Hi John-Eric, I hope you're well. Good to see your essay here, but sad to see it at the bottom. I feel guilty as I've fairly scored others rating low which has raised them. I'll reject the balance as your essay is perfectly well written and I agree at least you core hypothesis of a background frame is logically essential for coherent understanding.
Unfortunately Georgina does have a point. You provide no serious argument that your theorising directly responds to the subject. I absolutely agree and argue in mine that advancement of scientific understanding is essential if we're to 'steer' our way out of the present rut. However mine is still criticised in that regard so your entire lack of such defence inevitably brings low scores. As this was your first year here your error in apparent departure from theme is understandable. I won't then mark down for that.
I was impressed with your text until the stellar aberration derivation, then the vertical ether wind, which I fear is where most bale out with their marks. The flaw in the former resolves curvature without needing to invoke that seemingly unpopular idea. You should recall the scheme you draw is very close to the derivation I presented at NPA. But it isn't quite, and I suspect the flaw may be apparent to all, thus the poor marks. Many here will have read my last three essays, all top 10 finishers, one deriving stellar aberration in detail and without the 'flaw', or I might call it 'incomplete' derivation;
Specifically, the angled dotted line in your right hand figure, the 'apparent' angle, only confuses as it CANNOT be a physical effect as it has no physical explanation (a wavefront clearly can't 'pivot' on meeting a refractive plane, and 'arrival timings' clearly refute it anyway). That leaves it hanging.
The full solution was shown in my 2012 essay, employing 'JM ROTATION'. That is a rotation of optical axis at EACH electron, so if the electron moves laterally wrt the wavefront the charge is asymmetric and the the re-emission axis rotated. We the 'observe' the apparent position as displaced. There is the NO NEED for the angled dotted line which confuses. We may say the whole line 'moves laterally' but stays parallel.
Now that rotation explains refraction perfectly, so also explains the apparent curved light paths near massive objects. The EM field electrons around the bodies are 'at rest', and not only more dense nearer the body but orientated to the field lined, all as we know. The rotation then eminates from the electrons as refraction. There's now much empirical proof including from the VLBA. i.e; VLBA Moving Plasma Cloud Refraction finding.
I'm very happy for you to cite JM rotation of course if you wish (it stands for the joint discoverers; Jackson/Minkowski).
Unfortunately I then understandably struggled with the last sections. None the less opinions on veracity are little to do with deserved scores as all ideas should have a platform.
I hope you'll understand and enjoy my own essay, which apparently makes a significant breakthrough by deriving QM's predictions with a classical mechanism, and think it also worth a high score. The coupling of electrons and light remains the key to the derivation, and resultant convergence of SR and QM WITH a background medium from which the electron pairs are condensed. I look forward to your comments on my blog,
Very best wishes,
Peter
