Its about time to see the light and the etheric ether
Light motion
Light is a wave motion, which means that light propagates in spherical or plane wave fronts. We describe these wave fronts by their normals, which is the ray direction. Therefore, the ray is, by definition, always orthogonal to wave fronts. The ray has no physical existence. The wave front instead has the physical existence. The ray is the concept we use in geometric optics, and in all coherent systems.
Although we do additions of ether wind, v, and wave velocity, c, we must remember that these two concepts are very different. c should be regarded more like a process, but v is a motion in a more common sense. Therefore, boundary conditions implied by mirrors are relevant in relation to c, but not in relation to v. So, light in standing waves takes the fastest way between between mirrors.
Coherent systems
Coherent systems are based on the phase concept. In a telescope, or in a camera, the wave front is transferred into a point, and detected there. In cavities, such as laser cavities and MMX interferometers, coherent light is generated due to feedback by means of parallel mirrors. This produces standing waves, and, since light takes the fastest (not shortest), way between mirrors, the wave fronts are always parallel to the defining mirrors. Ether wind inside the plane of the wave fronts cannot change phase, and this ether wind is therefore irrelevant. The correct description of light in a coherent system is therefore:
c(1+v.cosA/c)
(A is angle between c and v). Transverse ether wind is not observable in coherent systems. c defines the ray direction.
Not coherent systems
If we use light focused into a beam we can see the real motion of light as the direction of max amplitude. Amplitude modulation makes transverse ether wind observable. Therefore, correct description of light now becomes the vector sum
c+v
This is the beam direction.
Stellar and pulsar aberrations
Since the ray direction is relevant in a telescope we find that ether wind, v, cannot cause aberration in stellar light, and not in pulsar signals either. Stellar aberration is useless in relation to the ether wind. Instead, this effect is produced by the state of motion of the observer, u.
Michelson and Morley’s tests (MMX)
Since the ray direction is relevant in MMX there is no effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX, and no effect in Einstein’s light clock either. Stokes was therefore wrong when he, in error, introduced such an effect, and thereby reduced the prediction for MMX, by a factor of 2. It was therefore possible for Lorentz to use this gap to find acceptance for his concept dilation of time. A mistake that also gave us the twin paradox. To correct for this mistake we have to abolish time dilation, and instead make the concept contraction of bodies (not space) 2 times greater.
With a doubled value on the contraction of bodies we find this contraction to be equal to the reduction in 2-way speed of light. This is not a coincident, since atoms in a crystal inform each other about positions by 2-way ether based communication. We find therefore, that the effect in the longitudinal arm (about 10^-12) is compensated by contraction of matter. So, MMX is also a useless method.
Atomic clocks
We do not need time dilation to explain the behavior of atomic clocks. In these clocks bound electrons are orbiting inside the wave fronts from microwave signals. But these electrons are also moving forth and back in relation to the ether wind. The orbiting frequency becomes thereby sensitive to the ether wind . The frequency changes predicted by SRT plus GRT can therefore also be explained by one model, namely the ether wind. To do this we have to assume a vertical ether wind. Agreement to RT is found if we assume an ether wind equal to the speed of a satellite in a circular orbit at the same altitude as the ether wind.
As a side effect of this assumption we also find an explanation to gravity.
Conclusions
- Stokes did not observe the difference (around 10^-6 in horizontal light) between ray and beam, and he also missed the fact that the effect in the longitudinal arm in MMX (around 10^-12) is compensated.
- Stellar aberration and MMX are both useless in relation to the ether wind.
- Lorentz managed to hide Stokes’ flaw to the cost of individual aging.
- Einstein changed contraction of bodies to contraction of space, and also invented fantastic clocks that never could be wrong but could display different values on time.
- The addition of errors upon errors has made it difficult to see back far enough to see Stokes’ mistake.
- By introducing a vertical ether wind we can explain gravity in agreement to Fatio’s 300 years old model.
P.S.
The difference between Michelson’s and Stokes’ interpretations of MMX are in my opinion important, and I have tried to initiate debate around that question. As you see on the last posts in this blog, the interest from CNPS is weak. I had expected comments both pro and con. However, I have got strong support from professor Hartwig Thim in Linz
John-Erik Persson
Book1 Printed
Written by John-Erik Persson
I have made a correction regarding the last sentence under ‘coherent systems’: The correct version is the following: c defines the ray concept.
John-Erik
Sorry I disagree with you. I think light doesn’t need a medium to propagate in. If we think of light as an electromagnetic wave caused by oscillating charges ,that is enough to explain everything .light is not actually a wave like waves in water or in air (sound). Light is the effect caused by oscillating charges .the electromagnetic field of the oscillating charge is described by a wave equation. The magnitude of the fields and also directions are changing in an oscillatory way. The electromagnetic fields are not real they discribe the force which describes the way charges accelerate in the region. So light is not actally a wave. It is a phenomenon described by a wave equation.
Ahmed
Do not be sorry; you have a right to your own opinion. However, I am confused when you say that light is not a wave, although described by a wave equation. Can you motivate that?
The most essential part in my article is the difference between light direction in coherent and in not coherent systems. What is your opinion about that?
Regards _____________ John-Erik
Mr John, I am a highschool student and very interested in physics. I don’t know what coherent means but I know that you believe in the ether and you think that light needs a medium to propagate in. That’s what I don’t agree with. I mean.. Not because something is described by a wave equation it should be a wave. The pendulum is described by a wave equation and it is not a wave. Also a mass oscillating in a spring.
Ahmed
If there is oscillations something must oscillate. If there is the force of gravity there must be something that transfer that force. The ether must have some mass, although ether particles can be so small and fast that we cannot see them.
From John-Erik
Mr John, oscillating things do not have to be material or even etheric they can be changing properties.in the case of light, when the charges move the strength of the electric field change with time and when they oscillate, the strength of EF change in an oscillatory way. We don’t need a medium because the electric field doesn’t need a medium to act in.. It acts in vacuum. And we don’t need something to transfer the force. Why do we need something to transfer the force? It may seem unreasonable but things do not have to be reasonable to be real. What can be real is what we see in the experiment not what we feel using pure reason. Pure reason is weak against the fantasy of nature. Pure reason works but is not the ultimate way of investigating nature. And about relativity I don’t accept relativity nor QM they are meaningless and inconsistent .And I don’t believe that they were confirmed experimentally. But I am waiting until I see by my eyes.Have you ever detected the ether? If you have never detected it you should never believe in it to satisfy your reason. In fact you should change your reason instead. I think things fall to the ground and that’s all. I don’t see a rope or something so I believe they just fall. I don’t think Einstein discovered the mechanism of gravity like a lot of people think. The space-time is just a diagram to represent the phenomenon. It is another way of expressing Newtonian gravity.
Ahmed
I also think we cannot accept QM and RT, since they are inconsistent and meaningless.
If oscillations are changing properties, than there must be something that owns this property. There cannot be a property without a thing. Action at a distance is spooky. Do you believe in ghosts?
Yes, QM and RT are NOT confirmed empirically.
I think that the ether is necessary as Einstein said when he had studied physics a couple of decades. I also think that the ether contains lots of energy that we cannot make use of.
Yes, GRT is bad a copy of Newton’s theory. It describes what happens without telling why.
If you see things falling to the ground you conclude that there must be a cause.
From _______________ John-Erik
Mr john
I don’t believe in ghosts nor God. And sorry I think they are equal to the ether. I think things fall and that’s all . If the problem is action at a distance then here is my opinion. In our world we can find a cause for Every effect and every phenomenon. That’s what seems. But as we go deeper and deeper we reach what we should call the fundamental or elementary causes of nature. You can think of those as the four fundamental forces. They explain everything that happens in nature. They are the ultimate cause of everything. Gravity is one of the most fundamental causes of nature. So asking why do things fall is illegal. Maybe there is a more fundamental cause that makes things fall…Maybe there’s an ether ,ghost, or even a God,but it’s not of wisdom to think that there’s an ether. We first should detect it and then believe in it. So for now it is wise to ignore it.and you said that there must be something that owns the property I agree with this.. But in case of the charges ,the reacting charges own the proprety .the electric field is a force acting on a unit charge. A force is the accelration of a unit mass so it’s all a property of acceleration and the interacting charges own the property. The electric field is an abstract notion that we use to describe nature. As far as we know the interacting charges affect each other in the pure vacuum. We have never seen a more fundamental cause that occurs in between. So here are the possibilities :maybe there’s no cause and maybe there’s a cause until now we have never found. So you can believe what you want but don’t jump directly to a model of that cause (ether).
With my respect
Ahmed
Charges are not enough. There must be something in between that can transfer the force between charges. I am not doing any model of the ether, but Fatio gave us a good model 300 years ago. He used a flow, in all directions, of small and fast particles.
Best regards from __________ John Erik
Mr John
You say that there must be something in between to transfer the force.. But we see and detect nothing .You have never detected those aether particles..why do you believe in their existence? You make a big mistake when you extract knowledge from your reason or logic. Doing this you assume that you know everything ..because your reason is based upon what you know. If you somehow met a person from the beginning of the human history and tell him that you can shape metal in a certain way that make you fly ✈, he would never believe you saying that this is unreasonable. But this is tremendously real. The experiment is the solution to this problem . And I don’t think scientists have ever observed the ether.
Ahmed
Logic only says there must be something. Fatio’s particles is only an interesing possibility. Observations of ether has never been direct. However, there are indirect indications.
John-Erik
Mr john
Logic is not a standard. What we find logical now is opposite of what ancient people found, because logic is based upon what you know and as a human you don’t know much about nature .the experiment is the solution. And experimentally we have never observed it. And about possibilities, there’s an infinite number of possibilities in this case. And those indirect indications are too indirect.
Ahmed
I do not think that modern logic is in opposition to Aristoteles logic. Our failures to give descriptions to the ether are not a reason to search for more knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not a reason to stop searching for more knowledge.
From ______________ John-Erik
Mr John
I don’t mean to stop searching. Any way thanks for the great conversation .
I have a question about Modern science.i really can’t accept a lot of aspects of modern science. Are relatively and QM really experimentally confirmed like most people claim? If not why do you think they are lying?are you a theorist or experimentalist?
Ahmed
In my opinion modern physics is based on false postulations:
Same light speed in relation to observers moving differently.
Bending of empty space although no fourth dimension exists.
Quantization of light.
Violations of energy conservation:
In destructive superposition in light.
In Big Bang.
Quantum jumping.
Regards from ________________ John-Erik