Fundamental Errors in Physics by John-Erik Persson

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!

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

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!

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

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

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

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?

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?

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.html

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 replied

Best

=snp

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

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

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

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