if the equipment is moved inside the planes of the wave fronts and thereby also in the planes of the mirrors. No time dilation. In the longitudinal arm in MMX there is a real effect (due to 465 m/s at the Equator). However, this effect between mirrors is probably compensated by the same effect between atoms in a crystal. The reason to this is that the ether is used to control separation of atoms. Anyhow MMX provides no information about the ether wind.
First order effects of an ether wind are given by Sagnac’s experiments, Sagnac correction in GPS and the measurements by Ruyong Wang.
Second order effects of an ether wind are given by frequency changes in atomic clocks and also by a change in 2-way speed of light observable in the Pioneer anomaly. Gravity is also a second order effect of the ether wind.
Ether wind inside a wave front cannot bend the same wave front. However, bending is possible due to a gradient in the ether wind’s component transverse to the wave front (longitudinal to light). A radial ether wind directed towards our sun can therefore explain observed bending near our sun. This first order effect changes sign in the middle and causes a total effect of second order.
Planck was wrong, or?
Light and other electromagnetic waves are a behavior of the ether caused by moving charges. Light can also affect the behavior of charged particles. The channel for information from light to man is by the means of charged particles. Charged particles is what we can see in photocurrents or in neuron signals. Therefore, Planck’s constant h can indicate quantization of charge (instead of energy). h can be a property of charge quanta and quanta of energy may be not needed.
Photoelectric effect can be an interference effect between light and a tightly bound electron. Light can be changing potential energy in the electron due to a force transverse to motion. In the same way an X-ray wave packet can cause an electron to escape from its atom. The electron can later be captured by another atom whereby an X-ray of lower frequency is generated in a process reverse to the previous one. This can explain the Compton effect.
If we detect light with a charged particle we observe a force proportional to the charge. When the charge is zero the force is zero and no energy is consumed. Bound electrons can therefore generate blackbody radiation without consuming energy. When the detecting charge is introduced energy becomes needed and this energy comes from the ether, not from light. Light can be without energy but nevertheless needed in the transition of energy. We do not need quantum jumping.
John Erik Persson
PS more details can be found on GSJournal under my name. See The Radial Ether Wind and The Falling Ether and Light without Energy.
Do you have a diagram of the ether winds and what forces they should produce on objects?
Lloyd
It is supposed that you should provide comments here and state what you think is good and bad. Not just making questions.
About your question:
No, I have not drawn any diagrams, but my ideas are described in detail in an article called The Radial Ether Wind available at my personal page at http://www.gsjournal.net
John-Erik
I am very confused about the real meaning of “ether” that you and others use.
The original meaning of the word “ether” in physics is related to something stationary.
Well, I am emission theory adept. Always I criticized the notion and the existence of ether. But today, most of the ether theory supporters speak about dynamic ether (with some variations). This kind of “ether” is so much like the “my” force agents: Material particles, of course, much smaller than an electron.
If the ether continue to evolve in this way, I will get better accept this word, in the future.
Maybe we will find something that unifies us (Ether and emission supporters).
Helio
Yes, the ether concept is confusing to most people. When Einstein had studied physics for a couple of decades he realized that he had done a mistake when he abolished the ether. We cannot abolish a concept just because it is difficult. The ether must transfer electric, magnetic and gravitational forces. Gravity is difficult, since it penetrates everything.
Regards from
John-Erik
Dear John-Erik,
Although the radial ether wind is a good and simple model to illustrate the mechanism of gravity, quite a few problems suggest there are difficulties with the model. Let me point out a few.
(1) When two bodies that are gravitationally attracted approach each other, the attenuation in the flow of the radial ether wind which produces a shadowing effect is supposed to be maximal. For the sun and earth, this shadowing effect from the ‘pushing gravity’ is supposed to be at its strongest at perigee. How come then that the hand of gravity is weakened and the sun and the earth move apart, i.e. they are repelled, the sun-earth distance widens till apogee is reached. After this both bodies start coming together again. Such a phenomenon is symptomatic of an oscillatory phenomenon under the influence of two return forces/ tendencies, one attractive and the other repulsive. In one half of the cycle, one tendency dominates and in the following half cycle, the other opposite tendency dominates. Were this not so, the radial wind would have so much pushed gravity that the moon would have crashed on our heads after perigee. This has not happened.
(2). On “Transverse ether wind is irrelevant, …and No effect in the transverse arm in MMX”
If the transverse arm is extended far from earth surface to a distant light source, or better still remove the equipment altogether which is more practicable and just view a transversely located light source in the direction of earth motion, the effect of earth motion on light arrival times is observable in contrast to the findings of the MMX. To be more specific, the ‘translational’ motion of the earth has to be taken into account in computing the light arrival times from Pulsars and also in Lunar ranging experiments. In other words, the velocity of earth in space using an optical experiment is discernible and to use the phrase here, “Transverse ether wind becomes relevant”. This being so it would be ad hoc to make transverse ether wind relevant or irrelevant depending on the choice of explanation.
(3) Concerning the longitudinal arm in MMX, under ‘The Light Ray and the Sun’ topic (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/2016/09/21/the-light-ray-and-the-sun/), I linked references to experiments capable of detecting motion as low as 30m/s at the equator, far lower than the 465m/s. No effect on light experiments on earth surface were detected.
(4) Light and other electromagnetic waves are a behavior of the ether (= YES) caused by moving charges (= NO). I read an interesting discussion related to this on the CNPS website, the Ivor Catt problem and it appears to have reasonably excluded the moving charges theory.
Apologies for the lengthy first post.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
1
I do not think that the elliptic form of the orbit of our planet reveals anything about the force of gravity.
2
Transverse ether wind becomes irrelevant in coherent systems. I cannot daw any conclusions from your reasoning here.
3
Yes, this confirms my statement that MMX is useless.
4
No, light can still be generated by moving charges, but light is not transported by moving charges.
John-Erik
John-Erik,
1. Elliptic form with the sun at a focus and Not at the centre of ellipse implies that our planet alternately moves towards and away from the sun. The force of gravity only permits bodies to move towards each other. Therefore if bodies move away, i.e. REPELLED from each other there MUST be another force opposing gravity during orbital motion thereby preventing the spiraling inwards of planets into the sun and gravitational collapse.
2. Possibly, I didn’t make myself clear enough.
3. MMX will be useful for a theory for earth-bound dark matter as this prevents the influence of earth motion on optical experiments like that of MMX, while optical experiments using more distant light sources (e.g. pulsars, CMBR, GPS) beyond the earth-bound dark matter can be seen to be influenced by earth motion. The distinguishing factor that MMX enables us to discern is:
earth-based or earth stationary VS. non-earth based or non-earth stationary (e.g. Sagnac) optical scenarios
and this is supportive of Galilean relativity.
4. Okay, I get you.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
1
Elliptic form is explained by Kepler’s laws without repelling force.
3
MMX is useless in my opinion.
John_Erik
Okay, thanks. Kepler’s laws describe HOW planetary orbits have an elliptic form, but not WHY. That is why orbit is not circular but elliptical with an expanding and contracting orbital pattern.