Open Letter to CNPS Directors
The 200 members of CNPS produce a lot of texts, but not many members appear to read. CNPS cannot advance by writing only. We must also read and discuss, and thereby correct each other. One conference a year is not enough, and not very suitable to people like me, that are not used to speak this language. I think that this blog page is very good in this international society. Although we cannot expect detailed reviews, and not unite in one theory, we nevertheless must try to unite on the interpretations of basic empirical results. SRT is based on stellar aberration and Michelson-Morley’s tests.
The Irrelevance of Transverse Ether Wind
Logic demands the real motion of light to be a vector sum of ether wind and wave velocity. However, this fact is valid only for the beam direction, that can be detected by means of amplitude in focused light only. In most experiments we instead detect by phase, and find wave front orientation represented by the normal to the wave fronts. Therefore, coherent systems are blind to ether wind blowing inside the wave fronts. We instead detect the ray direction, as the normal to the wave fronts. We conclude therefore that transverse ether wind becomes irrelevant and cannot bend a wave front. Such bending demands instead that longitudinal component in the ether wind must have different values in different points in the wave front. This fact implies that stellar aberration cannot tell us anything about the ether wind. Stellar aberration is a measure on changes in telescope motion.
Optical cavities and interferometers generate coherent light and produce standing waves. The behavior of light is defined by longitudinal ether wind and boundary conditions implied by mirrors. Since light takes the fastest, and not the shortest, way between mirrors the ether wind inside the wave fronts is irrelevant and mirrors define wave fronts to always be parallel to the mirrors. This important fact is a consequence of the fact that wave behavior has its own definition in each point on the wave front. The direction of a generated light ray is defined by mirrors and longitudinal ether wind, but transverse ether wind is irrelevant, and this irrelevance means that there is no effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm in Michelson-Morley’s tests and no effect in Einstein’s light clock either. Stokes was wrong, and Einstein abused this mistake to motivate time dilation. We can now conclude that there is an important difference between the real motion of light in the direction of a beam and the ray direction that can be observed by coherent technology and is relevant in most experiments.
The ether is the only tool that atoms can use to control their separations. The atoms must produce some kind of changes in the ether. We can suspect that these changes move with the same speed c as the changes in light. The propagation times for light has been regarded by Michelson as proportional to 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v). It is very realistic to assume that this fact also is valid for the changes imposed by atoms. This would mean a commonality between information flow between mirrors and between atoms. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the reduction, of second order, of 2-way light speed is compensated by the same effect in the size of a physical body. This makes Michelson-Morley’s test to be a useless method in relation to the ether wind, and explains why tests with cold resonators always give a zero result. We can also conclude that Michelson’s optical standard meter depends on the ether wind to the same extent as the old standard meter in Paris.
The Illusion of Gamma
The interpretations given here indicate that stellar aberration and Michelson-Morley’s tests are both useless in relation to the ether wind. Stokes and Einstein have both used the beam direction instead of the ray direction or in other words: the vector sum instead of wave motion plus longitudinal ether wind. Ignorance of the irrelevance of transverse ether wind in coherent systems made it possible to justify afterwards the factor gamma= (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. This factor was originally calculated from absurd assumptions. Many scientists have repeated these calculations, but have not been very critical to the interpretations of stellar aberration and Michelson-Morley’s tests. Therefore, the factor gamma has been a ghost in the brains of scientists for about 100 years.
We have to do some unlearning regarding gamma. However, getting rid of old ideas can sometimes be more difficult than accepting new ideas. Today we have very important results from GPS systems, GPS clocks, Pioneer anomaly and gravitational effects due to tides and solar eclipses. They can all be explained without gamma.
I have advocated these interpretational errors in the 2 most important (in relation to SRT) empirical results to GED, GSJournal, NPA and CNPS for many years with very little feedback from CNPS directors. I therefore conclude that they do not accept my ideas, and I have a hope that they will help me by telling where I am wrong, in their views. This could be done on this blog page, that unfortunately has been used only by a few CNPS directors. It should be used more, at least by the directors.
See my latest article called Physics without Paradoxes.
I am in support that there should be more engagement among the CNPS membership.
My suggestion is to put a member and his texts/ theory on the hot seat at intervals and subject their theory to reductio ad absurdum type criticism or as ancient philosophers call it dialectic. This way the merit or demerit in particular views can be made glaring.
Yes, we should take more interest in the existing anomalies and discover errors. We spend too much time by inventing cover up stories to hide the anomalies.
John-Erik, this is the first of a two part response… philosophical ramblings
I would tentatively agree that there perhaps many CNPS writers that do not read what others write, or better yet, engage in critical dialog comparing ideas. Iron sharpens iron. However, there are others that write very little by read veraciously, as if the science were a white chocolate macadamia nut cookie. What is desperately needed is collaboration in an open and transparent fashion. I have attended not a few NPA Saturday morning conferences where we attempted to do just this. Many of these contained both fruitful information and lively dialog, but there were just as many where cantankerous one-way discussions defending personal ideas that were held near and dear – just like in orthodox science – ruled the hour. These were very very difficult to listen to. Please forgive what follows as this subject of science is very important to me and I believe it has been maliciously hijacked; I will attempt to refrain from any perceived proselytization, it is not intended, only a search for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
I believe there are multiple aspects of the debate that contribute to this conundrum. One thing is that we believe that we know something and because we have a podium, we can express ourselves and feel we deserve to be heard. I do not believe many of the CNPS membership fall into this category but there is a catch here, we all believe we know something. Now add to that the fact that our modern society preaches to us that materialism and randomness is all that there is (to me this is anathema). In that context not only does the idea of relativity rule, but it is mandatory. For if there is no CREATED order, but only randomness, then all IS relative, thus we cannot know anything for certain; therefore we can defend any idea and not feel we have cheated when we conveniently ignore certain facts. While this is non-sequitur, it is the prevailing philosophy of the day that either defines or colors one’s worldview in ways that are very difficult, if not impossible, to see in the mirror. The third problem is that many of us expect to find instant answers to penetrating questions. Microwave popcorn, McDonalds, (who remembers TV dinners) and instant gratification have overruled what used to be a lifelong dedication to study and solving just a handful of problems where others where to be the beneficiaries, not ourselves.
So the question is then, how do we fix any of this. I believe that the creation of CNPS out of the NPA shows a wee bit of the way, where many rebelled against what was perceived as the wrong path. If we can rally together to preserve the right to openly present our ideas without the hand of overly organized establishment telling us what to think, then we can continue patiently down the current path but try to be more engaged. I know that this can be difficult since many of us have day gigs which may not relate directly to our scientific passions in addition to other responsibilities that may encumber a more robust participation effort. I would propose that perhaps we might consider that for every paper any of us post, we review at least two. Not like the traditional peer review process where we simply tell the writer yea or nay, sometimes with little justification, but more like: this is what I agree with; this is what I disagree with (and why); this is what I do not understand. If the author wishes to respond, it should not be to simply try to convince the reviewer that the author’s position is correct, it should be an attempt to reconcile the differences if there are any to move the idea forward. The goal should not to be right all the time, but to see the truth about our created world. There can only be on truth, this is by definition, we all must work toward that end. Iron sharpens iron.
Your idea that we should review each other more is good. I therefore think that the directors should be more active in preaching this idea. However, this is not so easy to do.
John-Erik, this is the second of a two part response… the velocity of light and the aether.
I the subject of the velocity of light and what constitutes the fabric of space have been areas of study of mine for quite some time. But before I get into any comments, I should first say I do not believe modern science has it right. From what I can see, they have amassed a lot of really good data but have danced around the subject since when you take all the facts and try to fit them into your box, they don’t all fit. So we throw away or dismiss as irrelevant what does not support the position we are charged with defending.
“Logic demands the real motion of light to be a vector sum of ether wind and wave velocity.” I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, I believe the concept of transverse versus longitudinal waves in EM theory is woefully misunderstood by most physicists and only a little better understood by EM engineers who must design practical components and systems to support communications equipment. For example, Jackson’s text on Classical Electrodynamics devotes a single paragraph describing the longitudinal component of current density as the irrotational part where Del x J(transverse) = 0. When we use the Helmholtz equations to compute the EM field we find that all three spatial components of a traveling wave are non-zero (save linear polarization) so there is a longitudinal component along the axis of propagation. We simply call it the wave front. So yes because we measure the ‘amplitude’ of the wave as the transverse component of the EM wave, any either motion in that spatial plane is irrelevant. But the fact that most experiments measure only phase change is because the frequencies involved in light transmission do not lend themselves well to the detection of a specific wave front, only the temporal difference between what we believe are equivalent wave fronts.
Many of the proposals for dealing with the concepts of aether wind and light propagation as presented in your paper (Physics without Paradoxes) referenced in your blog entry are excellent ideas but all of them other than the proposed reorientation of an atomic clock would only require a careful an honest reassessment and reinterpretation of the data. However, getting funding and/or cooperation to test the effects of atomic clocks when oriented vertically, is probably not very likely.
So the question is how can we effectively measure the motion of light with respect to the medium, when we cannot detect the medium directly? I would suggest a somewhat different approach. If we revisit the concept of the Michelson-Morley experiment, we note that their assumption was that the aether was stationary with respect to the rotation and revolution of the Earth. And while they did not achieve the expected result, the result was NOT null as is so often reported. Additionally when we consider the experiments conducted by Miller on Mt. Wilson, he obtained results that were slightly greater than those reported by Michelson and Morley, which suggested that there was an aether with relative motion to the experimental apparatus but that aether was ‘relatively stationary’ compared to what was expected. At the higher altitude there was less aether entrained in the rotation of the earth.
Now, if we allow a comparison between the aether (or the vacuum) and other materials, we know that the velocity of light varies based upon the index of refraction of the medium. Furthermore, we know that sound waves in traveling water travel as the speed of sound in the water plus the speed of the water. We also know from Fizeau’s experiment that light may do the same, but this is disputed. However, that dispute was not based on a negative result but rather dissatisfaction with the interpretation or implication of the results. The fact of the matter is that his results have been successfully repeated many times. One interpretation is that the velocity of the water is simply a phase shift – here we are again talking phase shift where we could be talking velocity shift. If we could prove conclusively that the phase shift was indeed a velocity shift, then we can prove conclusively that the speed of light between two points would be the vector sum of the velocity of light in that medium and the velocity of the medium moving between those two points. (I wish I knew how to put equations in here!) If we substituted a stream of ‘data modulated’ coherent laser light rather than a simple coherent laser light we would be able to identify marker displacement in the detected light if the light were split into two paths with approximately the same length but where we could control the velocity of the flow of water in each path independently of the other. We could then calibrate and normalize the propagation differences between each path when the water motion in each path was the same. With this information we could then compare our control data to the results when the water in one path was moving with a different velocity. Even if we had to use phase change detection techniques to compare the measurements, the phase changes would have to be correlated with the signature of the data stream and hence we should be able to conclusively state if we detected a true velocity addition as opposed to a simple phase shift.
The only thing left would be to prove that the fabric of space is not empty. We already have all the data and science we need to do this if we simply consider the intrinsic impedance of free space along with the two constants that define it as well as c: permittivity and permeability. This is the reality that space has physical characteristics and is not void. We all know this and even modern science knows this but they cannot admit it because is crosses the line on what is acceptable thought.
There is so much more to this but I’ll leave it here…
You present a lot of own ideas, bur does not comment very much on my ideas.
I presented very basic mistake of not observing the distinction between the beam direction and the ray direction. You did not comment on that.
I deliberately avoided the beam versus ray distinction because I do not believe that is the fundamental problem with Optical/EM theory/Gravitational/etc. theory. I believe that the fundamental problem is that we “the collective we” do not account for all of the empirical evidence when we threw out the fabric of space. While proving its does exist, will not change the beliefs of the many, but it should at least give them pause. My extended comments we just an attempt to show that there are alternate ways to approach the problem of the existence of aether, which based on the other comments, is exactly where I believe we need much more emphasis.
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
This has been done with ether wind as well as pushing gravity and still here we are being asked to discuss theories based on these impossible models. Not only that but we are expected to take additional time to read theories that explain already explained anomalies base on it. It has already been pointed out in many previous posts where these models go wrong. If you want to make progress answer the challenges to these models. The interpretations of basic empirical results. SRT is based on stellar aberration and Michelson-Morley’s tests is not a point of disagreement just the claim that ether wind as well as pushing gravity have physicality.
I like the way you put that first paragraph. Indeed, argumentum ad absurdum is a powerful weapon to uncover the truth, to fight the course of critical thinking community against the mainstream and to economize/ minimize the number of theories that we propose in this fight.
It may be painful for John-Erik to modify or abandon pushing gravity after investing so much intellectual capital. But the fight should be bigger than any individual theory if someday we are to declare victory in the long running battle with the mainstream.
The state of motion of the ether cannot be found from either stellar aberration or MMX. As I have demonstrated: both are useless. You have not demonstrated any errors in that reasoning, as asked about.
The behavior of light is not well understood a the distinction between the beam direction and the ray direction has not been observed.
The stellar aberration and the MMX are both misunderstood as i have explained. You have missed that.
By logic alone there can be no motion of the ether that allows for the propagation of light as a transverse wave. Transverse waves do not propagate trough fluids. No fluid, no wind.
There are no reasons why transverse wave should not propagate through a fluid. They could very well deflect each other without colliding.
A transverse wave is a transverse wave regardless of how you rename it’s amplitude and propagation vectors. It still requires a solid to support it and fluids can not create winds through a solid. The argument which you and others so readily avoid is in opposition to the models of falling gravity and ether wind. So explaining how it can not be detected is not an answer to the errors I have demonstrated.
Unless we are talking about another type of “ether”, a term that has been bastardized making it become a taboo in mainstream discussions, the original term refers to a medium that does not move, but serve as a reference frame for all other motion. When we add this to the transverse nature of light waves, unless new physics is being described, the medium must necessarily have a solid-like nature. To therefore say parts of it are blowing here and there like a wind, will require a different name from the originally conceived ether.
If there is now an increasing acceptance of dark matter essentially on the basis of Newtonian physics, its nature, its sheer abundance, the fact that our planet is located in the middle of a zone where its density is highest, is it conceivable that our planet can be so special as to escape having some of this dark matter gravitationally bound to it? If not, is this not the explanation Stokes and others were searching for to preserve Galilean relativity following the Michelson-Morley experimental findings, thus saving us from the illogicality inherent in SR? (Stokes and others were searching for a medium that could be dragged along with earth motion). If the density of the bound dark matter can vary with height, like all matter we know (e.g. Air), will the effect on light not simulate what is modeled as General relativity?
In summary, Cornelis, has raised some valid queries regarding ether wind and pushing gravity that have not been satisfactorily set aside. The matter can only be set aside by removing any philosophical and theoretical absurdities or by experiment. Insisting that transverse waves can be propagated in fluids cannot work, unless common day-to-day examples can be provided. Neither will the particle picture of light work as it is riddled with absurdities too.
This post was about the irrelevance of the transverse ether wind in relation to coherent systems. This irrelevance causes the ray direction or the normal to the wave fronts to be different from the total beam direction where the transverse ether wind becomes relevant. We have got as much as 26 comments without any comment regarding this important kernel of the post.
Please give comments on essence also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are two reservations you have to dispose of. I have tried to get the solution from your proposal of ether wind and pushing gravity, and the explanations you tried giving under the Light ray and the Sun topic are not enough:
1. Gravitational orbits show a mixture of attraction and repulsion. Kepler’s law that you mentioned in one of our exchanges only deals with the ‘how’ but not the ‘why’. To give a specific example. The earth and moon are seen to alternately attract and repel each other. The moon is attracted towards earth till perigee, and repelled afterwards till it reaches apogee, then attracted again till apogee, etc. Ether wind or pushing gravity does not satisfactorily resolve why bodies that are attracted should move away from each other, not in a random but in a cyclic fashion.
2. Ether wind does not satisfactorily explain the Pioneer anomaly. To avoid duplication, I will continue that discussion under the Light ray and the Sun topic.
Pushing gravity, Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s gravity are always giving the same total attraction, and that is balanced by inertial force. Elliptic form depends on which one is dominating.
Yes, c2 is increasing with range, and this increase in light speed creates the illusion of decreased space station speed. I have explained this in an article about the Pioneer anomaly. See this link! There is an error on GSJournal that is corrected on my CNPS page.
Inertial force, if it exists acts in a direction tangential to the orbit and cannot have any component in a radial direction as to oppose an attraction force. Any mechanism that will oppose attraction force in an orbit, must act radially OUTWARDS (not tangential), while the attraction force (gravity) acts radially inwards. That is, centripetal vs. centrifugal forces. Both must act in opposite directions.
Again, there is nothing compelling inertial force to act tangentially. An orbiting satellite might as well spiral inwards and crash into the orbital centre.
See also this excerpt of my post on another blog…
“We know how to calculate the potential energy (P.E. = -GMm/r) and kinetic energy (K.E. = GMm/2r) of satellites and find the total energy at any position in an orbit (T = -GMm/r + GMm/2r = -GMm/2r). From this we know that satellites lose energy when their orbital radius reduces. We are told such lost energy is radiated away as heat, and for General relativitists as gravitational waves (e.g. pulsar PSR 1913 +16).
When the orbital radius of Earth reduces till it reaches perihelion, the orbital system has lost energy according to energy conservation laws as currently understood. From whence is this orbital energy replenished such that the orbital radius is regained and the Earth rises in altitude again till it reaches aphelion? And if this energy is stored somewhere, where?”
It is clear that there is a ghost in Newton’s clockwork orbit. This ghost is certainly not pushing gravity or ether wind, both of which cannot cause separation of orbiting bodies. It cannot be inertial force either since an orbiting body cannot be the originator and subject of a force acting on it (at least according to Newton’s first law of motion).
*Perhaps, we continue this discussion elsewhere so as to stay on topic.
Inertia produces the outwards centrifugal force. Radius and potential energy can increase when the kinetic energy is decreasing.
You have not commented on my distinction between beam and ray directions. This is what the essence in the post is.
I have commented indirectly by suggesting that there are problems with the transverse ether wind concept. To my understanding a beam is a collection of rays and so generally I cannot see how the two can be in different directions.
Perhaps, you can illustrate with diagram or back this claim by an experiment that has been conducted.
All waves change their velocity when they encounter gradients in the media they are propagating in. The direction and degree of change is related to the angle at which the wave encounters the gradient, the slope of the gradient and the relative length of the gradient, among other things. This does not require that the media be in motion, such as the term wind suggests.
Yes, motion is not required by the arguments you state. I have not said that. I said that the flow of ether particles passing our planet is attenuated. This creates a disturbance in the symmetry in the spherical flow and causes a motion.
The first paragraph is not mine, it is a quote from an online as I had to look up the term. My point was not that JohnErik or others need to give up the concept of enter wind or pushing gravity, but if they want us to rally around it they must provide answers to the conflicts with the accepted laws of physics. Without this foundation being defined I choose to build on theories that have no such internal conflicts. As for the battle against mainstream it should take care of itself once a better model is shared.
These conflicts are solved in my article that I have given reference to earlier. See link.
Be careful with EVER saying that a certain theory is not viable. This can come back to bite you. We have a particle theory of the universe that is now physically describing gravity, light, magnetic fields, electricity, reflection, refraction, double slit experiments with and without detector, and most all of electrical circuit components. It falls into the “pushing” gravity category. So careful folks. Saying “never” is a dangerous word scientifically and philosophically. http://cover.universehack.org
The theory violates the most fundamental law of physic by allowing gravity conveying particles to go every direction in space without ever colliding with or being deflected by like particles. In the real world their entire motion would come to a complete stop. Your house is built on quicksand.
Neutrinos are assumed to pass easily through bodies much larger than our planet. Why should they not be able to avoid each other?
Much is to be understood about the nature of neutrino energy. They are only speculated to have mass due to their flavor oscillations as they propagate. The description I get from physicist hear, working on the Long Baseline Neutrino experiment between the local underground lab and Fermilab, is that they are suspect to be a combined wave pattern like a circularly polarize light which is a combination of two waves that cause the light wave rotate its polarization angle. If this is so then they can travel through almost anything that does not closely match them in wavelength and would do so without any influence. I have seen the detectors here locally and also talked a physicist that had images taken of the sun by the through the earth taken by the ICE cube experiment in the Antarctic. I have little doubt that they can travel through the earth, but like most non dispersive waves that do not have an inertial mass, they do not produce a force longitudinal to their direction of propagation.
They do not produce force when they penetrate the Earth. However a few of them can be captured and produce force, and perhaps also expending Earth.
Corenlis: Not sure what you are talking about but our particle theory is based on one thing in the universe: mass in motion that collides with other masses. So I’m not sure what you are talking about.
Your gravity particles do not colided with other gravity particles, they just go straight. How is that? What kind of mass bearing particle avoids the exclusionary principle?
When you can tell me that every molecule of water traverses the ocean in a straight line without being deflected by any other water molecules but only fish, I will think about it. They are talking about the water moving not waves in the water. In addition fluid dynamics does not explain polarization as fluids can do not propagate transverse waves without loss regardless of viscosity.
I understand what you are saying and that is not how I interpreted the idea of aether wind. I see the fabric of space exactly the was I see any material, where the material does not travel, per-se, but the energy or ‘fields’ do. I hope I am not misinterpreting what is being presented.
As for polarization, there is definitely polarization in water waves. As an ocean wave approaches the shore, we see and increase in vertical displacement, this is a vertical manifestation of transverse linear polarization. There is also horizontal polarization as well as arbitrary angles of transverse wave polarization but we cannot observe it visually, but we can measure it with sensors; I believe that the lateral pressure in any wave that is sufficiently far from any boundary were refection are minimal would be nearly uniform when taking a sufficiently small cylindrical cross-section that is perpendicular to the direction of travel.
As for frictional losses in fluids (however consider the soliton), yes they are much more pronounced than what we observe with the transmission of light. But when we get down to the quantum level for light, we do really know how much energy may be dissipated or absorbed since we can only measure the waves in quantum packets. In this regard there is much we do not know.
You said “The theory violates the most fundamental law of physic by allowing gravity conveying particles to go every direction in space without ever colliding with or being deflected by like particles” Just consider water. There is a very clear and direct analogy between classical EM theory and fluid dynamics. I suggest you read two papers, both by main-stream scientist:
“Quantum Electromagnetics – A Local-Ether Wave Equation Unifying Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetics, and Gravitation” Ching-Chuan Su (I believe this was published by IEEE but off hand I cannot be certain)
“Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between elecromagnetic and fluidic inerta” Alexandre A. Martin (https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611)
Pay particular attention to how Martin draws together the velocity of light and the velocity of sound. Then remember that it is not matter that moves, it is the energy wave that moves via perturbations of the matter.
Since I theorize all forms of matter and energy as patterns of energy waves in a tensionable solid continuum, we have similar views of particles. This is not the context in which I believe ether wind and pushing gravity is used here. The transverness of ocean waves is dependent on the boundary condition and are restricted to the surface. Sizemology uses the inability of fluids to support transverse (shear) waves in the process for detecting fluid pockets. The friction loss is in reference to the multidirectional motion of the particles suggested by the pushing gravity.
I agree with you, John.
While the scientific mainstream journals systematically reject heterodox articles, many scientific articles published in free editions are not read or criticized by anyone. The practical result is the same.
Thank you for the support. Yes, I have stated about the same thing in an earlier blog post called Dialog or Monologs. Since CNPS has a large database and this good blog page it is very sad that this vlog is not used for detailed reviews. However, this is not easy for me as an amateur to write reviews. Although I have tried and read many articles I have, as an amateur, trouble with reviewing the work of others. I think that the directors should:
encourage others to do reviewing
and themselves do more reviews also.
Reviewing is the Acilles heal of CNPS. It is therefore a pity that very few directors answer to this post.