It’s About Time
The Light Clock Myth
In Einstein’s light clock the behavior of light is defined by the state of motion of the ether and the orientations of the mirrors in the clock. These mirrors imply boundary conditions on the light waves. Einstein then moved the equipment inside the planes of the mirrors. He had the idea that light in some way should follow him in this motion. However, this motion does not change the boundary conditions, and light does not experience any change at all. In relation to light, this motion is irrelevant. Therefore, there is no reason at all for light to change its behavior due to Einstein’s motion of the mirrors. Consequently, light still moves according to the vector c in ortogonal direction to the mirrors. Transverse ether wind is irrelevant, and wave front orientation is conserved. This light clock failure is an important error among Einstein’s many mistakes. It’s about time to correct this error.
The Truth About Clocks
Bound electrons in atomic clocks move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. They are therefore accelerated and decelerated during each period of orbiting. This means changes in the speed of the electrons. These relative changes in electron speeds can be assumed to be equal to the relative changes in the light speeds. It is therefore reasonable to assume a second order effect of the ether wind in the electrons orbiting frequency, of the same kind as was assumed in the tests made by Michelson and Morley.
John-Erik Persson
Written by John-Erik Persson
John-Erik,
Since we search for a theory that is more encompassing…
We see similar acceleration and deceleration during each period of orbiting with gravitational bodies, e.g. Sun-Earth, Earth-Moon. Would it be right to assume that the relative changes in Earth speed as it orbits the Sun is equal to the relative changes in the light speeds?
I don’t think the results of Michelson and Morley has anything to do with electron speeds or their spacing.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
No, you cannot scale up to celestial bodies. Electrons are bound by Coulomb force to moving atoms. Celestial bodies are in a free fall.
I did not say that MMX has anything to do with electron speed. I only said that atomic spacing is controlled by the ether. If you think that the ether is not used, than you must tell me how the atomic spacing is controlled. Please do that if you can!
Regards from
John-Erik
John-Erik,
On the question whether we can scale up or not. I think we can. If you look at the Coulomb force law and its gravitational analogue you will see similarities. Both are inverse square laws, F = e^2/ 4πεr^2 and F = GMm/r^2 respectively. So don’t be surprised that atomic orbits will display alternate acceleration and deceleration with an elliptical shape, just as we observe in gravitational orbits. Indeed part of the motivation for unified theory is to find an overarching theory that covers both electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena.
So if you claim that electrons are accelerated and decelerated during each period and desire to attribute this to ether wind, and we see virtually similar changes in speed with acceleration and deceleration during each period in gravitational orbits, then it is either these changes in speed are also due to your ether wind or if they are not it poses a strong reason to doubt that it is ether wind that is the cause of the similar phenomena at atomic level. As the saying goes, you cannot eat your cake and have it at the same time.
As we discussed elsewhere the original conception of ether was an immobile medium that does not move but relative to which other things were moving. In your own model the ether moves and can create a wind.
This being the case what was the quantitative speed of the ether wind during the Michelson-Morley experiment and how do you come about the value?
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
Yes, of cause electron orbits can also have elliptic form in the same way as planets. However, nevertheless I think that we cannot know if it is possible to scale up in regard to all aspects.
You are trying to find some kind of absurdity by assuming that gravitational forces and Coulomb forces must in allaspects be equal. I think that it is your reasoning that is absurd.
I have explained why Michelson and Morley’s tests are useless, and has never given any information about the ether wind. Therefore they do not give zero speed but no information about speed. The GPS systems provides information about the ether wind. Pioneer anomaly also.
Regards from
John-Erik
John-Erik,
Okay, what is the speed value of your ether wind from the GPS?
Pioneer space craft re further away so we may leave that for now as we have discussed a lot on that under “Light ray and the Sun topic”
Regards,
Akinbo
Please there is a reason why I ask for a value of your ether wind v(r) because the GPS time differences are already fairly well explained as being due to motion of the receiver during the light transit time, something that Special relativity postulate says cannot affect optical phenomena. This is described well in the paper, ‘Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS” by Wang and Hatch (http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf), where in the concluding remark you see, “It is clear from the GPS range equation that the motion of the observer during the signal transit time implies that the speed of light relative to a moving observer is not isotropic and clearly differs from c due to the receiver motion.”.
In other words, it is the motion of the receiver during light transit that affects arrival time and not likely to be an ether wind.
Akinbo
No, you are wrong. Hatch and Wang state that the theory of relativity is wrong and not at all a good explanation. My explanation gives the same results without the absurdities in SRT and GRT. Hatch and Wang has refuted Einstein.
The motion of the receiver in relation to the ether is the ether wind.
Regards
John-Erik
Akinbo
I do not understand why you ask this question, since I have given you these values many times on this blog and also in many of my articles. I say that the ether wind is equal to the speed of a satellite in a circular orbit. Since we are moving with 30 km/s tangential to the Sun we do not see that we are surrounded by 30 km/s radial to the Sun.
My calculations (see my articles!) give the same results (regarding GPS clocks) as SRT plus GRT, with only one theory (instead of two). They also explain bending near Sun and Pioneer anomaly.
Regards from
John-Erik
Hi John-Erik,
Why I ask the question is because I want clarification on what is moving. Is the ether stationary and the receiver moving, or is the ether itself moving? In your answer,” The motion of the receiver in relation to the ether is the ether wind”, it would appear that the ether is immobile and it is the observer/ receiver that is moving. In some of your other responses especially where you want to use ether to explain gravity, you suggest that it is the ether that is moving to cause gravitational attraction.
GPS as discussed by Hatch and Wang refutes Special relativity and supports the Sagnac effect, which suggests that the travel time differences are due to the motion of the receiver towards or away from the incoming light.
If you quote 30km/s as the value of the ether wind, I wonder what you will do with the fact that the earth is at the same time moving at 225km/s, being dragged along by the sun. Or does ether wind have different speeds?
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo
Maybe the Sun is moving at 225 km/s in relation to the center of the galaxy, and that center perhaps has an even greater motion in relation to something else. These facts are without relevance, since the surrounding ether has the same speed as we have, and we do not see it in the ether near us.
Yes, GPS is very important, since it operates with the one way speed of light, just as the Sagnac test. We do not have many reliable tests of one way speed of light. One test was done by de Witte, but he had to use the rotation of our planet. Therefore the test can be hard to evaluate. C C Su has suggested a scaled down version with HeNe lasers instead of clocks. I have also suggested this test. I have also suggested an even more easy method by changing orientation of clocks on ground. Not even Wang or Hatch seems to be interested.
We do not see 30 km/s due to free falling Earth in relation to Sun. On Earth we are not falling free and see a vertical ether wind of about 7.9 km/s. At the altitude of a GPS satellite vertical ether wind is about 3.9 km/s. These figures are the same as used in SRT and GRT and give the same result as stated by mainstream, and are in agreement to VPS observations.
Although giving the same results there is one theoretical difference. With clocks on ground there is no difference. With satellites in orbit we get the same result as mainstream due to gravity or vertical ether wind. But due to speed or horizontal ether wind the effect is reduced by 1/2. Although numerically equal the factor by Einstein is produced by a square root, due to time dilation. However according to my interpretation the factor 1/2 is caused by the fact that the satellite is not stabilized in relation to motion. Therefore, we have to take the average value of a squared cosine function giving 1/2. Numerically the same value. I have described this in my articles, but I repeat here.
Regards
John-Erik
Best refer to Dr William (Bill) Charles LUCAS’ papers on the Universal Force to resolve your dilemma.
CJ
I see lots of people talking about “Einstein’s light clock,” but I cannot find anything by Einstein where he actually talked about a “light clock.” I find such a concept to be absurd, since, as you say, there is nothing to cause the light beam to move sideways to keep up with the moving mirrors. I would think Einstein would see things the same way.
Did Einstein actually write about a “light clock” somewhere, or is it just some screwball misinterpretation of what Einstein wrote that is being blamed on him?
Ed
I am not well educated in what Einstein exactly read and did not. I think that he just accepted the ideas by Stokes that there is an effect of the ether in transverse arm in MMX. See my blog Stokes Was Wrong. Einstein appears to have copied Stokes and just given a different interpretation. For 100 years a transverse ether wind has been said to cause a half effect in MMX in the transverse arm. For a long time the illusion of the factor GAMMA has been derived in the same way. I think that Einstein did not see this mistake.
I would like to correct you when you say there is no reason for a light beam to change due to transverse ether wind. In my opinion transverse ether wind can change beam direction but not ray direction. My distinction between these 2 concepts is described in latest article to CNPS called: Physics without Paradoxes. You can find it on my personal page at GSJournal.
It is important to see that: The detection of a beam by amplitude (in focused light) is different from detection by phase in telescopes or definition of phase in resonators. Not coherent detection is different from coherent detection and generation of light.
The ray direction is not physically real, but instead a representation of the normal to a physical wave front.
http://www.gsjournal.net
Regards from
John-Erik
Ed,
It may become clear if consideration is given to the view that the light is not simply reflected. In detailed analysis it is initially emitted and then absorbed and re-emitted from a moving gravitational field focal points (atoms). The system is always in constant translatory motion without acceleration. In this way to an outside observe the shape of the wavefront is non symetric and the lights path is emitted in a compound that follows the relative motion of the system.
Ed,
It may become clear if consideration is given to the view that the light is not simply reflected. In detailed analysis it is initially emitted and then absorbed and re-emitted from moving gravitational field focal points (atoms). The system is always in constant translatory motion without acceleration. In this way to an outside observe the shape of the wavefront is non symetric and the lights path is emitted in a compound angle that follows the relative motion of the system.
Cornelis
A wave front is a surface. What do you mean by stating it is non symmetric? What is it non symmetric in relation to?
Regards from
John-Erik
A transverse wave has fronts, that is crests and troughs, that are orthogonal to the direction of propagation. To an observer not moving with the mirrors these crests and troughs will not appear equally ballanced in all direction orthaganl to the lights direction of propagation.
Cornelis
The wave fronts are orthogonal to the ray direction but not necessarily orthogonal to motion in the beam direction, since there can be an ether wind blowing inside the wave fronts.
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik,
“A wavefront is a surface”?
A field has no surface.
“the shape of the wavefront is non symetric”
A wave has a crest, a trough or both. Their respective increasing and decreasing slopes are often not mirror images of each other within the same wave pulse.
sur·face
ˈsərfəs/
noun
1.
the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent).
“the earth’s surface”
synonyms: outside, exterior; More
2.
GEOMETRY
a continuous set of points that has length and breadth but no thickness.
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or occurring on the upper or outer part of something.
“surface workers at the copper mines”
synonyms: superficial, external, exterior, outward, ostensible, apparent, cosmetic, skin deep
“surface appearances”
Cornelis
Yes, the geometrical definition is valid here.
The wave front connects points with equal phase. The ray direction depends not on ether wind blowing inside the wave fronts. However, the beam direction depends on such a transverse ether wind.
You have not explained asymmetry in that surface.
Regards from
John-Erik
Did Albert Einstein actually write about a “light clock” somewhere, or is it just another screwball misinterpretation of something he wrote that is being blamed on him?
I would think that Einstein would see that there is no force that is going to make a light beam moves sideways just because some mirrors move sideways. What source says that “light clocks” are something Einstein actually wrote or talked about?
Ed
I have answered your earlier comment.
Einstein anyhow did not discover the mistake by Stokes. Excluding the light clock there is no physicality behind the GAMMA factor. It is only mathematical magic based on absurd assumptions and not possible to falsify. Gamma is a hundred year old absurdity without connection to physics.
See the distinction between beam and ray on personal GSJournal page.
From
John-Erik
Google for “The light clock was an Escher picture.”
or just read it here: http://wp.me/a78uyC-7p
Max
Is it not easier to just conclude that a changing of mirrors motion inside the mirrors plane does not cause any change in the behavior of light? This follows from the fact that mirrors boundary conditions on light does not change.
Regards from
John-Erik
John-Erik,
Geometry can defined a surface but I do not consider a transverse wave in the continuum field to have a surface. A transverse wave in the continuum can have gradients in intensity with minima and maxima but not a surface. Your description of a wave front with connects points with equal phase is accurate for longitudinal rather than transverse (light) wave. Within a single cycle the wavefront of a transverse wave has no such points of equal phase, this is only a property of longitudinal waves. The behaviors of the two wave types are not interchangeable. The asymmetry of the wave was explained in the previous reply as dependent on the point of view and motion of the observer relative to the mirrors. This reply also gave an alternate explanation for the effects of emission and reflection on lights path.
Cornelis
I do not agree. In my opinion the definition of wave fronts by means of equal phase does not depend on whether the oscillations are transverse or longitudinal.
Regards from
John-Erik
John-Erik
Your reply is not unexpected as you also endow light waves with other attributes not normally attributable to transverse waves.
One of the most controversial, if I understood you correctly, is your statement ”
tensionable media was not required to support them”. In my view this is indisputable and is responsible for the light waves ability to remain focused and polarized.
Cornelis
I have not made the statement “tensionable media was not required to support them”.
Regards from
John-Erik
John-Erik,
No you did not say these words directly but you did say
“I like the 300 years old model by Fatio, although I must admit that I do not know so much Abou itt. I think that you are the only person in the world that knows that it is not tensionable.”
This was your statement on pushing gravity and ether wind. A single ether can not be both tensionable to support light and non tensionable to support ether wind.
Cornelis
Thank you for making it more clear what you reacted on. The ether wind, in my opinion, is just the difference between the state of motion of the ether and the state of motion of the observer. This does not demand the ether to be non tensionable, in my opinion.
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik,
Saying that an ether wind does not demand the ether to be non tensionable, makes little sense.
For ether to support light (transverse waves) it must be a connected tension continuum. Free flowing ether particles with any tension between them would put you right back at the action at a distance the ether is meant to eliminate in the first place. You simply can not explain away tension without continual connection. With continual connection you do not have flow (wind).
Cornelis
Yes, you have a point here. However, instead of tension the density of particles can explain this. The electromagnetic forces are potential and become real when a charge is introduced.
Regards from
John-Erik
John-Erik,
It is still the point “For ether to support light (transverse waves) it must be a connected tension continuum.”
The density of disconnected particles, of unknown origin that have mass (a property which is assumed fundamental to them without cause), are used to explain ether wind and gravity as push (instead of tension). Add to this now charge (another property which is assumed fundamental to them without cause) that selectively appears without explanation and causes attractive and or repulsive force (again resulting in an unexplained action at a distance). This still leaves the free flow of disconnected particles for gravity and the connectivity of a tensionable field for the propagation of light as irreconsilable incompatibilities in a single ether. Beyond this fatal incompatibility the origin of charge (in complimentary forms causing both apparent attractive and repulsive action at a distance) and the origin of mass, is unexplained.
Cornelis
There are alternatives. Light can be represented as polarity of ether particles. The electromagnetic forces are potential in them selves and become real at first when a charged particle in introduced. The force of gravity becomes real at first when an ether particle is absorbed by matter.
John-Erik
John-Erik
All manor of alternative particle analogies can and have been speculated upon for force and particle behaviors. To be meaningful and useful however they must emerge from the properties of a single ether.
You now suggest that in addition to the unexplained origins of the ether particle behavior previously mentioned the particles also have an inherent polarity potential that becomes real as light.
Each additional alternative behavior suggested to be an inherent property of the ether, requires the proposed ether to consist of more numerous particule varieties or more complex in structure than the physical reality they are the fundamental components of. We see everywhere else in nature that complex structures are composed of patterns of simpler structures of fewer and fewer unique components. What a particle based theory does more than anything else is reverse this trend and introduce particles that inherit more and more complex properties without regard to cause or internal mechanical conflicts needed to create such properties. In addition to the abbreviated list of unreconsiled internal conflicts and unexplainable behaviors of partical based theory let us add one more. The non dispersive rectilinear propagation of energy over long distances has only ever been observed in as tension in a solid field. This again says that the ether must be a solid tensionable continuum, as light from distant stars propagates in such a non dispersive polarized and rectilinear fassion over years of travel. Although I am sure there are those who can creative an imaginary solution I see no logical reason why light propagated as the interaction between a flow of polarized ether particles would maintain a rectilinear and non dispersive characteristic over such time period, as
describe in your earlier article “The Wave or Particle Confusion”.
A wave only analsys for all physical phenomenon (without any particles) avoids all these pitfalls without conflict.
Cornelis
I in my opinion we should be prepared for properties outside classical physics without abolishing the classical properties. Polarized ether particles is just an example. Another example is the idea emission and absorption of light is explained by energy to and from the ether. This would mean light does not have to transport energy, only information needed for this light to ether relation. This is only examples on widening the perspective without creating (twin)paradoxes and other absurdities.
Regards
John-Erik
John-Erik,
My goal has been unification of the accepted properties of classical physics, not creating more mysterious properties so that the agragate particle models can continue to exist without paraxdoxes. It is efforts to resolve paradoxes, created when these disconnected partical idealizations are forced to share the same space, that reqires the speculation of properties outside classical physics.
I use the integrations of geomtric wave patterns in a single field, instead of partical idealizations, as foundational building blocks and such paradoxes are nonexistant.
In this way energy is not transfered to and from the ether but rather converges and diverges within a non particulate ether continuum to cause all known properties (energy patterns) of classical physics to emerge. Your suggestion to Henry that all models are approximations to reality is accurate, however particle models can never yield a complete picture of unification as particles are already idealized representations of the wave patterns their properties arise from. If the true wave nature of these idealizations is taken into account no new physical properties need be imagined into existance.
Cornelis
I think that we should not hesitate to introduce assumptions outside classical physics. But first of all we should abolish absurd assumptions made by Einstein. You have no arguments supporting your exclusion of energy to and from the ether.
The fact that point particles are idealizations is not an argument to abolish them. We always must approximate. We also need something to do the waving. We cannot explain waves by waves, by waves all the way down.
John-Erik
I understand that the “coulomb force” law postulates a point source for particles. Since electrons and particles are not points but definitely have a size then this law is inadequate. Laurence Hecht presented Weber’s 1845 analysis of the forces involved in 21st Century Science and Technology Fall 1996 Vol.9, No. 3 pp 22-34. This led to finding definite sizes of electron and proton. The best representation of a physical model of the particles I know is by Bergman, D. L,, and Wesley, J. P., “Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment.” Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 1 no. 5, pp. 63-67 (Sept/Oct 1990) and a paper by in the same journal by Joseph Lucas of Jan./Feb. 1966.
Unless the real nature of matter is used, as far as we can know it and one definitely can’t use ideas that use point sources, then much of the above needs rethinking. Even “ether” particles cannot be points and must have some size. But where do you stop?
Of course the crossing of two lines constitutes a point with no dimension. (unless you consider that the line has width as a model drawn by pencil on paper does.)
Henry
We should regard all models as approximations to reality. Navigation in space depends on Newton’s gravity and point mass approximations, and it works well. We must not forget that we use approximations.
Tidal effects from Sun and Moon indicates deviations from mass point approximations. Gravitational anomalies during solar eclipses indicates that gravity shielding from Sun and Moon hits only parts of our planet.
Ether particles are not points, but as a first approximation we must treat them as points.
John-Erik
Gravitational anomalies during solar eclipses are more commonly considered to be due to the additional curvature of the space-time gravity well of the Sun integrating with that of the moon. The motion of the tidal force then reflects the changes in gravity on the earth as its own gravity well propagates through the ripples created at the minimum and maximum of the integrated gravity well.
Cornelis
Yes, that is just the common absurdities that we must abolish. I hope that you do not believe in it.
John-Erik
John-Erik
I do believe in it fully. The absurdities arise out of the misconception that anything other than a true continuum without parts can create the characteristics behaviors of an attractive force or light. Anyone that believes otherwise is ignoring the logical obstacles all partical theories are endowed with. Just as you say light is perhaps only information carried by the ether so too is all forms of matter and energy including gravity.
Cornelis
If the ether particles are so small that we cannot see them, than we cannot decide if we have a continuum or not. Their collective behavior can nevertheless look like a continuum. There are logical obstacles with the continuum model also.
Your statement that energy, matter and gravity are only information look unrealistic to me.
Regards from
John-Erik
what a non plausible description..
Described by the circular description.
John-Erik
A tensionable continuum can not be composed of ether particles of any size. Size has no meaning because for tension there must be continious connection. This leaves the paradox of how can a single particulate ether have both free flow and continious connection required to propagate light.
I have neither heard or found any logical obstacles with the tension continuum model. Your statement that light is only the transfer of information is similar to the description of waves. In the case of most waves there is minimal short range motion of the carrier media but the energy and wave pattern information is transferable over great distances. In a tensionable continuum there need be no motion of the media and the only difference between light and the other forms of energy, including matter, is the geometry of the specific tension wave patterns.
Cornelis
Fatio’s pushing gravity assumes most ether particles to be in a free flow. However, a very, very small part of these particles is absorbed by matter thereby delivering energy and mass to the absorbing matter. This can explain why our planet is expanding and warm inside. This is very simple and I thought that you new so much about pushing gravity. This mechanism explains gravity by a falling ether and provides a reference for light speed as a spherically symmetric field that can be united with the high precision in the GPS system. We do not need a frame as the reference, but a spherical field will do since all GPS transmitters are on the same distance from our planet and all receivers are near Earth.
Regards from
John-Erik
John-Erik,
Logic can not compete with a 300 year old theory you simply “like”.
I know enough about pushing gravity to understand it defines logic and have express valid arguments against it and all particle based ether.
Since you prefer like to logic and refuse to deal with the subject at hand I officially leave this conversation to those who care. Which is quite apparently none.
I’m interseted in the relationship between Le Sage gravity and exploding planets (and moons). I see a problem with Le Sage gavity in that a particle that imparts gravity would itself have gravity as it would have mass. A wave version would still have this problem because of wave-particle duality. But if this problem can be circumvented and a wave version could be more plausible, would there still be enough energy in this wave model to allow planet (and moons) to explode by natural means as in the formulation by the late Dr. Van Flandern?
Bernard,
A wave based theory does not struggle with particle wave duality as there are no particles, only various self resonant energy WAVE PATTERNS, some of which exibit the properties and interactive behavior of particles. All material objects are composed of agregate combinations of these resonant patterns. Pariticals are speculated idealized models of these self resonant energy wave patterns based on how they are observed to be quantized and recoil off each other. This lead to the impression that they must be discrete solid and separate entities. A complete analasis of the wave pattern responsible for mass however shows it will be stable only at specific energy levels (quantized) and that recoil like behavior does occur between these patterns.
Cornelis
I thank you for this debate and I hope that you will find someone else to discuss with. Remember that you shall discuss with opponents and not with supporters.
Good luck and best regards from
John-Erik