The Light Ray and the Sun
In my earlier post I presented an alternative to Einstein’s statement that gravitational potential divided by 
Mainstream is wrong
The equation above gives a value for light speed on our planet that is -0.2m/s in relation to the value in free space. This small difference can be neglected, but not inside our planetary system. A space station leaving our planet will see a change (due to gravitational potential from our sun) increased to about 
This looks like an error done by mainstream physicists. However, this error is not easy to see since light speed, and indicated range are both changed, and the space ship has used the rockets. Between 20 and 70AU communication has worked but not rockets and therefore we have a possibility to observe a small change of 1.6Hz in the carrier frequency of 
Einstein was wrong
The fact that small gravity effect from our planet can hide a larger effect from our sun appears to be more reasonable in light of the ether model than due to the etherless model.
Another method to discriminate between the two models is to regard the effect of light bending near our sun. The effect due to Einstein’s model has been studied by Akinbo Ojo in an article called The Velocity of Light in Flat Space-time. He has demonstrated that light is first decelerated and later accelerated. The effect due to the ether model has been studied by this author in an article from 2011 called Illusions and Reality in Relativity. This article concludes that light is first accelerated and later decelerated. Therefore, the two articles give effects of opposite sign. Since the ether model is in agreement to observations we therefore have a very certain indication that the ether model is the correct model. Einstein was wrong on this point.
Conclusions
In comparison between the two models we conclude:
The bending of light near our sun demonstrates clearly that the ether model is the correct model.
A satellite in circular orbit demonstrates that tangential motion can compensate radial ether wind of the same magnitude.
The Pioneer anomaly cannot help us in relation to the comparison between the two models, but indicates that the approximation of c can be larger than 0.2m/s.
References
Articles by this author are available at GSJournal and at CNPS.
The article by Akinbo Ojo is available here.
Written by John-Erik Persson
John-Eric,
Einstein did have an ether model, more to the point he gave it definition in his May 5th 1920 address at the University of Leiden where he chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of Relativity.
To quote:
”
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, THERE EXISTS AN ETHER. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
”
This defescription may not play well with your analogous model of an ether wind, since it clearly requires parts which may be tracked through time. My views of a non-particulate ether, while not base on Einstein’s theories, are in line with his description.
Both are ether models.
I interpret the difference you speak to, between the two view of light passing by the sun, can be reconciled if you take into account whether the author is speaking of the one way velocity of light or the average two way speed of light.
A satalite in circular orbit demonstrates that the effects of gravity can be nullified by constant acceleration towards the center of gravity. This holds true for both electromagnetic radiation and mass.
In my view the examples given do not give prefrence to either ether model.
Cornelis
The strongest argument for a radial ether wind is that it can explain gravity. Another argument is that dc/c=0 and therefore c is a constant of nature. Remember that our measurements of c are in reality always measurements of c2 (the 2-way speed).
John-Erik
John-Eric,
I have already explained how the ether wind model defies logic and the exclusionary principle.
There are valid explanations for gravity but a physical ether wind is not one.
Yes we measure the speed of light in a laboratory environment using triangulation or 2-way speeds but use it as a constant when measuring the distance with it. Such as the light bent by the suns gravitational field has traveled for at least 4.24 light years. Constancy is a relative choice, and the constancy of the speed of light assumes the inconsistency of time (rate) and/or distance.
Thanks for your comments.
Cornelis
I do not understand your reasoning. Do you think that these particles cannot exist just because we are unable to detect them?
John-Erik
John-Erik,
No I have never given that as a reason.
I have said that their behavior violates the accepted laws of physic and that is why they can not exist.
You and others have never produced any answers as to why these violations should be ignored and the theory simply accepted. I spoke to some of this elsewhere in this thread on September 25, 2016 at 8:10 pm, again without answers. As I have said there are much better solutions that do not suffer from these pitfalls.
John-Erik,
Thank you for drawing attention to my paper. I titled it ‘flat space-time’ so as to overcome referee bias, but flat space-time is just space devoid of matter content or field, i.e. free space. As Cornelis points out, Einstein (at least a part of him) was not averse to an ether, do not mind what some who claim to be his followers are fond of falsely attributing to him. That being so, we now have three “ether models” to choose from, (if we have to use that word “ether” knowing that many in the mainstream dislike it). I see the three ideas as similar with minor areas of conflict.
Mine and Einstein’s say light speed slows down as it approaches gravity, i.e. decelerates, while your model says light speed accelerates as it approaches gravity. This is a distinguishing feature.
In your model ether particles can have a small mass, and I am of the opinion that the final solution is one requiring the presence of a form of matter as well, but I refer to this as ‘dark matter’. This is a similar feature in our models. You may check my article on arXiv (before the censorship system unfortunately took control of the archive, “Speculations on dark matter as a luminiferous medium”, http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3790). Unfortunately, a form of matter called ‘dark matter’ did not come into scientific reckoning till around the 1930s, by which time rigid and dogmatic positions had already been taken on Einstein’s postulates and relativity theories.
To the extent that in one breath it says light speed is constant and in another breath it says light speed varies due to the effect of gravity, Einstein’s model is inconsistent and I will not dwell further on it in this post. Indeed, Einstein himself said Special relativity is ONLY valid where gravitational influence is absent. By implication, since the Earth has a gravitational field, Special relativity is not even valid on earth surface. Reference quote: “… We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena {e.g. of light}”, p.89, Relativity: the special and general theory I dwell more on this in my e-book, ‘Hypotheses Fingo’.
The following experimental findings can be used to confront each of the three models. The Pioneer Anomaly, the Shapiro delay, the Gravity Probe A experiment, the Pound and Rebka experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experimental findings (and possibly Sagnac’s).
In almost all the experiments mentioned above, light speed is faster further away from gravity and slows down towards gravity, a deceleration. Sometimes the experimental findings are interpreted as “clocks running faster at an altitude and slower near gravity”; “frequency reducing near gravity (gravitational redshift)”, “time delay or dilated near gravity”, etc. Essentially these are just semantics. The velocity of light slows as it approaches a gravitational body and hastens as it leaves it.
Once you allow those your ether particles with some mass to be abundant and capable of forming a gravitationally earth bound matter medium (just like atmospheric air), you may no longer require transverse and longitudinal ether winds to explain the Michelson-Morley results. This is simply Galilean relativity (the light, the propagating medium, the observers, the source are all in one ‘Galilean ship’, i.e. one frame of reference). If you further allow the density of these ‘ether particles with mass’ to vary with height, as is to be expected of any matter medium near a massive gravitational body like earth or the sun (denser nearer the body and more rarefied with altitude), all the light phenomena associated with General relativity also become part of this single mechanism of ether particles with a small mass which you yourself have alluded to. Because of the increased density of your ether particles with mass, light speed will be slower near the surface than at a height, i.e. a deceleration towards gravity.
If you can get hold of this article, ‘Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS’, by Ruyong Wang and Ronald Hatch, check Fig.2 and do the following. In place of Sound put Light. Delete Air and in its place put ether particles with some mass or ‘dark matter’as you prefer, then you understand what I am suggesting. I made reference to their article in my e-book.
In summary, the mainstream is wrong and one can only hope they come round to it someday.
All the best,
Akinbo
Akinbo
There are many reasons to time delay, and therefore light bending is better. I think it is your theory that deviates from the other theories.
See me article Physics without Paradoxes available at my GSJournal page you will find that I regard stellar aberration, MMX and the light clock as useless. Do you agree? We should instead today focus on GPS clocks, GPS system, Pioneer anomaly, light bending near Sun and gravitational anomalies.
The GPS system is the best tool we have regarding ether. Hatch and Wang are correct. Light speed is c+v and c-v. A radial ether wind, that can explain gravity means that light is leaving our planet with speed c-7.9km/s and returning with c+7.9km/s. After leaving our planet speeds become c-30km/s and c+30km/s at Rau=1. Far away we have speeds c-(30/Rau^1/2)km/s and c+(30/Rau^1/2). Here Rau=distance to the Sun in astronomical units. I have explained this in The Pioneer Anomaly and the Ether Wind available at my page.
Dear John-Erik,
I have read part of your papers like Physics without Paradoxes, where you said the MMX was a useless experiment on the grounds that “the separation between the mirrors depends on the length of physical objects in the test equipment. This length depends on the separation of atoms in a solid body… The effect searched in MMX can therefore be compensated by a contraction of physical bodies. MMX can be useless”.
Though I like your method of reasoning but don’t agree with your conclusion and let me expatiate why. For a moment, let us remove the physical equipment and tubes so we don’t deal “separation of atoms in a solid body”. Let us have a system of 4 mirrors at the tip of a cross-like arrangement with equal distance (+). If you like place this arrangement at the equator with one mirror east of centre, another west, another north and the fourth south and have a signal emitter/detector at the centre. I would have preferred a one-way analysis with light emitted from each mirror but I want to avoid arguments over synchronization.
Now let light be emitted from the intersection point (o) to each mirror and the timing of receipt of subsequent reflections from the mirrors, E, W, N, S noted. Knowing the direction of earth rotation as West to East and that of orbital motion about the Sun also West to East (prograde, as seen from the North), will there be a difference in light arrival times at the detector at o? Will the light reflected from the East mirror arrive at the intersection ‘o’ earlier than that reflected from the West mirror given that the detector (observer, o) is moving towards the East and away from the West (i.e. W → o ← E). When I get your answer I will proceed to stage 2 of the interrogation.
I also have another question: What is the velocity of your ether wind relative to a stationary earth-based observer?
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
All four signals arrive at the same time, and when you turn the equipment 90 degrees they will still be arriving at the same time. This follows from the simple fact that the shortening in E to W direction is the same as the reduction of 2-way speed of light. This means that dc2/c2=dL/L=-(465m/s)^2/c^2. MMX is useless, and has been that for 100 years.
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik
Thanks for your concise reply.
I think you gave the correct answer: All four signals arrive at the same time, and when you turn the equipment 90 degrees they will still be arriving at the same time.
We want to find out the mechanism and “why” by dialectic / reductio ad absurdum discussion.
Now, replace light with sound signals. Still using “the cross-like arrangement with equal distance (+)”, with earth moving in the West to East direction both rotation and orbitally, will there be a difference in sound signal arrival times? Will the signal arriving from the Eastern point in the cross arrangement arrive earlier at o before the signal coming from the West point? Whatever is the answer provide the mechanism. When I get your answer I will proceed to stage 3 of the interrogation.
Thanks.
*Perhaps, we should leave the question of what is the velocity of your ether wind relative to a stationary earth-based observer?, till later as this interrogation session seems to be proceeding nicely and honestly between us.
I will also later revisit the response: “This follows from the simple fact that the shortening in E to W direction is the same as the reduction of 2-way speed of light. This means that dc2/c2=dL/L=-(465m/s)^2/c^2”, to ascertain the mechanism behind the shortening as there is no physical instrument in the arms of the cross-like arrangement. What we have is source at the points and receptor/detector at the centre or intersection.
Akinbo
Since the atmosphere follows our planet the state of motion of our planet is without relevance. The times can be changed only due to winds. Assuming zero wind, all signals arrive at the same time.
John-Erik
Akinbo
You have not comment on my statement that light to and from Earth have different speeds.
John-Erik
John-Erik,
“on my statement that light to and from Earth have different speeds”
I didn’t quite understand what you said above in respect to GPS, “… Light speed is c+v and c-v. A radial ether wind, that can explain gravity means that light is leaving our planet with speed c-7.9km/s and returning with c+7.9km/s. After leaving our planet speeds become c-30km/s and c+30km/s at Rau=1. Far away we have speeds c-(30/Rau^1/2)km/s and c+(30/Rau^1/2)…”.
I see many ideas mixed together. But YES, the light speed to and from Earth have different speeds. If c is the earth determined value, light leaving our planet does so at a speed accelerating above c (i.e. c + ?), while that returning does so at a speed starting initially higher than c (i.e. c + ?) but reducing in speed, i.e. decelerating till it reaches c again at earth surface. My initial calculations suggests ? can reach a value up to 0.2087m/s in space distant from earth surface. This is what causes the Pioneer anomaly as light does not maintain a speed c throughout its to and fro journey.
Then your latest response… “Since the atmosphere follows our planet the state of motion of our planet is without relevance. The times can be changed only due to winds. Assuming zero wind, all signals arrive at the same time.”
Why then do you exclude the possibility that your ‘ether particles with some mass’ or a dark matter as I prefer to call it, cannot form a gravitationally bound atmosphere following our planet? This makes the motion of our planet, either the 465m/s rotation, the 30km/s orbital motion, the 225km/s solar system motion or the 370km/s motion relative to the CMB radiation to be without relevance as you point out. This is Galilean relativity at work.
The light, its medium in the vicinity of earth and the stationary observer are all in the same frame of motion. Unfortunately, such a possibility did not come into scientific reckoning till the 1930s by which time dogmatic positions had been taken concerning Special relativity. Using ether wind or other mechanism like the mechanics advocated by Steve Bryant will be forced to confront the dilemma which of the 3 or 4 different speeds (all simultaneously valid) they will pick in calculating the findings of the MMX experiment.
You said somewhere that experiments sensitive enough below 465m/s will find the c+v and c-v on earth surface. You may take a look at some of the tests here, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html (noting though that mainstream results can be biased and doctored) and look under “Modern Laser / Maser Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy”. You will find that even at sensitivities of 30m/s there is no difference in light arrival times on earth surface between Eastern and Western directed beams using my analogy of “cross arrangement above”
Above earth surface is a different scenario as “the atmosphere” is no longer strongly coupled to earth motion and this effect of West – East receptor motion is detected by GPS signals.
Thanks for the honest engagement.
Akinbo
Akinbo
You have not understood my use of the speeds 7.9 and 30 km/s. The fact that we do not see a tangential speed of 30 km/s in relation to Sun is due to a radial ether wind of 30 km7s in direction towards the Sun. The same is valid for other celestial bodies except our own planet. By the same reason a satellite in low orbit must move with the speed 7.9 km/s in order to compensate for a vertical ether wind of 7.9 km/s. Light is leaving our planet with the speed c-7.9km/s and arriving back at c+7.9km/s. Therefore c2=c[1-([7.9km/s]/c)^2]=c-0.21m/s on Earth. For Rau=1 we get c2=c-3m/s, {0.21[(30/7.9)^2]}. For Rau we get c2=c-(3m/s)/Rau. (df/f=2dc2/c2). We get df/f=(10^-9) at 20 Rau). The Pioneer anomaly must be explained by the difference between 20 and 70 au. That is (10^-9)(1-20/70).
You must read my papers more to understand my reasoning.
Regards from
John-Erik
Akinbo
From what I can tell Einstein characterized gravity as a curved space-time but never gave a physical explanation for the cause of such a gradient. In short his model was mathematical only. Any attempt to modify a physical ether wind theory, or any particle based theory for that matter will always have to violated the exclusionary principle. I have not seen any such theory capable of explaining inverse square and rectilinear acceleration of two isolated bodies towards each other.
Cornelis
Newton’s and Einstein’s models do not explain anything. The Fatio model can at least explain tidal effects.
John-Erik
John-Eric.
I do not profess to be an expert on Einstein but from what I have read he did propose ether although he did not expressly define what its properties would be, only the behavior of time, light and matter in it.
What he also expressed was what it could not be!
“But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
More was said about this in response to your previous “The Pioneer and the Sun” post.
The Fatio model as you now refer to it is an attempt to define ether giving it exactly such qualities characteristic of ponderable media. It does not explain anything new, it is just an attempt at providing a visual aid for what could otherwise not be seen. And since the behavior of the tiny gravity conveying particles violates the laws of physics we can only conclude that it is not a phyical reality. These violations had been discussed in a forum on this site over a year ago where you indicated at least two basic questions could not answer.
“What is the source of the particles? Why do they not interact with other like particles and yet selectively interact with atomic matter?”
You also said:
“Le Sage’s particles apparently cannot be detected as individuals. Nevertheless there are supports for Le Sage’s ideas although they are only indirect.”
The same could be said for any mathematical theory.
Belief in these types of models adds to our ability to visualize gravitational behaviors, but at the same time by ignoring the laws they violate distract us from the discovering of a more complete solution.
Unless you have new solutions to the violations of logic in pushing gravity I see no value in continuing along this path.
Hi Cornelis (and John-Erik),
Cornelis I like your questions and any who claim there is an ether wind must ponder them.
What is the origin of the wind and its destination? If the particles have mass do they obey Newton’s laws of motion (and gravity)?
I am of the opinion that there are matter particles, which as Einstein pointed out the parts can be tracked through time. These matter particles can transmit light (e.g. glass, water, air). But light can be propagated through space devoid of any matter particles. The question is how? It is also a necessary consequence of the transverse wave nature of light that space as a medium must be solid in nature. This is where I come up with a model of space that consists of parts (geometric points) which do not move in the manner of particles being tracked in time, and also possesses the required solid characteristic. It is indeed a formidable riddle.
Akinbo,
You need to read Einstein May 5th 1920 address at the University of Leiden more closely. He says there are NO parts which may be tracked through time. The formidable riddle is solved by a non-particulate solid (continuum) that can as you say transport both longitudinal and transverse tension. No motion of parts is necessary or even possible since there are no part. The (geometric points) as you say are only used as location points with no other purpose than setting up a mathematical grid for our calculations. I have expanded on this in the past and will not go into it again with this post.
Cornelis
Pushing gravity has the best explanation capacity and this direction should be followed, since gravity anomalies during eclipses and tidal effects supports this idea. Gravity can also be explained by the falling ether.
John-Erik
John-Erik,
We have been here before “Unless you have new solutions to the violations of logic in pushing gravity I see no value in continuing along this path.” There is a better solution that does not violate any known laws of physics, not only providing for a mechanisum for gravity but also all other forces (attractive or repulsive) and the emergence of matter.
Even the oversimplified rubber sheet model of the curved space-time easily demonstrates the behavior gravitational forces during eclipses and tides with no conflicts. By replacing the solid spheres normally used with pliable fluid filled spheres you will quickly see visible evidence of double bulge cause by tidal forces as the spheres distort.
Desite the statement on the slide at the top of the CNPS page space-time does have a physicality but its properties are not particulate.
Cornelis,
I have read the address and included quotes from it in my book.
I am a bit new here so not privy to past discussions which you may be tired of revisiting so let me frame my questions concerning the continuum this way:
Is this continuum capable of vibrating and can a medium incapable of somehow exhibiting a discrete nature vibrate?
Is this continuum eternally existing or not? That is, can parts of it cease existing or come into existence in a non-simultaneous manner (I hope I make myself clear here).
If a part of the continuum ceases to exist or one previously non-existent comes into being, has that part moved? Can this be accepted as moving from “somewhere” to “nowhere” and vice-versa and if so is this not an example of a motion that cannot be tracked through time? I will elaborate more on this type of motion under an appropriate forum topic so that I do not distract from the topic here.
Regards,
Akinbo
*By the way Einstein gave some thought to the continuum having parts. Lee Smolin refers to these as “atoms of space” here, http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/pullin/sciam.pdf
Akinbo
You should ask me a third question.
John-Erik
John-Erik,
Your statement that Light is leaving our planet with the speed c-7.9km/s and arriving back at c+7.9km/s, implies that light speed decelerates as it moves away from our planet and accelerates as it arrives back. I think this is contrary to experimental evidence that light frequency (and I think speed) quickens as it moves away from earth’s gravity and slows as it arrives back. Experiments suggest light frequency (and speed) decrease as light falls and increase as light rises in a gravitational field (e.g. Pound and Rebka; Gravity probe A) .
My third question: These two papers, Dark Matter in the Solar System, https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3767 by Xu and Siegel (who manages the popular blog ‘It starts with a bang’ and Placing Direct Limits on the Mass of Earth-Bound Dark Matter by Adler, https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0899 are supportive of the fact that the density of dark matter (or ether particles with mass as you prefer) around and nearer planetary bodies like earth is enhanced above that of the background dark matter galactic density that is further away. They specifically accept the notion of earth-bound dark matter As we both agree one way or another that some type of ether particles or dark matter exist do you agree that the density will reduce with higher altitude above earth surface and if so will light move faster or slower in a materially denser environment?
There are views in the mainstream that should exploited by critical thinkers to further our cause in place of dogmatic resistance when this may not be meritorious. This same earth-bound dark matter can serve as a medium that explains the MMX findings thereby debunking the Special relativity interpretation as I have tried to illustrate here.
On your radial and falling ether wind mechanism for gravity, I will look for and pose my questions on the appropriate forum topic.
Akinbo
Akinbo
c+-7.9km/s is not in conflict with measurements, since we measure c2=c-0.21m/s. This is also in agreement to Einstein’s statements. This effect is in radial direction only.
The ether can be the dark matter.
John-Erik
Akinbo,
I was making the point about his address that he said “NO PARTS which may be tracked through time”
This is in agreement with my view since if there are parts an attraction force between them must be reconciled.
It is best, as you say, not to create a distraction here.
I see you did sign into the Gravity Forum a couple of months ago but have started no Forums that I can see.
I have not been active on the site for over a year since there was not sufficient interest at the time.
The only reason I see for considering a quantization of gravity is for building a finite element mathematical analysis models to be used for evaluating simulations of the continuum’s behavior.
I have not read the article by Lee Smolin but will review it as time allows.
Cornelis
Einstein spoke about particles that could be tracked. He said nothing about particles that could not be tracked.
John-Erik
John-Eric
Again from the summary paragraph of his lecture read the last sentance carfully.
”
”
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, THERE EXISTS AN ETHER. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether MAY NOT BE THOUGHT OF as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
”
When looked at his description of ether under the correct context and take into account the (,):
But this ether MAY NOT BE THOUGHT OF as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media.
But this ether MAY NOT BE THOUGHT OF as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Cornelis,
It should be noted that Einstein was not as dogmatic as his later day followers. Moreover he was ready to reverse himself when necessary. He was also a thinker who continuously rolled things over in his mind, thinking this way and that way while awaiting that crucial insight or breakthrough.
It is in this regard that I want you to consider the riddle in his statement, “But this ether MAY NOT BE THOUGHT OF as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it”, and that in the same speech, “Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of the “quasi-rigid” luminiferous ether, the parts of which can carry out no movements relatively to one another EXCEPT the small movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves.” The speech can be found here http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html.
One interpretation of the part I quoted is that there are parts, but their movement relative to one another are small corresponding to light waves.
Akinbo
Thanks for the link to Einstein’s speech. The most important is the statement that the ether exists, but the ether has no specific speed. This is confusing.
John-Erik
Akinbo,
I have not developed my views around Einstein’s lectures or writings but rather on personal observations and logic. I will not deny that my thoughts and views where not influenced by him since his influence is everywhere and it is unavoidable. I have in the past quoted the last paragraph from the very link you shared many times is the past. None the less I have come to reconcile physics with similar if not exact agreement with his description of ether. The passages found earlier in his speech, which you refer to, are in reference to the evolution towards a better description of the ether. I will not tell you that I know his mind but I will tell you that in my view a particulate ether is not needed and that I do not consider his description of ether be a riddle as you describe it. The real riddle here is how can the falling ether and ether wind can have physical existence since such motion of particles violates the accepted laws of physics and observed particle behavior.
In my view all energy and matter are dynamic gradients in a solid ether continuum. Even quantum behavior can be explained without a particulate ether. As such I see no need for what Lee Smolin refers to these as “atoms of space”.
Cornelis,
I too am yet to come to terms with ‘falling ether’ or ‘pushing ether’. The initial conception of it was that it was to be stationary and the best representative of absolute space against which all other things moved. It was also supposed to be the most fundamental medium for light wave propagation. This being so, if the earth was moving in the direction of the light, the light waves would be seen to arrive earlier. This is the original concept of the “ether wind”, the influence of the motion relative to the medium of light transmission. However, this influence or “ether wind” was not detected. I have been trying to persuade that this could most likely be the result of a light transmitting medium that is gravitationally bound to earth – dark matter, now accepted by mainstream.
Recent observations of dipole anisotropy relative to the closest thing we have to a stationary frame, the cosmic microwave background however show the influence of earth motion on light. Would you regard the 370km/s red-blue doppler shift to CMB as the equivalent of an “ether wind”?
I have discussed the solid nature of space elsewhere. This is a necessary condition for light to be transmitted as transverse waves as Einstein also mentioned in his speech.
Akinbo
The concepts clock dilation and contraction of physical bodies are treated in my article Physics without Paradoxes available on my personal page. See the link.
I write this under the wrong post since I regard it is thereby more probable that it will be seen by others too. However, the even more important argument is that elastic spacetime is absurd.
Regards
John-Erik
Akinbo,
I have evaluated the possibility of fluid ether (including ‘falling ether’ or ‘pushing ether’ type concepts). in the process of developing a theory of gravity. They where eliminated by me as candidates years ago primarily due to the transverse nature of light but also for reasons of irreconcilable internal conflicts as previously mentioned. A forum from over a year ago shares some of the resulting solution provided by a solid ether. Although you discuss the solid nature of space elsewhere I can see from the writings in your recently purchased book that you are still trying to mix solid and fluid ether concepts. You can comment on that forum further if you wish. The dipole anisotropy you reference demonstrates that we exist in a area of space that has a detectable anisotropic gradient in the strength of the gravitational field (or acceleration) relative to the average CMBR. The mechanism responsible for this gradient is easily explained without the conflicts internal to a fluid ether.
Cornelis
In my opinion the fact that light oscillates transverse to its motion cannot refute pushing or falling ether.
John-Erik
John-Erik
Polarizeable light waves are transverse as you well know. These types of waves are the result of tension events and require a bound media (solid) and are not supported by a fluid! If the ether is not a solid continuum then you would have to explain action at a distance (which we all reject) to explain the tension required to support light.
John-Erik,
I wish to submit a further ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ (as Cornelis has termed it). This is in regard to your statement with respect to the Pioneer Anomaly and ether wind. We, that is myself, Einstein’s and yourself are agreed that the anomaly is due to a variation in the speed of light during the outbound and inbound journeys. In your opinion, you claim that “light is leaving our planet with speed c-7.9km/s and returning with c+7.9km/s. After leaving our planet speeds become c-30km/s and c+30km/s at Rau=1. Far away we have speeds c-(30/Rau^1/2)km/s and c+(30/Rau^1/2). Here Rau=distance to the Sun in astronomical units…”
The question: What is the value of c in your statement and where is this determined?
If the answer is that the value is 299,792,458m/s and this value was obtained on earth surface and not in outer space, then in the outbound journey the signals will be travelling to the Pioneer spacecraft, eventually reaching it at a velocity below 299,792,458m/s, slower than expected. On reaching the craft, the signal is reflected back (transponded) at this velocity of its arrival, (i.e. 299,792,458m/s – 7.9km/s – 30km/s – 30/Rau^1/2)km/s) AND NOT at 299,792,458m/s. During the inward journey, the signal then gradually increases in speed and returns to earth at velocity c because the signal velocity must be restored to the original 299,792,458m/s on arrival back to earth. In your equations for the inward journey you took note of this as well, i.e. c + 7.9km/s + 30km/s + 30/Rau^1/2)km/s. The ‘c’ here must be the arrival value of light velocity in order to achieve this.
The overall effect of your position will be that throughout the to and fro journey to the Pioneer spacecraft, signals travel at velocities BELOW 299,792,458m/s. What will therefore be observed are signals arriving MUCH LATER than was expected using the earth determined value of light speed, 299,792,458m/s – a redshift of signals.
However, the Pioneer anomaly is an arrival of signals sent to the spacecraft MUCH EARLIER than is to be expected using the earth determined value of light speed, 299,792,458m/s – a blueshift of signals.
I hope this resolves this contentious issue. If I have been rambling perhaps to make it concise what is the starting velocity at the Pioneer spacecraft on the inbound journey? Equal to, higher than or lower than 299,792,458m/s?
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
You have misunderstood completely. I defined an ether wind in radial direction equal to the speed of a satellite in circular orbit. Read my CNPS contribution again.
Near Earth we have c horizontally and vertically c2=c-0.31m/s due to c+-7.9km/s.
Away from Earth at the same distance from the Sun we change from 7.9 to 30km/s and c2=c-3m/s.
The radial ether wind varies as R^-1/2 and dc2/c2 as R^-1.
This explains the Pioneer anomaly.
John-Erik
Akinbo
Correction:
Near Earth c2=c-0.21m/s (not 0.31).
John-Erik
Akinbo
As I have said I regard the ether to be the dark matter. It is interesting that mainstream accepts black energy and black matter but nevertheless they will not accept black ether. You talked about black matter bound to Earth. I propose the contrary. Ether particles passing our planet are attenuated by matter. Therefore less particles are leaving than arriving. This means that a small difference in radial flow explains why the ether is falling. Remember that we always measure the 2-way speed or c2. We do not see how the speed, due to the ether wind, is different in the 2 directions. So in my opinion it is instead a reduction in the flow that is bound to our planet.
Regards from
John-Erik
Thanks John-Erik.
To make things simpler. At what speed does light reach the Pioneer spacecraft? Above, same or lesser than 299,792,458m/s?
Akinbo
The speed is always c=299 792 458 m/s in relation to the ether. c1=c+-v and c2=c(1-v^2/c^2). You can only measure the 2-way speed and that is always less than c. Near Earth we have v=7.9km/s and in a GPS satellite we have 3.9km/s. Far away from Earth but at the same distance from our sun we have v=30km/s radial to the Sun and c2=c(1-10^-8). In the space station we have v=+-30Rau^-1/2km/s and c2=c(1-10^-8)Rau^-1km/s. The important fact is the difference in speed between Rau=20 and 70.
John-Erik
Akinbo
Correction:
In the space station c2=c(1-10^-8*Rau^-1)km/s. The parenthesis was in a wrong position.
John-Erik
John-Erik,
Your general ideas like c +/- 7.9km/s +/-30km/s, etc may be worth considering but the mechanism being due to pushing ether and ether wind may be incorrect. Also the + and – signs may be interchanged.
However, to go to the point.
First, the Pioneer craft are monitored using Doppler principles, and the redshift expected from objects moving away is observed. The controversy arises because of a “bluish” tinge to the redshift, as if the spacecraft are not moving away fast enough. So if you say, “You can only measure the 2-way speed and that is always less than c”, would this imply that signals were returning back to earth faster or slower than expected?
Second, if as you corrected, in the space station c2=c(1-10^-8*Rau^-1)km/s, then light speed must have reached the space station at a speed lower than c. When it is returning back to earth at what speed does light start its return journey? Is it at this lower speed (c2=c(1-10^-8*Rau^-1)km/s) or at c? If at the lower speed, then essentially throughout the to and fro journeys light travelled below 299,792,458m/s. If at c, you must provide the mechanism how the light speed was converted from lower speed (c2=c(1-10^-8*Rau^-1)km/s) to c as it sets out to return to earth.
Third, I also do not agree that one can only measure the 2-way speed of light. That complicated thinking started with relativitists using clock synchronization as alibi in their arguments. Olaf Roemer, the dutch astronomer who first measured light speed in 1676 did so on the basis of 1-way speed of light.
You will notice in all these that what is correct is economical while that which is not has to invent different explanatory mechanisms at every twist and turn.
Best regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
A red shift that is reduced in magnitude must appear to be blue.
In relation to the ether the speed is always c. However, it is speed in relation our sun that is relevant. Since we have 2-way signals we do not need to discuss c1, only c2 is needed.
Yes, Roemar observed a rough estimation of c. Michelson could only measure c2, but in tangential direction c2 is equal toc. The difference is only in radial direction. In my opinion.
Regards from
John-erik
John-Erik,
The Doppler shift of the Pioneer spacecraft was red, but not as red as expected. It is not blue at all. The returning light signals were arriving earlier than expected.
Regards
Akinbo
The 2-way speed of light in radial direction is c2=c(1-10^-8/Rau). Increase in c2 looks like a decrease in space station speed.
The difference between beam direction and ray direction is described one or two times a year in my articles for more than one decade. There are also diagrams. See for instance The Radial Ether Wind available at GSJournal or Illusions and reality in Relativity available at my personal CNPS page.
The quality of this dialog would be much better if you had read my articles
John-Erik