The Second Step

Many CNPS members want to abolish the theory of relativity. However there are also some, who want to take a second step backwards and abolish Lorentz ether theory as well. Lorentz theory starts from the assumption that light can move with the same speed in relation to all observers moving with different, but constant, speeds. From this absurd assumption it is calculated that dilation of time exists, and that twins can be of different age. This is an absurdity against all critical thinking and an indication of an overestimation of genius and of mathematics.

Michelson and Morley’s test (MMX)

The prediction for MMX was changed by Stokes from Michelson’s correct prediction to only half that value. Stokes’ mistake has been accepted by mainstream for about 100 years. This important error was used by Lorentz to motivate the absurd concept of time dilation. The missing half in the prediction looks like a motivation for dilation of time.

Stokes’ error was that he assumed the mirrors in the interferometer to force the vector sum, c+v, of wave motion and ether wind to be ortogonal to the mirrors in the equipment. This is a  very important error, since these mirrors have relevance only in relation to wave motion, c, and also that light therefore takes the fastest, not the shortest, way between mirrors. Since c is ortogonal to the mirrors, there is no effect of the ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX. To correct for this error, we have to use a contraction of solids that is 2 times the Lorentz contraction. This means that no time dilation is needed, and that we now get solid bodies that contract to the same amount as the reduction of the 2-way speed of light. We have now got a contraction that is big enough to compensate for the expected effect of the ether wind on the 2-way speed of light. This means that we have a compensated effect in the longitudinal arm and nonexistent effect in the transverse arm. MMX can therefore not detect an ether wind. Another conclusion is that Michelson’s optical meter standard contracts just as much the older mechanical standard in Paris, due to the ether wind.

Stellar and pulsar aberrations

In a telescope light takes the fastest way, just as in a cavity. Therefore, c, not c+v, is relevant for direction, and transverse ether wind cannot change wave front orientation. Therefore, stellar aberration is u/c, independent of v. u is the motion of the telescope in the direction transverse to light. u changes the apparent wave front orientation as observed in stellar aberration, and the same effect is observed in pulsar aberration. This is observed in VLBI (very long base interferometry). For VLBI telescopes on opposite sides of Earth, the instrument in the leading side of our planet receives its signal 4.2×10^-6 s before the telescope moving behind. This is caused by the motion of 30 km/s of our planet. We can see that the transition from particle model to wave model for light is not completed, since we have not observed that transverse observer motion shifts apparent wave front in the same way as the shift in the track of a particle, according to Bradley. We find also that we have not observed that stellar and pulsar aberrations are the same. These aberrations cannot tell us anything about the ether wind.

The ether wind

Neither stellar aberration nor MMX can detect an ether wind. To do that we need a system that can detect the 1-way speed of light, like the global positioning system (GPS). In that system we find an extremely good agreement between measurements of 1-way and 2-way speeds of light. This fact implies that the only possible ether wind is an ether wind represented by a spherically symmetric field. This means a falling ether (described by this author for many years). An important property of such an ether is that it can explain gravity, and that is something that the ether must do. This result is plausible since all efforts to use a frame to represent the ether wind have failed.

A velocity field, v(r), is constant in relation to time, and can therefore be regarded as a constant of integration. Einstein was wrong when he changed the description of light from c+v to c only. Instead a more general description, c+v(r), means that we can get rid of the dilation of time and the absurd Lorentz factor.

The ideas presented here can be tested by assuming an ether wind in a radial direction to Earth, with the same magnitude as the speed of a satellite in a  circular orbit at the same altitude as the ether wind. This gives predictions for GPS clocks in agreement to SRT. However, agreement to GRT is found only for light moving in radial direction to Earth. For light in tangential direction this theory-predicts no effect according to GRT (only due to SRT). An explanation to this clock effect can be found in the fact that the electrons in the system move forth and back in relation to the ether wind. The Pioneer anomaly can also be explained. The bending of light near our sun is explained due to a gradient in the longitudinal component of the ether wind, since the transverse component is irrelevant in relation to wave front orientation.

Gravity

A radial ether wind can also explain gravity in agreement to a 300 year old model by Fatio. On a large body in free fall we can only see gravity from that body, as long as the mass point approximation is valid for all other bodies. Exceptions, due to invalidations of the mass point approximation, are observed during solar eclipses and also in the tidal effects.

Summary

Stokes made the first and most important error, and Lorentz introduced time dilation based on this mistake. The situation became even worse when Einstein substituted length contraction by space contraction, and also explained gravity as the bending of nothing. Since so many errors have been added on top of Stokes’ mistake it has  been difficult to go an enough long way back in history to find the first error, that was hidden by other errors.

Conclusion

In order to take the second step backwards, we had to take a third step and correct Stokes as well, since he was the one that made the first, and most important, mistake.

John-Erik Persson

Blog http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson

Articles http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/763/John-Erik,%20Persson

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=22