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
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
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_That_Is_Sp_1.pdf
We think very much alike. Do all EEs think alike?
Thanks for your most thought provoking essay.
Don Limuti
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
Best
Peter
