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

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

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?

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

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

    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

      • [deleted]

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

        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

        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

        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

        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

          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

          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