Light Without Energy by John-Erik Persson

pjackson

John-Eric,

I didn't 'say you were wrong'. I showed that infalling ether would not be required if the simpler and more falsifible JM Rotation is correct. The mechanism is substantially falsified, including in KRR as I referred above, and even 'invisibility optics', both of which show that the apparent position of a source is NOT coincident with the wavefront orientation due a to a local rotational of the optical axis.

That is the 'argumentation' I provided. It is the best evidence possibly because NO theory is entirely disprovable and few are close to entirely provable. Occam's Law then prevails. We KNOW fro grin lenses that this refractive effect curves light paths. It's not speculation, it's very simple and common, just poorly understood as all are looking elsewhere.

I too also look elsewhere. Few others seem able to look beyond their own beliefs, which is essential to avoid just promoting a pet theory and igni oring comparisons. I followed your link but there a was no link to a paper. I expect it was the one I've read before, but if not please give a link to a pdf. - i.e. on viXra.

You did not comment on why you think the derivation of space-time curvature I explained and linked you to doesn't work. I'm only trying to help find commonality and empirical consistency John Eric. No theory is complete, yours included. By claiming it is and closing your mind you consign yourself to the bottom. That would be a shame as I agree all your basic tenets, which starts you off in a select group.

Did you not understand the rotation? If so just ask. If you simply don't agree it gives a more complete description of aberration then please explain precisely why.

Best wishes

Peter

John-Erik Persson

Peter

In my opinion the difference between observed and real wave front orientation is due to an illusion caused by telescope motion. Stellar aberration is produced by observer motion u (not ether motion v).

I regard Occam's law more as a method.

I made a syntax error in the link. I repeated therefore the link. See the last link. I try to add it as an attachment also.

Yes, no theory is complete and I have not stated my theory to be complete.

Yes, I do not understand JM rotation completely. However there are similarities between your rotation and my illusion by own motion.

Regards from John-ErikAttachment #1: Time_out_for_Time_Dilation_and_Light_Quanta.pdf

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear John-Eric.

Physics is now in a "crisis of representation and interpretation " (T.Romanovskaya), deep methodological crisis that was well said Carlo Rovelli in article SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: A PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS :«This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its empirical content. Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is. Now, there's something disturbing, for me as a theoretical scientist, in all this. I feel that something is missing. Something of the story is missing. I've been asking to myself what is this thing missing? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I want to present some ideas on something else which science is.

This is particularly relevant today in science, and particularly in physics, because if I'm allowed to be polemical, in my field, in fundamental theoretical physics, it is 30 years that we fail. There hasn't been a major success in theoretical physics in the last few decades, after the standard model, somehow. Of course there are ideas. These ideas might turn out to be right. Loop quantum gravity might turn out to be right, or not. String theory might turn out to be right, or not. But we don't know, and for the moment, nature has not said yes in any sense.

I suspect that this might be in part because of the wrong ideas we have about science, and because methodologically we are doing something wrong, at least in theoretical physics, and perhaps also in other sciences. »

The new model of the Universe is very important for reliable steering the Future. Contests FQXi-is primarily contests new ideas. You give new ideas and alternative model using the concept of "ether". And if in your model, instead of the concept of "ether" to apply the concept of "matter", but leave the state of matter is the same as what you offer to the ether? Your model of the Universe change?

As well said Alexander Zenkin: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to "an unlimited circle"of spectators.»( Alexander Zenkin «Scientific Counter-Revolution in Mathematics»).

Physical picture of the world should be the same rich senses as the picture of the world of lyricists.

Unified picture of the world for physicists and lyricists - then steering the Future more reliable, because there will be understanding.

Do you have a full picture of your model of the Universe?

Sincerely,

Vladimir

John-Erik Persson

Vladimir

Yes, something is missing. The ether is missing.

But important errors exist in interpretations of experiments like stellar aberration, MMX, the illusion of time dilation (caused by clock dilation) and Pioneer Anomaly.

Statements like SO MANY PHYSICISTS CANNOT BE WRONG proves science to be ruled by political ideas of majority. Think about Copernicus against ALL priests in the church for hundreds of years.

Full picture? I do nor regard my theory as complete and i think there is NO theory of everything. But most important is not that but instead the fact that i regard MANY interpretations of experiments to be in ERROR. Too little discussions have been done on this point.

From John-Erik

[deleted]

Dear John-Eric,

The set of interpretations says that process of knowledge of Reality didn't reach a basis. In it deep sense of "interpretation and representation crisis" of fundamental Knowledge(T.Romanovskaya). The deeper meaning of "Theory of everything" for me - is the foundation, carcass and framework of Knowledge. The problem of fundamental Science (Physics and Mathematics) is a search of "the general frame structure" (David Gross) which will establish the basis, the framework and the limit of Knowledge. You just give the ideas and option of such structure of Reality. This most important. For this purpose also the Contests FQXi are intended. The fundamental Science demands today new radical ideas. Science on a threshold of a new paradigm of the Universum which will be uniform for physicists and lyric poets. Only in this case the Mankind will be able to drive more reliably Future.

John-Eric, send me, please, the link to your site to get acquainted more deeply with your researches.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

John-Erik Persson

Vladimir

The link is already on this blog. See my contribution from May. 17, 2014 at 15.25 GMT. Click on the last link since I made an error on the first one. Click on

Time out for...

With the best regards from John-Erik

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear John-Erik,

Many thanks for the link. You a lot of research! I'm starting to read with interest.

I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

I apologize for the mistake in your name!

Best regards,

Vladimir

John-Erik Persson

Petio Hristov

Thanks for the invitation. I will read the books.

John-Erik

Judy Nabb

John Eric

Your essay started encouragingly but I can only agree with some of the above that it reverted to what seems to be your pet topic, with little scientific basis or relevance.

I had a look at timing evidence for signals at various observatories across the planet. Aberration is a 'flat' translation not a notional 'tilt' of apparent wavefront. In that case a telescope at rest in a medium (he atmosphere) will not have the effect you claim. The atmosphere itself has already produced it (effectively a 'lens medium extension').

I can also find no possible vision of what happens at the centre of the Earth where all this infalling ether must have accumulated for billions of years. It's a shame as I have no problem at all with ether per se, and agree that falling raindrops and umbrellas are not the solution to aberration.

That may not have been too bad if you're here to explain and discuss your hypotheses with an open mind, always a valid aim, but I notice apparently you're not. I don't find that a useful approach to science. I'm afraid I can't mark your essay high overall.

Judy

John-Erik Persson

Judy

I am not advocating a pet theory and I have never said that I have a complete theory. Instead i have given logical arguments indicating errors in the interpretations of stellar aberration, MMX, light bending near our sun, atomic clocks and Pioneer anomaly. You should read my article more carefully.

You are wrong about stellar aberration, like many others. Aberration is produced by a CHANGE in the speed of the telescope independent of the ether wind. I have given arguments in my article. You have not been giving arguments. Stellar aberration is NOT an effect of atmosphere.

Your reasoning about the center of our planet proves that you do not understand what i have said. Ether particles move in ALL directions and DO not accumulate in the center of our planet. Bradley's interpretation of the effect of a moving observer is independent of if the phenomenon in question is a wave or a particle.

I find that you have not understood my article at all.

Best regards from John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

Judy

I have read your article about eugenics. Your article is about very difficult and important questions. I found your article very interesting. However, I have not much knowledge in this field. Thank you for the article.

Best regards from John-erik

Gbenga Ogungbuyi

Dear John-Erik Persson,

Your essay is highly scientific using purely the ideal of Physics. But I wondered why you are not so visible? Although I notice that good as it may be, your essay could link up with humanity steering the future. Other essays are in this category but are quite more visible. Please be more proactive in the next couple of days for your good physics theories to count well. I have rated you high to increase your visibility.

I will invite you to read my essay on STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM using this direct link http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

I used the law of conservation of energy and wave motion as you did. See whether I was able to reason well in agreement to humanity steering the future. I will anticipate your rating as well as your comments.

Wishing you the best.

Gbenga

Gbenga Ogungbuyi

DISREGARD THE TYPO-ERROR

It read like this.

But I wondered why you are not so visible? Although I notice that good as it may be, your essay could NOT link up with humanity steering the future.

John-Erik Persson

Gbenga

I have now read your article for this year. I regard your article as the best article of those I have read so far. Congratulations.

Best regards from

John-Erik

Margriet O'Regan

Hello John-Erik

And yet another essay from 'outside the box' !!!! Bravo. I enjoyed it very much.

I wonder if you know about 'The Electric Universe' people who have also developed some rather 'airtight' alternative science' to the mainstream...??

Thank you,

Margaret Anne O'Regan

[deleted]

Margaret

Thank you for the mail and for good words about my article.

I have also read your article and I liked it very much. I think a realistic approach is to more and more minimize our consumption of not vegetarian food. If we want to reduce pollution we must reduce our consumption of energy as well. But even that is not enough. We must think about controlling the number of people on this planet and that is not easy.

Have you heard about tribes on the American east coast that had a not symmetrical balance between sexes in an interesting way? Only woman could vote and only men could be elected.

Yes, I no about the'The Electric Universe*. I am a member of NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance) and this idea is presented in that forum. There are many theories presented there. Most members have a theory of their own. This is the reason that I try to focus more on disproving interpretations of empirical results rather than focusing on one theory.

With best regards from

John-Erik

« Previous Page