CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
Fundamental Errors in Physics by John-Erik Persson
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 21:01 GMT
Essay AbstractThis article demonstrates, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. With the very advanced technology of today we have tools to correct these mistakes. It is demonstrated that the global positioning system (GPS), its atomic clocks and advanced measurement systems in the space program can give us the means to reconsider old ideas. This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors. An ether that is falling towards our planet is suggested, and it is demonstrated, that this ether model can explain more observations than existing physics. Gravitational anomalies, gravitation itself and pioneer anomaly are explained by this theory. An explanation to destructive superposition in light is also given.
Author BioThe author is 82 years old has an master in electrical engineering. He has been interested in the fundamentals of the theory of relativity and quantum physics since retirement. He has earlier sent articles to GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, CNPS and GSJournal.
Download Essay PDF File
John C Hodge wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 15:54 GMT
Perhaps your "falling ether" model can be expanded. Pioneer anomaly: (1) signal should be Earth directed as early data (but last analysed) suggested. (2) Sun's falling ether should have some influence on the frequencies so Sun's position could give the annual periodicity observation. You related falling ether to Doppler shift. Try applying to galaxy redshift. Currently accepted model has only 0.80 corrrelation (poor).
What gravity anomalies during solar eclipse?
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 20:27 GMT
John Hodge
The effect of ether wind is directed towards the Sun, but observed from Earth. However, the difference is small, since distances are between 20 and 80 astronomical units (Sun Earth distance).
I do not connect between Doppler and ether wind. I say that the effect is caused by second order effect due to ether wind f(-(v/c)^2), but has been assumed to be caused by first order effect due to 2-way Doppler f(-(2u/c)).
I do not think that we can see galactic red shift in the Pioneer anomaly, but I think the effect exists.
Eclipse anomalies are observed in vertical direction in China. See Ref (3). They are also observed in horizontal direction by Janos Rohan. See Ref (4).
With best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 08:37 GMT
Hi John, I have taken a quick look at your essay. There is a great deal of information in it and I must confess too much for me to take in all at once. I do appreciate the time you have spent considering these ideas and presenting your own solutions. I haven't studied Faraday's physics ideas but you have inspired me to look into that. I like the very ending where you mention restructuring of physics rather than mere addition to it. I think you are spot on there. Kind regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 23:55 GMT
Georgina
Thank you for taking interest.
Yes, i think we should honor Faraday more. He made the great work in
physics that Maxwell translated to mathematics. I think that the same can be said about Tycho Brahe's life long work in
physics, that Keppler draw mathematical conclusions from. Mathematics seems to be over estimated in relation to physics. Without Faraday and Tycho Brahe we would have to wait long to see someone to do their lobs.
From _________________ John-Erik
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 04:01 GMT
John-Erik, I am sorry for getting your name wrong.Thanks for your reply. Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 12:30 GMT
Georgina, thanks
John-Erik
Paul N Butler wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 18:29 GMT
Dear John-Erik
I read your paper and I find that in many ways you have a better understanding of structural concepts than many who are committed to trying to fill the holes in existing quantum mechanics and relativity theories. You are correct that what is usually called ether exists and it is composed of particles that do not possess the angular motion that generates the...
view entire post
Dear John-Erik
I read your paper and I find that in many ways you have a better understanding of structural concepts than many who are committed to trying to fill the holes in existing quantum mechanics and relativity theories. You are correct that what is usually called ether exists and it is composed of particles that do not possess the angular motion that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects that are present in both energy photons and matter particles. These particles are composed of simple linear motions and we live in a sea of them. Most interactions take place between entities that possess angular motions because interactions require an interaction cross-section to allow an interaction to take place. The greater the cross-section size or width is, the greater is the probability of an interaction. Interaction probability is also affected by the path flow and speed of entities that exist within the interaction cross-section. As an example, the cross-section of an atom would be the total size of its external field structure for elastic interactions. Within this structure, the matter particles in the nucleus have a much smaller interaction cross-section. Thus, the probability of an interaction that involves them in any way is much lower than just the probability of an interaction with the atom as a whole. Since sub-energy (ether) particles do not contain an angular motion, they cannot generally interact in the direction of their travel because their interaction cross-section is about zero. They mainly interact with entities that intersect them at an angle to their direction of travel. At the sub-energy particle density that exists in free space, an energy photon will travel a very long distance between such interactions. Each interaction decreases its frequency by a small amount, thus creating a red shift that increases with distance between the points of emission and absorption. Energy photons contain a second motion that operates at ninety degrees to their direction of travel and travels first in one direction and then reverses direction and travels in the opposite direction, both at ninety degrees to the photon’s direction of travel in a repetitive cyclical pattern. This motion generates their frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. The greater the motion amplitude (speed) of this motion, the higher the photon’s frequency, the shorter the wavelength, and the greater the dynamic mass effect possessed by the photon. You are right that this motion can have any value above zero, but it is usually generated at a specific value which is determined by a matter particle’s amount of motion that is available for transfer to a sub-energy particle to transform it into an energy photon. When the photon is generated by an interaction between an electron in an atom and a sub-energy particle that is part of a high density sphere that is part of the atom’s external field, the amount of energy (motion) that is transferred to the sub-energy particle is determined by the difference between the electron’s motion in its travel in the low density area between that high density sphere and the other one that it is traveling between and the amount (amplitude) of motion at which the sub-energy particles in that sphere are traveling around the sphere from the sphere’s sub-energy input to its output. When an electron is captured by an atom, it travels toward the atom until the attraction of the sub-energy spheres that it has traveled through is equal to the attraction of the spheres that it has not yet traveled through based on its mass. Its motion toward the atom then comes to a zero rate or motion amplitude in that direction and it then travels around the atom at the same velocity and direction as the sub-energy particles in the high density sub-energy sphere’s that it is traveling between. Since it is traveling at the same velocity as the sub-energy particles it comes into close approximation to in the spheres, it cannot interact with a sub-energy particle to transfer motion to it. If it then receives added motion from the absorption of an energy photon, as an example, it will then move up and travel between two high density sub-energy spheres that are farther from the center of the atom. In this position it will travel faster than the sub-energy particles in those two spheres. This will apply pressure on the sub-energy sphere, such that the probability of an interaction with a sub-energy particle in the sphere is greatly increased. When it does interact with a sub-energy particle it transfers its excess motion to the sub-energy particle and returns to its mass based stability point. The motion that is transferred to the sub-energy particle causes it to try to travel faster than the speed of light, but the excess motion over the speed of light exceeds the threshold level beyond which any extra motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion. This extra motion travels into the sub-energy particle’s fourth dimensional motion and generates its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects, thereby transforming it into an energy photon. Since all of the atoms of the same mass contain identical sub-energy fields, the amount of motion transferred to a sub-energy particle from an electron in the atom’s outermost electron level when it goes from the next higher sub-energy sphere to its normal mass balanced sphere will be the same for all interactions of that type. This means that for a given type of atom the energy photon, thus produced will always have the same frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effect. So as you said it is not that a newly created energy photon could not possess any frequency, it is just that in a given type of atom the amount of motion that an electron can transfer to a sub-energy particle to transform it into an energy photon is fixed by the internal structure of the atom’s external field. This does not give all of the possible photon creation results because, for example, an electron can possibly receive enough extra motion due to some interaction that it moves up two or more spheres, etc. in which case it could transfer more motion to a sub-energy particle to create a higher frequency photon, but even in that case all electrons that went down the same number of spheres in that type of atom would create photons with the same frequency, etc. An energy photon is a self-contained entity that carries all of its motions within itself, so it does not need to have a medium to travel through. As mentioned above when an energy photon interacts with a sub-energy particle it gives up some of its motion to that particle, which results in the lowering of its frequency. At the same time the sub-energy particle that receives that motion can be changed into a lower frequency photon. This tends to build up a background level of these lower frequency photons over time. If an energy photon’s frequency is high enough, so that it contains enough motion to produce a matter particle and it comes into contact with an adequate angular motion component, such as the sub-energy fields near the nucleus of an atom, it can transfer some of that motion into the photon’s fifth dimensional motion, which causes it to be transformed into a matter particle by causing the energy photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself, thus creating a three dimensional cyclical enclosed path through which it travels continuously. This path can, of course, move or be stationary and the great angular motion of the photon as it travels that path generates its static mass effect. As the photon in the matter particle travels around this path it entrains sub-energy particles to travel through it. This generates the matter particle’s internal energy field. This field flows from an input on the path to an output on the other side of the path. The input and output follow the photon as it travels around the path, so they are continually changing their locations on that path. This field is responsible for keeping the internal motions of one matter particle in the nucleus of an atom from interacting with the internal motions of other particles and would be identified with the strong force in most current theories. As the sub-energy particles flow through the matter particle the flow is modulated by the photon’s fourth dimensional frequency/wavelength motion from a zero level linearly up to a maximum level and then back down to a zero level. This cycle continues. The result is the creation of concentric sub-energy particle spheres that vary in density linearly from a zero flow level to a maximum density flow level and then back down to the zero level as you travel outward from or inward toward the matter particle. This is the matter particle’s external field structure. It is responsible for the capture and control of electrons and the binding of matter particles together into atoms. The matter particles in the nucleus of an atom are contained within the atom within the innermost high density sub-energy sphere. This containment would also be considered part of the strong force while the electron containment and elastic interactions with low enough kinetic energy that only involve the external fields, etc. would be likely considered to be connected to the weak force. I tried to cover much information in this post, so it may be hard to follow, but my papers in the contests on this site are somewhat less intense and give more details of how it all works and may answer any questions that you may have. If not I will try to answer them if I can. I will stop now as this is getting big.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 12:09 GMT
Paul Butler
I thank you very much for good words about my essay. Yes, i agree that the ether is a very important and fundamental concept together with space and time (not spacetime).
I will take look at your article. It appears to regard uncertainties in language. It seems interesting.
Thanks, and good luck _______________ John-Erik Persson
Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 01:38 GMT
Dear John-Erik,
I saw your comments to me both on your page and also on my page and that they were a little different from each other. I will just make a single comment that covers both of them.
My current paper starts out covering the meaning of the word fundamental because that is what the contest topic is about and I do start out mentioning the vagueness of man’s abstract...
view entire post
Dear John-Erik,
I saw your comments to me both on your page and also on my page and that they were a little different from each other. I will just make a single comment that covers both of them.
My current paper starts out covering the meaning of the word fundamental because that is what the contest topic is about and I do start out mentioning the vagueness of man’s abstract communication methods. After that, however, I give examples of the fundamentals of each of the eight main hierarchical structural levels of the universe. This gives overall beginning or fundamental level information about them, but does not go into great detail about any of them. For a deeper look at the nature of time, I would recommend my first paper from 2008 “The Physical Nature of Time” and for a more detailed description of the physical structure of field particles, energy photons, and matter particles, I recommend my 2015 paper “The Truth is that the Connection Between Physics and Mathematics is Not at all Mysterious”. I generally have added some new information to all of my papers. I added as much as I could in each paper while also trying to stay within the general topic that the paper is supposed to address, so my other papers also add information not contained in the ones mentioned above. The comments also contain some information that is not in the papers. In the current paper and the previous one, I have copied all of the comments that I made on the papers of others and all of their comments to me on their papers onto my paper’s page to make it easier for someone to get all of that information also. On the older papers you would have to look through the other contestants papers to find such information, so that would be more difficult, but could be of importance if you were looking for some specific information that was not covered in the papers. While I am here, I will try to answer as many questions as I can, but there are some areas that I will not go into at this time, so you would have to ask the questions and I would then answer those that I can. I hope that will help you to find the information provided so far in the easiest way possible.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 13:29 GMT
Paul Butler
Thanks for making it more clear. I agree to your opinions regarding the relation between physics and mathematics. Mathematics is not fundamental to physics itself, but to our understanding and knowledge of it. It is good that you try to define what fundamental means. Thanks.
Best regards from _____________________ John-Erik Persson
Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear John-Erik,
I am not sure that you do understand my concept of the proper functional structure of science in general and in this case specifically in physics. There are two very important structures that are both required to maximize progression of advancement and at the same time enrich the level of understanding to a great enough depth that the likelihood of following erroneous paths...
view entire post
Dear John-Erik,
I am not sure that you do understand my concept of the proper functional structure of science in general and in this case specifically in physics. There are two very important structures that are both required to maximize progression of advancement and at the same time enrich the level of understanding to a great enough depth that the likelihood of following erroneous paths that lead to dead ends or cause great delays in advancement will be avoided. The first is the development of conceptual understanding. An example of this that is currently needed and I am trying to provide for man here is to conceptually fill in an area of physics that has been mostly avoided in recent times and that is an understanding of the structure of the lowest known layer of the universe’s structure, which is the level of fields, energy photons, and matter particles. For the most part current theories do not address what substance these entities are composed or made of, and how that substance is structured in each of these entities to cause them to generate their observed interaction behaviors. Observations and man’s current theories both indicate that these entities can be transformed into each other and that they all can also be transformed into simple angular and linear motions. It is obvious to me and I believe it should also be so to anyone who has any understanding of these entities that the simplest of these entities is a simple linear motion. When I looked into it, I found that field (sub-energy) particles, energy photons, and matter particles can all be constructed using just simple motions. Once this basic level of understanding is gained it can then be expanded to conceptually combine these entities together to get a better understanding of higher level structures such as the structure of the internal and external fields of matter particles and how those fields are used to capture and contain electrons in the external field and contain the particles in the nucleus within the atom while at the same time keeping the internal motions of those particles from interacting with each other, etc. This can then be expanded to understand how atoms bind together into molecules and molecules bind together into large scale objects, etc. Although it should be obvious that this conceptual stage of development has great power to allow the development of a deeper level of understanding of the universe, the other structure is then needed to bring out the details of the operation and interoperation of these entities at all levels of structure. That structure is mathematics. When new concepts are developed, they generally lead to the need to make new observations to confirm them and to increase the depth of understanding of those concepts. Math is greatly involved in making and quantifying these observations. Once the quantity of the new observations is adequate, math models can be constructed to show the observed relationships between the entities seen in these observations. The math models can indicate new observations that should be made based on extrapolations of the patterns of current behaviors into extensions of variables, etc. that would predict new outcomes under different conditions than those currently observed. My point is that both conceptual understanding and the application of math to deepen and develop the concepts into useable forms are equally important and both are required for prolonged advancement in understanding. As advancement continues both the conceptual and math models usually need to be modified to conform to new observational data and deeper level conceptual and math processing. When the system is functioning properly each is a check on the other’s developments to be sure they both continue to adhere to reality. The current problems in physics and some other areas of science stem mostly from a lack of conceptual development. To a great extent this is due to the elevation in the minds of people of the importance of math structuring while at the same time a belief has developed that conceptual structuring is of less importance and is less accurate than math. Those who believe such things do not understand the different realms of development that the conceptual and math structures apply to. The conceptual structure applies to the overall understanding of things. It gives the big picture of how things are made and how they work individually and together with each other. Math is more usefully applied to developing the details of the structures, their operations, and interactions. It works best to focus on the smaller and smaller details while concept structuring works to put those details together into an overall structural understanding that encompasses all of the details into a workable whole picture of the structure of things. When the conceptual level is left out, there is no guidance as to what outputs from the math level are parts of reality and what parts are complete fictions. People tend to go off in all directions believing all of the outputs to be true because after all, the math model god has declared it to be so by its outputs. In reality both the conceptual and math levels can be wrong or incomplete and need modification. When the system is working properly they both work to correct each other’s errors. I am attempting to correct current errors that are presently considered to be true valid physics by introducing a conceptual model of what is currently believed to be the most basic level of structuring, which is that of the structure of fields, energy photons and matter particles in the same way that past introductions of conceptual models of molecular structure and later of atomic structure were guides to those of earlier times. I hope that helps. Have you had a chance to look at the papers that I recommended to you in my previous comment? If so, what do you think about them?
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson!
I really appreciate those who are passionate about ideas of ether and keeps her loyalty throughout his life. However, I always tell them that the idea of the ether is weaker than the idea of Descartes on the identity of space and matter. When Descartes maintains that space is a matter, the ether is no longer needed. When you are in your studies, replace the ether the concept of physical space, which is matter, then there is a lot of enlightenment in the understanding of the physical world, which overtook the once me. I also like you believe that space (the ether) drops and this creates the gravitational force.
Brief description New Cartesian physics you can find in my essay.
I wish you success!
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 22:20 GMT
Boris
Thanks for taking interest and giving comments.
The ether must transmit light and gravity, and gravity demands matter. That matter is the ether. If there is matter there
is an ether, in my opinion.
I will read your essay and comment.
Regards from ___________________ John-Erik
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 07:26 GMT
John-Erik,
Let it be so. I say space, you say ether. I say: space is matter, and you say: where there is matter there ether. But what is the ether? This concept of mythology. When a believer in God, I ask: where is your God?, he says - in the sky. For them the sky is the ether where the angels dwell. For me, the sky is the space, which is matter and which is the building material from which constructed the physical world.
In my essay there is no mechanism for gravity. I believe he is already well described, including you, so I appreciate your work.
I wish you success!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 03:48 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson,
I enjoyed your essay and agree that theoretical physics today depends on more than 100-year-old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, some of which are in error. Like you, I feel that perhaps the easiest way to advance physics is to reveal old fundamental errors.
You discuss too many physical phenomena for me to critique, so I will focus on those...
view entire post
Dear John-Erik Persson,
I enjoyed your essay and agree that theoretical physics today depends on more than 100-year-old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, some of which are in error. Like you, I feel that perhaps the easiest way to advance physics is to reveal old fundamental errors.
You discuss too many physical phenomena for me to critique, so I will focus on those aspects on which I believe we agree. For example, you state that
"
Instead of by time dilation, observed effects must be explained by clock behavior."
Any analysis of atomic clocks must be based on clocks counting cycles, which are inversely related to time, while (per Einstein) frequency is directly related to energy. Thus
clocks measure energy directly and time only indirectly. Einstein's idea of 'perfect clocks', located at every point in the moving frame and perfectly synchronized, is an erroneous idea. Formulated long before the development of atomic clocks (the only ones that show relativistic effects) Einstein might be forgiven his mistake, but why hold onto it?
You note that the "
Lorentz transform is based on the absurd assumption that light moves with the same speed in relation to all observers moving with constant, but different speeds." Of course Rindler, whose name is associated with several aspects of special relativity, agrees with this, and I discuss this in detail in my essay.
Like you, I feel that Faraday's pedestal could be raised much higher.
You also note that experiments that detect the ether wind based on rotation of the planet surely cannot be interpreted to "
assume our own planet to entrain the ether in the whole universe." I propose that
light propagates in local gravity, and that this is compatible both with MM's null result and with the motion of clocks circling earth in opposite directions. I suspect that when you say that
"
Such an ether wind can explain gravity as well",
you are in agreement with the fact that
"
Local gravity can explain ether"
as detailed in my essay.
You note the absurdity of the
twins paradox, which is a logical consequence of 'space-time symmetry' that vanishes in an 'energy-time conjugate' formalism (while retaining relativistic particle physics quite well) and note (as I do) that an older, wiser Einstein said "
physics without ether is unthinkable."
You develop the idea of "falling ether", then state that "this falling ether describes gravity". I would respectfully suggest that the concept of "
gravity as local ether" satisfies the goals you have in mind, but perhaps I need to study your essay more closely.
In any event, we are almost identical in our analysis of the problem, and I think in general agreement in our solutions.
I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I have enjoyed yours.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 12:02 GMT
Edwin Klingman
Thank you for this interesting comments. We are in good agreements regarding the ideas that you take up, although we sometimes express the ideas with slight variations. we also agree to the fact that Maxwell got credit for Faraday's work.
You concentrate on all ideas that we agree on, and I hope that you will come back with some ideas where we differ. It is most productive to argue where there is no agreement.
I will with interest read your article and write a comment on your page.
Best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear John Erik Persson,
You wrote: “We must remember that new knowledge often changes the fundamental structure, and seldom is a simple addition to what we already have.”
My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
post approved
Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear John-Erik,
I found your essay interesting and aligned with my work to some extent.
I think you would be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" where I explain how the effects of Relativity can be explained Classically and the null result of the MMX can be explained with an ether type field. There are also some of my papers on ViXra (just search for my page under author Declan Traill to find my papers).
In my work I found that the ether field (space-time) is consumed by Black Holes, resulting in a similar type of in-falling ether wind which can explain the Galaxy Rotation rates. The field around other masses (other than Black Holes) however, remains static & it is a time dilation field that affects all waves (light, matter) by refraction essentially - causing the gravitational attraction.
One other point I would like to make: when light destructively interferes, the energy doesn't disappear, it emerges somewhere else. For example in the two-slit Young's experiment, the light from the dark regions is shifted to the bright regions such that the total energy on the screen is the same. It doesn't cancel out to result in zero energy.
Best Regards,
Declan Traill
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 12:30 GMT
Declan
I have seen your FQXi 2012 paper. In your diagram
v/c is near 1. Michelson assumed 10
-4. If Sun is entraining, Earth should also. Therefore,
v/c is only 10
-6. In the light clock mirrors force
c, and not
c+v, to be ortogonal to mirrors. Therefore, transverse ether wind (blowing inside the wave fronts) does not change the speed of the clock. Einstein's light clock does not react in any way to transvers ether wind. No effect in transverse arm in MMX either.
Transverse ether wind cannot alter the wave fronts in stellar aberration.
In longitudinal arm in MMX information moves 2-ways between mirrors. In a crystal information about position is moved by the ether 2-ways between atoms. So, 2-way speed of light is changed in the same way as the contraction of bodies. Therefore, the effect in the longitudinal arm is real but compensated contraction of bodies. This effect is 2 times the Fitzgerald contraction.
Stellar aberration as well as MMX are
useless in relation to the ether wind. We must instead measure 1-way light speed as we have done for decades in GPS. We find a spherically symmetric ether wind, also explaining gravity.
Regards from ____________ John-Erik
Richard J Benish wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 04:25 GMT
What happens to the falling ether when it enters a hole through the source mass from both ends? Does the wind from opposite directions cancel? If so, then how would this affect the rate of a clock at the center?
Bear in mind that, according to general relativity, the rate of a clock at the center is supposed to be a minimum.
If the wind from opposing directions cancels, does this make the rate of a central clock a maximum? If so, then how would this relate to the falling of material objects into the same hole?
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 13:04 GMT
Richard
Perhaps you have been mislead by the word falling, and perhaps you should read my article again. It is important to consider that fast and small ether particles are moving in ALL directions spherically symmetric. Near a large body the flow passing the body is SLIGHTLY attenuated. This SMALL difference IS gravity. This is Fatio's 300 years old model.
Clock slowing is caused by bound electrons moving forth and back in relation to the ether wind. They are accelerating and decelerating during each orbiting period. This produces a second order effect.
I suggest something very different from GRT and therefore does not have to bear in mind predictions by that absurd theory.
I have demonstrated that my theory gives the same predictions as SRT plus GRT, however based on VERY different assumptions.
Regards from _________________ John-Erik
Richard J Benish wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 02:15 GMT
Which way is the ether wind blowing at the center? If there is no net direction, then why should the rate of a clock there be slow?
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 14:10 GMT
Richard
Spherical symmetry mean no ether wind in the center. This means no clock slowing.
Vertical ether wind equal to the speed of a satellite in circular orbit predicts exactly the same clock effects as SRT plus GRT. Pioneer anomaly is also predicted, and caused by 2-way light speed and not by 2-way Doppler.
Stokes in error reduced Michelson's prediction. Lorentz in error substituted what was missing by time dilation. So, not only GRT, SRT, LET are wrong, but also Stokes effect in the transverse arm in MMX.
Best regards from ___________________ John-Erik
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 20:19 GMT
Decan Traill
Regarding your 'explanation' to destructive superposition:
How do you explain that energy can disappear in one point and then pop up somewhere else?????
Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 22:58 GMT
John-Erik,
I can't seem to find my post of 26th. That's no the fist to have disappeared, Cristi reported one. Bizzarre!?
To answer your question above; the energy doesn't 'disappear'. The amplitude reduces at one angle matched by increase at the orthogonal angle. Best visualise it as measuring a thin ellipse in orthogonal directions. Simply rotate or phase shift it and the major & minor axis reverse.
I hope that's helpful. Wiki is also quite helpful on quantum optics & phase shifts.
Perhaps my previous post was rotated 90 degrees so became as thin as a piece of paper and is no longer detectable!!??
Best. Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 14:39 GMT
Peter Jackson
Thanks for answer. However, to me the explanation you provided seems to be inconsistent in relation to destructive superposition. The same can be said regarding your attempt to explain how your comment disappeared.
With best regards from ___________________ John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 17:32 GMT
John Eric.
That's QM for you! However logical consistency depends on starting assumptions, so try this (as my reply to you on mine but expanded)
I show you a spinning sphere. I ask you to touch it and judge the clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation. You touch the south pole and clearly say 'Clockwise'.
Now I can make your result disappear to ZERO without removing the spinning sphere!
I simply rotate the sphere half a turn on either the y OR z axis. You find 0!
Now stay there and start again. I ask you if it's spin UP or DOWN. Easy! But then rotate 90 degrees and THAT ALSO goes to zero! (there's no up/down or left/right momentum at the equator) We can rotate either the sphere or just YOU! (and at 180 degrees you find the opposite).
The energy does not disappear! The spinning sphere is still there. It's all about at what angle we measure things. It's then entirely logically consistent once you use the correct starting assumptions. Exactly like QM in fact! Remember a two channel photomultiplier has orthogonal channels each with rotatable field electrons 'requantizing' input & amplifying to get a 'click'.
In 'superposition', if one path had one polarization and the other was at 90 degrees a 'complete' result is found if 'in phase'. A full range of detector findings is then possible subject to phase and orientation. i.e. if 2 identical states are combined at one angle the result is twice the amplitude, but at 90 degrees it will be found below the detection threshold.
It's all about understanding how detectors really work!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 18:22 GMT
Peter Jackson
Thanks for this explanation. It is more understandable. However, this is not enough, since my reasoning is based on light
waves, not particles. I think that the transition from light particles to light waves is still not done completely. In my opinion the wave or particle confusion should be solved by ether as particles and light as waves.
What do you think?
Regards John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 10:39 GMT
John-Eric,
That's a very original approach, and I agree we should test all options. Indeed I have no issue with the 'sub-matter' medium being particulate as it must be discrete 'vortices' (motion) to exist at all! However it's not condensed 'matter' at that smaller scale so needs differentiation.
And we mustn't forget the 'transverse' wave quality of light, so fluctuations over all 3 axes as it translates. So is the helical path of a 3D orbit a 'wave' or a 'particle'! It certainly travels as a wave of increasing circumference but must be made 'particulate' by any interaction. I also posted the response below on my string;;
..
There's also a simpler way to test if 'destructive interference' is real. Move the back board of a 2 slit or similar interferometer experiment slightly forward or rearward. The light fringes become dark and vice versa. Huygens construction helps rationalise but modern quantum optics does even better.
The 'build up' of 'single photon' events to a fringe pattern does however also show the retained 'particulate' characteristic on interaction ('requantization'). Richard Feynman thought 'duality' was just confusion, but things are now far less confused.
(I'm sure the '1' applied to mine at the time of your last post wasn't you John-Eric.)
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
Hi John-Erik Persson
The opening sentences in your esteemed essay “This article demonstrates, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. With the very advanced technology of today we have tools to correct these mistakes. ........ This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking...
view entire post
Hi John-Erik Persson
The opening sentences in your esteemed essay “This article demonstrates, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. With the very advanced technology of today we have tools to correct these mistakes. ........ This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors.”
Ether is one of the excellent ideas to be probed further. But there are some more Fundamental Errors in Physics My dear Persson………..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.
I request you please consider spending some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance and other some fundamental errors…..
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:25 GMT
Satyavarapu
Thanks for good words about my article. You seems to have many ideas in common with me. I think that there is too much science fiction in physics now.
Yes, I will read your article and comment.
From ___________________ John-Erik Persson
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Peter Jackson
Thanks for mail.
I agree with Feynman that wave or particle in confusion is just an evidence that we do not understand light. The fact that fringes changes over the surface means that they should change in transverse direction as well. I think that your simple test is not a certain evidence.
Regards _______________ John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 22:52 GMT
John-Eric,
It does. It depends on polarization type and direction. Just turn the slits by 90 degrees and the fringes are transverse.
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 12:17 GMT
Peter Jackson
Of course the pattern changes when you rotate the equipment, but that does not prove how it changes when you move the detector. You cannot prove light to exist in light. You know that there is transverse fields, but you cannot know if there is a longitudinal field.
Regards John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT
John-Eric, (copied)
I'm not sure what 'proof' ever is, but rotation has three degrees of freedom not just two. Ellipticity change can be from rotation on any axis.
Don't you agree the changes found when changing the backboard distance seem evidence enough of longitudinal change? (If plotted progressively it describes the same fluctuation pattern).
The 'impact' axis energy in beams such as Bessel beams & lasers is quite well known. And what of the photoelectric effect?
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 22:31 GMT
Peter Jackson
3 dimensions. Longitudinal and one transverse must change. This does not prove energy to move inside the wave fronts. We do not know energy to even exist in light. The 2 transverse fields can represent information (potential forces) that later become real forces, when light hits the charge we use as detector. At that moment energy comes from the ether.
John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 13:00 GMT
John-Erik, I can agree the following; (also re your post on Josephsons and mine)
1. Nothing can 'prove' anything in physics.
2. Energy is found from interactions with light. Precisely how? we don't know.
3. As 'meters' are part of the system they DO influence detected values.
4. Dark energy does exist, not as 'matter', but can condense to pairs.
You don't explain what 'potential' and 'real' forces are. I could rationalise them as 'dark' and condensed particle energy (with all 3 degrees of freedom not just 2) but I suggest we can't say more.
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:52 GMT
Peter Jackson
You said: Energy is found when interaction is done with light. However, this does not prove that the energy is provided by the light. It can also be provided by the ether. Light can be without energy.
John-Erik Persson
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 11:34 GMT
(copied reply from mine) John-Eric, Yes I see the link is dead. Try one of these;
Vimeo 100 sec video. Youtube 100 sec Classic QM. As foor your model, I've agreed it's novel and interesting and we must test all. But the QM test is like a complex jigsaw puzzle we're told can't be solved. There is only ONE solution (be it describable in many ways).
Your theory don't yet derive such a solution. Our classical mechanism DOES do so, and unarguably because its classical mechanics. So if you suggest our solution is 'wrong' it's the same as saying the completed jigsaw puzzle is wrong! (it also produces non integer spins, remarkable in itself!)
You may still be right if a flaw in the puzzle solution is found. Nobody has yet but you might. OR a modified s description may be consistent. Our model also works with a plane wave from a 'photon' emission interacting with detector electrons. Could you not say in a way that's not inconsistent with yours?
Very Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 16:28 GMT
Greetings John-Erik, | I have started to read your essay, because I notice from the abstract and comments that there is some similarity to ideas I presented at FFP15 which are partly summarized in my
current essay, talking about gravitation by condensation. I point out that the various entropic and emergent gravity schemes are equivalent to recent ideas that there is an analogy between the quantum critical point of BEC formation and the event horizons of Schwarzschild black holes, which are purely gravitational massive objects so make a good arena for studying gravity. | The notion of gravitation by condensation also fits well with ether-based gravity models such as what you are describing - though I have not digested that description yet. You would likely find greatly interesting also the Sink Drain model of Bayarsaikhan Choisuren, so I'll include a link to
his essay as well. I am using the vertical bar character in place of carriage returns, which a glitch in the FQXi system is turning into the letter n - very annoying! | All the Best, | Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 00:07 GMT
Hello again John-Erik...
I found this essay enjoyable to read, and I am somewhat in agreement with what you are trying to say, but I think there are some exaggerations where for example you say 'proves' when 'shows' or 'may show' would pass without raising an eyebrow. It is wise to learn, in the arena of theoretical Physics, that having a clear explanation for the facts considered does not mean having a better theory which considers all of the known facts. Part of the reason is that many alternate models can explain many pertinent facts, in a field like quantum gravity for example, without there being a single model that is clearly superior to the rest.
I heard perhaps 40 lectures on different flavors of quantum gravity at GR21, and every speaker talked about important advances being made using their chosen model - and the advantages thereof. Beverly Berger spoke up saying that, and Lee Smolin later reaffirmed that progress would be better served if people found ways to use advances in one model as a springboard for progress in another. That kind of cooperation or collaboration is what I live for or thrive on, because I don't see this whole competing models thing as helpful. But some of your ideas have a rather good pedigree you seem to know nothing about.
Are you familiar with the book "The Evolution of Physics" by Einstein and Infeld, which presents Modern Physics concepts in a very ether-centered view, because it was largely written while those ideas were still considered valuable insights rather than a side trip? You should also check out papers by Reg Cahill who wrote "Process Physics," which talk about infalling ether in terms of a fractal vacuum. So what you are referring to is not without merit, nor is it a dead idea, but you are overreaching a bit. I agree that MMX are widely misinterpreted as ruling out the ether hypothesis, but the reason that falls apart is rather technical.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 10:57 GMT
Jonathan Dickau
It is good to hear that you can agree to so much, since your article is very far from mine. Yes, I agree that I sometimes use too strong words, but English is not my mother language. Yes, different models can give the same predictions.
I also agree to your statement that more cooperation would be good not only regarding quantum physics, but in physics in general.
I have not read "Evolution in physics" but I think I will. We should use more process thinking in physics, and I have heard about Cahill's model , but do not know the details. My models is not really an in-falling ether but rather a small reduction in the out flow.
I will take a second look at your article and see if I can give comments, but this will be difficult since I have no experience from Mandelbot diagrams.
Thanks for comments and good luck from __________ John-Erik Persson
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 19:15 GMT
Thank you John-Erik,
You may find also interesting this paper by Robert Laughlin:
Emergent RelativityIt shows somewhat how what I am talking about follows from some subset of the ideas you have adopted, plus one or two of his own assumptions. But you would find very interesting this FQXi web article:
Ripping apart EinsteinAnd these papers referenced therein:
Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point and
Extended Horava gravity and Einstein-aether theoryGotta get back to work!
Best JJD
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 19:20 GMT
Also the contest essay by Marc Fleury,
You have probably already seen this but worth a look
Emergent SR in Fundamental AetherEnjoy, JJD
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 11:58 GMT
John
I can't stand to see your work so low on the rankings, and although I don't have time this minute to explain why, I'm not going to delay giving you a bump in the up direction. I'm looking forward to explaining why I appreciate your work. I will return
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 05:22 GMT
Hi John
Your model for light is unique and interesting, and your ability to articulate theory is clear and ledgeable. You have a keen eye for unjustified inferences in science, which is an awareness I wish were more common. For example " light detected as quanta, can be due to the system detecting it, electrons". You give good reasoning's based on observation, "Deconstruction superposition of light, 1+1 doesnt always equal 2". So how can 2 photons exist in a space and be detected as zero? You solve this by assigning a photons prospective energy transfer value to a potential of ether. I understand why this represents an elegant solution.
I also strongly relate to your falling ether wind hypothesis.
My theory operates on the premise that atomic forces derive their capacity for force, from the ether field of space. It triggers a one way inflow of ether because the ether is converted to force and extinguished in the process.
My hypothesis relates a connection between atomic forces and space ether. Your hypothesis also relates an energy potential with space ether.
These similarities make aspects of your work easy to comprehend. If you choose to read my essay then I hope this convenience extends both ways.
You have quality reasonings and a quality essay. I rated you top marks
Best regards
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 02:24 GMT
Responding to your message on my page
Hi John
Yes there are differences with our concepts, however mine also treats time as a physical process dependent on ether. That the interaction between ether and matter is, ether is converted to atomic force. Providing a tidy fit for Guv = Tuv. The forces are then considered to dictate the rate of causality.
A guess I do identify with your work in some ways, and this does influence the rating I assign to your essay. But besides them you give an alternative array of good arguments. You give enough of them to leave me and others thinking. At least those of us with open minds and flexible thinking.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 11:49 GMT
Steven Andresen
Thank you for good support for my ideas. I think we can both agree to the fact we need to regard ETHER and TIME as important fundamental concepts.
In my opinion we need ABSOLUTE time and no GAMMA factor. Are you prepared to abolish dilation of time?
Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson
Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 13:35 GMT
John
My essay details a distinction, the split personalities of clocks. The front of the clock supposedly measures a property of time, but the clock hands are merely the puppet of the spring behind the clock face that forcefully drives the clock.
I know you appreciate how common false inferences are. Like people inferring quanta of light, when it could be the detecting electron that imposes that property. In the same respect I hold it as a more accurate depiction that "force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force".
The depiction "force drives clocks, bUT clocks measier time" is a faulty summation. In this respect time is a man made falicy. The front end of the clock and its superfluous measure of time is useful for planing our day, but it is not a property of physics.
A better terminology is "rate of causality" and it is atomic forces which dictate it's rate. Photon exchange for example. The clock spring that drives the clock is made of EM forces. There is dilation, but it is not time dilation. It is force dilation, which causes variable rate of causality.
So specificly about time, time does not exist.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 11:58 GMT
Jonathan Dickau
I thank you very much for interesting links. I will read your paper and write on your page.
John-Erik Persson
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT
Hi John-Erik,
Super essay!
There are fundamental errors in physics (elephants in the house) and we have just become tolerant of them.... Thanks for bringing them to the surface.
In your post to Peter Jackson you said: "I think that the transition from light particles to light waves is still not done completely. In my opinion the wave or particle confusion should be solved by ether as particles and light as waves."
YES: The ether is particles, and light is waves!
WHY: check out my essay
https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Limuti_The_Thing_T
hat_Is_Sp_1.pdf
We think very much alike. Do all EEs think alike?
Thanks for your most thought provoking essay.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Don Limuti
Thank you very much for very strong support for my ideas. Yes, I think it is very important with critical thinking regarding present accepted ideas. If we only look forwards we end up with science fiction instead of reality. There is lots of science fiction in physics today.
I will therefor take a look at your page and give comments.
With the best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson.
Don Limuti replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 19:04 GMT
Hi John-Erik,
Thanks for visiting my blog. I am glad you found the ideas interesting. And I am first to say they are not agreed upon reality. Experiments need to be made and others will need to see the usefulness of this new type of graviton before it becomes accepted.
To answer your question: There is gravity between Mercury and the Sun. I postulate that this gravity is composed of...
view entire post
Hi John-Erik,
Thanks for visiting my blog. I am glad you found the ideas interesting. And I am first to say they are not agreed upon reality. Experiments need to be made and others will need to see the usefulness of this new type of graviton before it becomes accepted.
To answer your question: There is gravity between Mercury and the Sun. I postulate that this gravity is composed of many gravitons connecting Mercury and the Sun. These many gravitons are what I call a graviton bundle and it is a "wire bundle" that is in a straight line between Mercury and the Sun. I make (a reasonable ?) calculation for the mass of this wire bundle (which will be very difficult to detect because of its long wavelength). I make another reasonable proposal that this wire bundle (graviton bundle) follows Mercury about the sun because Mercury in its orbit is always attracted by the Sun.
Two more assumptions:
1. The mass of this graviton bundle is uniformly distributed along the length of the bundle.
2. For the purpose of calculating the precession of Mercury (an angular momentum problem) I assume that the center of mass of the graviton bundle is in the middle of the bundle. Go to my web site to see the angular momentum calculation of Mercury's precession (just classical physics).
I tried to put that bunch of words above into the diagram I included in the essay. My fault for not including more words.
I remember your essay, and I believe this essay addresses some of the problems you pointed out. What I have not explicitly pointed out is that the network of gravitons that connects all the mass in the universe is "the ether" and it is this ether that supports the transmission of light. This ether is centered on the observer because the observer always brings their mass distribution with them (another diagram in my essay). And in a very interesting way the observer becomes the center of the universe. In other words Michelson-Morley did not have a chance of measuring a speed of light with respect to the ether because the light moves on the graviton network ether which is attached to the observer.
Did I just make Einstein wrong? No, I just explained why the speed of light is constant and independent of relative motion. Mass curves space-time and the distribution of mass is with respect to the observer.
And yes, all speculative stuff .....but perhaps better that the craziness that passes for current science?
Thanks very much for responding and giving me the chance to explain.
Don Limuti
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:28 GMT
Don Limuti
Thanks for clearing up.
Yes, gravity can be explained by gravitons. Fatio did that 300 years ago. According to Newton's law, all bodies are in some sense connected. The ether exists, and has the property of propagating light and gravity.
Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson
Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson,
I have read your Essay and your brief note on wave-particle.
I invite you to read my Essay on wave particle and Electron Spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf
Kamal Rajpal
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear Erik
You says: //.. theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors.//
In my view, in this lines contains the main cause of nowadays trouble and deep crisis of theoretical physics and I have tried say almost the same in my critical work. The fortune of critics however not so sweet and not so many people who want to hearing them. Your suggestions on possibility to using nowadays tech opportunities is very right and logic-natural. There however are other question - is this will favorable for the present rulers of modern science or not? We can imagine what huge changes can be follow if they will allow such kinds of global revision in the physics. So, I see the present science as one huge galleon that moves by inertia, which practically is impossible to stop and to change its course! So, I am very pessimistic that anybody will hearing you and me to over-viewed something. But we must try to do our duty hoping it can sometime to be listen. That is why I want to supporting you, (despite I am little bit doubtful to ether) I hope you will find time to check my work and to say some words, that will valuable to me.
So, I wish you successes in this contest!
Best regards
George Kirakosyan
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
George Kirakosyan
Thank you for these remarks. I agree to most of it. Yes, we must go on although the resistance is strong. Therefore, I will read your essay and write on your page.
You said that you agreed to much, but not regarding the ether. If you do not want the ether I think you are doing wishful thinking. You believe in a young patent engineer, new in physics and abolishing the ether. You do not believe in a professor of physics, after lifelong studies stating the ether as necessary.
Regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:00 GMT
Hi John-Erik,
Before this contest closes, I wanted to thank you again.
I never knew of Fatio, so I did a little investigation. He was a most fascinating character at an interesting cusp of history. He was one of those influential people (a connector) who formed a transnational club of the best and brightest in Europe. He somehow dropped through net of history.
I always appreciate a revelation.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Don Limuti
Thanks again.
Yes, if that bookbinder had known mathematics we perhaps had been talking about Farady's equations instead of Maxwell's.
From John-Erik
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:58 GMT
My dear Erik
It's nice to hearing you again, especially with the critical part of your works (and somewhat also of my). That is very remarkable that you honestly opposing to dominating majority, that is why I seen my duty to supporting you as much as it was possible. Thank you for your kindly words which really was valuable for me. And I am a little bit disappointed only that we have a certain difference on relation to ether. You mark that "I follow to patent engineer who had rejected the ether." I want just tell you here - sorry my dear it is not so, because the matter is more serious. By the way, Einstein actually does not remove the ether but he only declare this verbally. And the ether continued functioning in his theories .... just under new name! So, he has say one thing and actually doing an other thing. This fact noticed by other Jewish physicist Mario Rabinowitz - before of me. So, this matter is very interesting that has some history. If you wish then I can send you some references - after this battle of course. And now I can only wish you good healthy and wealthy, in your life!
My best wishes,
George
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear John,
Here we are again all together.
I like your description to. I agree with you, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error.
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2018 @ 09:54 GMT
John-Erik
Thanks for your post on mine with link to your last blog. I replied as below;;
..Thanks, I agree with much. But were you aware in the final great Michelson experiment, at Chicago with Gale & Pearson (MGP) he concluded; ETHER! Which worked in the way of the Stokes 'ether drag' model, which is now as Minkowski (1908) & Einstein's (1952) 'spaces (or 'discrete fields') in motion within spaces', as the DFM.
Ref the discussion in your blog post the following are directly relevant and pertinent. Do question them;
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163 Jackson. P. A., Minkowski. J. S. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.