Dialog or Monologues?
This web page
CNPS has got a good tool for dialog between members with this web page. We have seen very good contributions from Harry and Nick. They have analyzed Einstein’s theories and demonstrated many errors. This a very good start and a help for convincing our members about the many errors produced by Einstein. We should be grateful to Nick and Harry for this work of them.
Einstein’s errors can also be refuted by realizing that his theories are not physics at all but rather a very, very bad philosophy. This follows from the absurdities in the basic assumptions, using Maxwell’s ether theory without the assumed ether and also by explaining gravity as a bending of nothing and caused by geometric relations. This is the shorter way of refuting Einstein but of course we need the longer versions as well. However, monologues are not enough and we should use David’s tool for dialog also. This is urgent since many members only advocate own ideas without commenting on what other members have stated. Reviewing the work of others means cooperation and more cooperation is certainly needed in CNPS.
The Need for a Dialog
The reasoning in mainstream is based on emotions more than on logic. They are therefore willing to change opinion only due to a ready and complete theory. This causes a moment 22 situation.
The conclusion that time dilation does not exist means that, according to GPS, we must have a clock dilation. Harry and Nick have not explained that effect. I have suggested a solution based on the ether wind having an effect on bound electrons. This is described in Light without Energy. The article has not got much response.
Another idea is gravity as an effect of the ether wind. This means a falling ether that also can explain the Pioneer anomaly. In this ether model the reference for light speed is not a frame but a spherically symmetric field. The first order effect of vertical or horizontal ether wind can be tested by a scaled down version of de Witte’s method based on 2 HeNe lasers with high frequency stability. In this theory light travels down faster than up as I stated in The Too-General Theory of Relativity in Galilean Electrodynamics 10.4 in 1999. More details are available in The Falling Ether.
A third very important item is the irrelevance of the ether wind inside a wave front. In my opinion the component of the ether wind falling inside a wave front has relevance only in focused light detected by amplitude. In interferometers and in laser cavities wave fronts are defined by phase due to parallel mirrors and moving these mirrors inside their own planes cannot change behavior of light as Stokes said. In telescopes wave fronts are detected by phase and therefore also independent of transverse ether wind. Therefore real motion of light is observable only in focused light and in other cases we detect the normal to the wave fronts. These 2 concepts coincide in the frame (field) of the ether. This is described in The empirical background behind relativity in Physics Essays 23.4 and in The special theory of relativity and the Sagnac Effect in NPA Proc for 2007. Wave front bending is instead produced by the gradient in longitudinal ether wind. We can conclude that we get no tilting of wave fronts in transverse arm in MMX as Stokes said and no information about ether wind in stellar aberration.
A fourth example of questions needing more debate is the anomalies in gravity observed by 3 different methods during solar eclipses.
A fifth example of interest is the idea that energy interchange between electrons and light can be misunderstood. In my opinion light only intermediates in a process where electrons exchange energy with the ether. This cannot be decided by direct observations since ether and light in itself are both not observable. All information comes from the electrons. More information is found in Light without Energy.
Some readers may think that remarkable ideas are presented here. However, that is just what we should expect regarding a difficult enigma present for many decades. Without an ether we cannot solve this problem. We must search knowledge by looking at anomalies.
If you have ideas regarding the following concepts
- clock dilation due to ether wind
- gravity due to ether wind
- wave front bending due to longitudinal ether wind
- gravity anomalies due to ether wind
- energy interchange with the ether
than you can write a comment below on this web page.
The Falling Ether
Light without Energy
John-Erik: unfortunately, people often monologue. We need to dialogue. I agree. I provide all the tools, but people do not. I’m working on getting others to dialogue who are not the scientists.
“The conclusion that time dilation does not exist means that, according to GPS, we must have a clock dilation.”
Only if we assume that the speed of light is constant. In an analogous situation, if we wrongly assume that the speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the light source), then we come to the conclusion that, according to the Michelson-Morley experiment, “we must have a clock dilation”:
“Relativity and Its Roots” by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: “There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution – especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton’s laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that “the introduction of a ‘luminiferous ether’ will prove to be superfluous.”
Pentcho! The speed of light is constant in relation to the ETHER, not to the observer. CLOCK DILATION follows from GPS and not from MMX. MMX does not prove anything at all. See my first article on this page! See the website above! See also my demonstration that there is NO effect in the transverse arm in MMX. The effect in longitudinal arm is compensated. Stokes introduced an error that Einstein could use to introduce time dilation, (that also is a mistake). Einstein produced many errors, but based them on an error by Stokes. An ether wind blowing INSIDE a wave front cannot change the orientation of the same wave front, as Stokes said. Stellar aberration is also useless. With best regards from John-Erik
David. How shall we get people to cooperate? I have repeated for many years the idea that it was Stokes who started the confusion before Einstein made it even worse. Light in interferometers and in laser cavities is defined by the orientation of mirrors and of the state of motion of the ether. Boundary conditions implied by these mirrors define light wave fronts parallel to the mirrors to move with the speed c transverse to the mirrors. Relative motion between ether and mirrors inside their planes does not change boundary conditions and can therefore NOT alter the orientations of wave fronts. Pythagoras theorem was used in error first by Stokes (effect in transverse arm) and later by Einstein (time dilation). I have repeated this idea many times but NEVER, NEVER got a reaction pro or con. Why do not Nick or Harry answer on this VERY important issue????
Regards from John-Erik
“The speed of light is constant in relation to the ETHER, not to the observer.”
So, if the initially stationary observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source, the speed of the light relative to him shifts from c to c’=c+v? Yes?
Yes. The synchronization process in GPS proves this and the signals in direction east to west goes faster in one direction than in the other. MMX proves nothing.
” MMX proves nothing.”
On the contrary – the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton’s emission theory. But I think defending such views would be pointless here – you are all steadfast etherists in NPA, aren’t you?
You are just repeating an opposite opinion and you provide no detailed arguments. I have given you references to different articles of mine that contain many details and you have not presented any errors in these details. I do not know if you have read my articles or if you are informed about my views.
“You are just repeating an opposite opinion and you provide no detailed arguments.”
I referred you to Banesh Hoffmann’s text where he claims that, “without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations”, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the assumption that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the source, as predicted by Newton’s emission theory of light. Do you agree? This is not a matter of opinion – it can be shown by simple, although somewhat tedious, calculations. Here are more references:
John Norton: “These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton’s own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day.”
John Norton: “In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein’s serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.”
Thank you for more references.
In my opinion tedious calculations can reveal only internal inconsistencies, but cannot tell us how well the theory approximates reality.
About the first contribution from Norton: He assumes in error that the star is moving instead of the Earth. This is in line with SRT but not correct. Due to the enormous distance to the star light direction from the star is not changed. Instead it is the DIFFERENCE in observer motion that is relevant. This means that the bending of the wave front is only an ILLUSION. Due to the finite time of light propagation inside the telescope we get the same telescope error for light WAVES as Bradley said about light PARTICLES. There is no REAL bending of wave fronts since ALL points on the wave front are changed equally by TRANSVERSE ether wind. Instead bending can be produced by a gradient in LONGITUDINAL ether wind. This can explain the bending of light near our sun as an effect of the ether wind as described in THE FALLING ETHER. See my CNPS page.
The irrelevance of transverse ether wind means also that there is no effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation” reappeared. Sorry I quit the discussion.