Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
John Erik Persson
  • Home
  • Affiliates
    • Community
  • Login
  • Register

Light in a Cavity

John Chappell Natural Philsophy Alliance > John Erik Persson > Aether > Light in a Cavity

Light in a Cavity

Dec 9, 2016John-Erik PerssonAether, Gravity, Light, Physics, Relativity, Time12 Comments

Light Behavior

We can regard every point on a wave front as a source for new wave fronts. This is the reason to the fact that light always takes the fastest (not the shortest) way between two points. Light that is locked in between two parallel surfaces also finds the fastest way between these surfaces. Therefore, the mirrors in cavities always force the wave vector, c, to be orthogonal to these mirrors. We can also see this as a consequence of the fact that boundary conditions, implied by mirrors, have relevance for wave vector, c, only and not for the vector sum, c+v. Therefore, standing waves are produced by wave fronts parallel to defining mirrors.

Light behavior, inside a cavity, depends on the aether wind, and also on the mirrors motion longitudinal to light. However, the mirrors’ motions inside their own planes are irrelevant for light behavior, since these motions do not change boundary conditions. Since transverse motions of the mirrors are irrelevant we can conclude that transverse ether wind is irrelevant, and wave front normal is defining unchanged ray direction. Although light from a laser is moving according to the vector sum c+v, defining beam direction, the ray direction is nevertheless independent of v, since v cannot alter the wave fronts’ orientations that define the ray direction. Phase is relevant in coherent systems, and therefore the ray direction should be used. In focused light we can see beam direction as the direction of max amplitude in not coherent systems. The  beam direction describes motion, and the ray direction describes orientation. The ray direction is normally the most important concept.

In a coherent system we can describe ray direction as c(1-s/c), (s=longitudinal component in v). Therefore, the aether wind can change the ray direction only in the case when s takes different values over the wave front. This explains why light bending near our sun is only about 10^-5 radians. Michelson and Morley’s interferometer (MMX) is sensitive to phase, and therefore it should be interpreted by means of the ray concept, and this means no effect in the transverse arm. However, Stokes instead used the beam direction and found, in error, an effect in the transverse arm. He assumed mirrors to control c+v instead of c only. To correct for Stokes mistake we must assume 2 times higher changes in the prediction for MMX, which means an effect equal to (1-B^2), (B=v/c), for 2-way speed of light. This effect can be compensated by a contraction of bodies 2 times the Fitzgerald contraction. Therefore, we do not need the confusing time dilation. Instead we can assume the aether wind to change clock frequency by a factor (1-B^2). This is logical since electrons in GPS clocks move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. We find that the ether wind a) contracts matter, b) reduces2-way light speed and c) reduces atomic clock frequency  by the same factor equal to (1-B^2). This is a simplification, and an escape from the Lorentz factor.

Ether Wind Detection

In a telescope we must use the ray direction, and the telescope is therefore useless in relation to the ether wind. Instead, for an observer changing his own motion an amount u transverse to light, we must do a coordinate transformation to his frame and we change thereby the ray direction by an amount arctg(u/c). We have found that stellar aberration and MMX are both useless in relation to the ether wind. Instead we have to use a system that can measure the 1-way speed of light. This is something that the GPS system has done for many years. All transmitters are at about 26400 km from the center of our planet, and all receivers are at about 6400 km, that is on the surface of the Earth. That means that an aether wind symmetric spherically in relation to our planet can explain the high precision in the GPS system. Such an aether is explained by this author in Physics without Paradoxes and The Falling Ether. We can regard these ideas as a combination of models by Fatio and Petr Beckmann. Therefore, this model can explain gravity as well. We can test these ideas by assuming an ether wind in radial direction in relation to our planet, and we assume this aether wind to be equal to the ether wind produced by the speed of the satellite in circular orbit. If the clocks are transverse to radius we get the radial effect (1-B^2), and if the clocks are not stabilized in relation to motion the tangential effect is reduced by half, (a mean value of a squared cosine function) and therefore equal to (1-B^2/2). The total effect is therefore (1-3B^2/2). This is in agreement to GPS results.

Gravity

Newton’s gravity is an approximation, since it depends on the mass point approximation. The range dependency is revealed in tidal effects. Anomalies during solar eclipses indicate that the Moon is shielding gravity from the Sun that hits only parts of our planet, so the point mass approximation is violated.  These indications are in agreement to the model by Fatio.

Stokes’ Mistake

Stokes assumed mirrors in the interferometer to define motion as the vector sum c+v to be ortogonal to mirrors. In fact the mirrors cause boundary conditions that are relevant only in relation to orientation, as the vector c, and irrelevant in relation to v. Stokes thereby used the beam direction instead of the ray direction, and did not see that light takes the fastest, not the shortest, way between mirrors. In this coherent context in MMX transverse ether wind is irrelevant. Therefore, Stokes was the scientist that produced the first, and most important, contribution to the confusion in the so called modern physics. Many errors later made by Einstein made it difficult to detect Stokes’ error.

Correction for the error by Stokes means that the predicted change is doubled in MMX and a factor equal to (1-B^2) for 2-way length traveled in a given time. This is the same as the change in 2-way speed of light. Since atoms in a crystal control their separations by means of the ether it is reasonable to assume that the contraction in solids has the same value. The atoms are exchanging positional information with light speed based on the ether. What else? We can also assume the factor (1-B^2) to be valid for changes in frequency in atomic clocks, since these electrons move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. This means that we can abolish the metaphysical concept time dilation.

Conclusions

The mass of our planet generates an ether wind in radial direction that is about 7.9 km/s near Earth, and 3.9 km/s in a GPS satellite, and also equal to the speed of a satellite in circular orbit. The mass of our planet is in some way hiding for us an ether wind of 30 km/s in direction towards the Sun. The mass of a GPS satellite is not big enough to produce such a hiding effect. Therefore, GPS clocks are affected by a factor (1-3B^2/2) in orbit and (1-B^2) on ground. (If effect from Earth’ rotation is ignored.) This gives results in agreement to observations in GPS, and also according to the RT.

The effect on 2-way light speed due to radial ether wind from our sun is in very good agreement to the anomaly observed in the Pioneer space stations. Describe in The Pioneer and the Ether Wind.

The light bending near our sun can be explained by a gradient in ether wind’s component longitudinal to light, although transverse ether wind is irrelevant.

The effect of the radial ether wind on atomic clocks works in radial direction only. The effect according to GRT works for light moving in all directions. We can therefore test the ideas presented here by changing orientation for a ground based clock from horizontal to vertical orientation. This theory predicts that the so called time dilation will disappear and GRT predicts that it should remain.

An alternative method for comparison with RT is suggested by Dr C C Su. He said that 1-way light speed can be measured in varying directions by means of 2 HeNe lasers separated a couple of meters.

Summary

Stokes did not see that ether wind transverse to light is irrelevant for the ray direction that is valid in coherent systems. This mistake provided false arguments for Lorentz aether theory and later Einstein’s theories. These false theories are based on a absurd postulate regarding the same light speed for all not accelerated observers. The best manifestation of this error is that it implies another absurdity, called dilation of time. Therefore we must abolish time dilation and introduce the aether.

References

Blog posts at CNPS

Articles at GSJournal

Articles at CNPS

Article at Galilean Electrodynamics Jan/Feb 2016 called ‘An Aether Wind in Radial Direction’.

John-Erik Persson

 

Written by John-Erik Persson

Light in a Cavity (12)

  1. Cornelis Verhey December 10, 2016 at 12:44 am

    John-Eric,

    The Huygens’ principle is an effective tool for the analsys of planar wavefronts. It has limited applicability however to the analsys of individual transverse waves, (EM waves such as light) which will always demonstrate polarzation.
    See:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront#/search

    As it says in the artical in refrence to polarization “this property of the wave is also usually ignored”.

    It is however a reality that must be dealt with, and a property that only a tensionable media (ether) can support.

    The process you describe is much better suited to the analsys of plane waves (possibly like the waves de Broglie was attempting to describe) that provide the underlying dynamic tension geometries in the ether which result in gravity and the emergence of all other forms of matter/energy patterns. It is these dynamics that dictate the propagative behavior of light in the ether.

    Cornelis

    Reply ↓
    • John-Erik Persson Post authorDecember 11, 2016 at 10:15 am

      Cornelis
      You said:
      ‘The process you describes is much better suited to the analysis of plane waves’.
      I am only talking about plane waves, and I said that Stokes was wrong by using spherical waves. You should read my post once more.
      Do you have any comments to give to my statement that Stokes as wrong?
      Regards _____________ John-Erik

      Reply ↓
      • Cornelis Verhey December 11, 2016 at 8:54 pm

        John-Erik

        The point exactly, you are talking about the wavefront of plane waves. Light is a transverse wave and can not be understood as spherical or plane wave. I have not read Stokes in any detail but he too appears to treat the ether as having fluid like properties. Fluid does not support transverse waves and so any theories based on such models fail to full explain the properties of light. The perpetuation of fluid based models is the true tragedy of science that Stokes and others like him helped to keep alive.

        Cornelis

        Reply ↓
        • John-Erik Persson Post authorDecember 13, 2016 at 7:07 pm

          Cornelis
          You cannot prove that Fatio’s model cannot support transverse waves.
          You have not commented on the most important statement, and that is the notion that Stokes derived an effect in the transverse arm in MMX, and that effect does not exist.
          Regards _______________________________ John-Erik

          Reply ↓
          • Cornelis Verhey December 13, 2016 at 8:16 pm

            John-Erik

            It is for Fatio and his supporters to prove that his model has a mecanisum that can support transverse waves, since only transverse waves have all the properties analogous to light. The media for the propagation of transverse waves must be tensionable. Fatio’s model like all models based on fluidlike motion of particles does not support tension waves. This being the logical proof that it therefore has no mecanisum for supporting light.
            This is an important observation that you and others choose to ignore and claim It could be possible without any explanation of how. You then go on to make foolish challenges requesting others to prove your fantasies are not true. This is not science. The requirements for the propagation of transverse waves is well known it is up to you to prove your media can support them. It has been explained to you multiple times how it can not.

            Cornelis

          • John-Erik Persson Post authorDecember 14, 2016 at 9:25 am

            Cornelis
            There are many things that either you or I or anyone cannot prove. What we can prove is more interesting. An important issue is that Stokes was wrong about an effect in the longitudinal arm in MMX. I have asked for comments on that several times.
            With the best regards from ______________________________ John-Erik

  2. Cornelis Verhey December 15, 2016 at 6:08 am

    The Behavior of Light (August 8th 2015) by John-Eric Peterson:
    ”
    When light is locked in between parallel mirrors light always takes the fastest and not the shortest way between mirrors. This means that we get plane wave fronts always parallel tio the defining mirrors.
    ”
    What has been proven is indead more interesting. Despite years of imperial facts showing that light demonstrates the properties of transverse waves, not a plane waves, you continue to ignore reality to defend your ether model. The important thing is that regardless of the accuracy of Stoke’s claim your argument using plane wave to prove him wrong has no validity of its own.

    Cornelis

    Reply ↓
    • John-Erik Persson Post authorDecember 15, 2016 at 10:27 am

      Cornelis
      ‘…light demonstrates the properties of transverse waves, not a plane waves…’
      You did not see that there is no contradiction between the fact that oscillations are in transverse direction and the other fact that the wave fronts are plane. Besides, most important is wave fronts are not spherical and therefore not dependent on transverse ether wind. Therefore, no effect in transverse arm in MMX.
      Best regards from _______________________________ John-Erik

      Reply ↓
      • Cornelis Verhey December 15, 2016 at 3:19 pm

        John-Erik

        You continue to avoid the contradictions:

        It is a geometric impossibility for a wavefront to emanate from a point source and have plane geometry. The only plane associated with a light wave is the plane used to define its polarization angle.

        The use of the term wind to describe ether motion is in contradiction with a media with the mechanical means to support the propagation of transverse waves.

        The definition of “wind” is the flow of gases on a large scale.

        If Stokes used the term wind to describe ether motion, then he is no more correct than you.

        Although I have not read all your articles I do not see where you refrence Stokes use of the term wind. Perhaps you can supply a link or specific article of his in which he used the term “ether wind”.

        Cornelis

        PS apologies for the misspelling of your name.

        Reply ↓
        • John-Erik Persson Post authorDecember 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm

          Cornelis
          The title is Light in a Cavity. Such light is generated in a volume between parallel mirrors, and light takes the fastest way between mirrors since the mirrors are relevant for wave motion c,but not for ether wind v. Light from fix stars has also plane wave fronts, due to the enormous distance to these stars.
          The ether wind is the state of motion of the ether in relation to an observer. I assumed that you knew that. You seems more interested in details (use of words) than in the important things. The important kernel is that Stokes was wrong when he thought that a transverse ether wind could produce an effect in the transverse arm in MMX. I have asked you to comment on this many times. Do you not have any opinion about this?
          With the best regards from ______________________ John-Erik

          Reply ↓
          • Cornelis Verhey December 16, 2016 at 2:22 am

            John-Erik,

            I have already made my points about the absurdity of a fluid or particulate ether and the impossibility of an ether wind. Under such circumstances it is absurdly illogical and unreasonable of you to ask me to comment further on the possible behaviors of what I have already demonstrated to be absurd and impossible ether models.

            Cornelis

          • John-Erik Persson Post authorDecember 17, 2016 at 6:09 pm

            Cornelis
            It is of no use to discuss with you, since you only talk about ‘the structure of ether’ and does not see that the article was about ‘Light in a Cavity’.
            With the best regards from ___________________ John-Erik

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

← No Preferred Frame
The Second Step →

Affiliations

The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society The Natural Philosophers Community

Recent Posts

  • Mathematics is powerful and dangerous
  • Decontamination of physics
  • Gravity does not move!
  • The illusion of time dilation, Big Bang and Pioneer anomaly
  • Did stellar aberration give us individual aging?

Archives

  • September 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • August 2021
  • March 2021
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015

Categories

  • Aether
  • Directors
  • Gravity
  • Light
  • Mathematics
  • Members
  • Philosophy
  • Physics
  • Relativity
  • Space-Time
  • Time
  • Uncategorized
  • Wave Particle Duality
© Copyright - 2013 : All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress & Designed by Aivahthemes
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Dribbble
  • LinkedIn