Peter

I am glad we can agree regarding MMX, Stellar aberration and time dilation. These are central and important foundations for present confusion in physics. Yes, 5 pages is very short, since these ideas have great importance for many areas in modern physics. However, I made the article short in order to focus on how confusion started in 1882.

Yes, the judge may give me low points and the did in 2018, as you said. But, in my opinion, the number of points is not important. Important is to let the world know about the bad state of physics. Therefore, I produced a very IMPORTANT EXAMPLICATION of undecidability instead of the desired ANALYSIS of the concept decidability.

As you say, there are some small differences in our ideas, so i wellcome your suggestion that we must continue this debate.

In your own article you point out a very important issue, namely the binary thinking in the western world. Black and white. Friend or foe. This is bad for politics and creates polarization and bad decisions.

Thanks for article.

With best regards from ____________________ John-Erik

    Peter

    Yes, you my call me JE. Many persons spell my name with 'c' in stead of 'k'.

    Best regards ______________ John-Erik

    15 days later

    Dear John-Erik Persson,

    At previous contests Edwin Eugene Klingman made precise comments on many essays. I am still hoping that he will present his own opinion this time, too. I agree with your argument that light propagates one way. You and Klingman believe in an ether for light and gravity. Admittedly I have problems to understand.your arguments. Given there is no ether then there is no ether wind.

    The attached files are unfinished. They may merely provide food for thought.

    Sincerely,

    EckardAttachment #1: 2_Cusanus.docxAttachment #2: 2_Cusanus_vs_SR.docx

      Eckard

      Thank you very much for this.

      Finite or infinite is a mathematical question. In physics we can only operate with approximations. Apparently the Universe is much larger than we can observe. To me this means that an infinite Universe most probably is the best approximation.

      When Einstein really knew physics he said that "physics without an ether is unthinkable" and also that "the most basic postulate may be in error".

      When the ether was abolished all development in physics was stopped.

      I have a memory of reading an interesting article by Klingman, but I cannot remember the title. I will take a look.

      With the best regards from __________________ John-Erik

      9 days later

      John-Erik Persson re-uploaded the file Persson_Is_the_Ether_Wind_D.pdf for the essay entitled "Is the ether wind decidable?" on 2020-03-20 17:35:08 UTC.

      7 days later

      Dear John Erik Persson!

      You are one of the most staunch defenders of the ether! Your essay is wonderful and commendable! It consistently, on the basis of modern technologies, shows the reason why the ethereal wind was not detected in the Michelson - Morley experiments. Namely, instead of the wave concept of light, these experiments considered its corpuscular nature. In this I totally agree with you.

      However, there is no reason for me to prove the existence of the ether wind, since I believe that all the parameters that exist in nature are manifestations of the ether wind. Personally, I have a claim to materialistic philosophers who claim that matter exists in space and in time. I demand that they claim that matter creates space and time. As you can see, I do not accept the expression "space-time" and consider them separately, taking into account the identity of Descartes's space and matter, according to which space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter (ether). As you can see, space is a synonym for ether. Copernicus, when he noticed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, lost sight of the fact that with it spherical symmetry revolves around it all the space around the sun (ether). The gradient of this rotation, I think so, that does not correspond to your point of view, forms a gravitational field. Electromagnetic waves are also oscillations of space (ether), which we do not see, but feel in the form of heat or light. Descartes has ether as mater! I hope that the neocartesian generalization of modern physics will find understanding in Sweden.

      I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich »

        Thanks for good words. I am very glad to find so good agreement.

        I find it remarkable that scientists introduce black matter and black energy and still refuse black ether!!!!

        I will read your article.

        Regards from ________________ John-Erik

        Dear John-Erik Persson,

        My humble apologies for almost stealing your essay title, but I had written three quarters before I found your essay on the same topic. We agree on a lot and disagree on a little, from my perspective. I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I enjoyed yours. I will look forward to further correspondence about our favorite topic!

        Best wishes

        Marts

          Dear Marts

          You do not have to apologize. The titles are not exactly the same.

          Yes, we agree completely on the main issue, the ether concept. Einstein, in my opinion, created confusion by not differentiate between ether and space.

          The discussion between existence and nonexistence of a reference frame has been binary and excluded the middle. I think there is a third option.

          The third option

          Take a look1

          Best regards from ________________ John-Erik

          Dear John-Erik Perrson,

          As Eckard noted above, I too strongly believe that ether is necessary. It perfectly explains the Michelson-Gale experiments. As you note, Einstein too came to realize this, after managing to effectively kill the idea!

          I thank you for your wonderful essay, almost all of which I agree with, and invite you to read and comment on my essay: Deciding on the nature of time and space

          My best regards and best wishes for you,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin

            Thank you for good words.

            We are both convinced about the importance of the ether concept, and this is important and the reason to the fact that we have not been able to explain gravity. My idea is that we need an ether as a reference, but this ether must not be a frame.

            Regards from _________________ John-Erik

            5 days later

            Dear John

            The aether never contradicted relativity theory and special relativity is not wrong. You just have to understand two aspects. In 1904 Hendrik Lorentz developed a theory of the aether that explained the MMX. In this theory, he found the so called Lorentz transformations that relate events in two inertial systems of reference. Later, in 1905 Einstein found the same Lorentz transformations following a different approach. Same math but different physics. So, the problem is not mathematical but physical. Since it is the same math both explain the same phenomena, e.g., the MMX. The problem is that Lorentz theory assumes an absolute frame of reference and Einstein's denies its existence. The aether was removed just for its opposition to relativity and because the general theory of relativity was able to explain the propagation of light without resorting to the aether. Since general relativity is superior to the special and Newtonian gravitation theory, physicists forgot about the aether, they thought that the aether concept was no longer useful to explain gravitational and light phenomena.

            Please read my essay and my previous references: the preferred frame reloaded and On the experimental determination of the one-way speed of light. There I deal with the issues you discuss in your essay, perhaps you may find it interesting.

            Good luck in the contest!

            Israel

            Israel

            As you said:

            Einstein and Lorentz had different opinions regarding the existence of the ether. However, this is not the most important problem. Instead i described in my article that the most important problem is that:

            Einstein and Lorentz both misunderstood the Michelson Morley experiments. So, instead of GAMMA for space and time we need GAMMA SQUARED for matter and nothing for time. The error was created in 1882 by a false effect in the transverse arm of MMX. FitzGerald contraction must be doubled.

            Regards _________________ John-Erik

              Dear John

              In that case the whole theory may be wrong. I have reservations.

              Good luck in the contest!

              Israel

              Besides MMX, there are dozens of different experiments that confirm Lorentz symmetry (The Sagnac experiment is a non-inertial experiment, so using an inertial theory is not correct). One experiment is not enough to invalidate a theory. In the references I cited, you can find some important papers that may be illustrative on this matter.

              Regards

              Israel

              Israel

              There were no links in your paper.

              You refer to inertia, but there is no mass in light.

              The explanation of Sagnac effect with a rotating area is wrong. Instead, a translating line is correct, since light limited INSIDE an optical fiber. This line does NOT have to be closed, as demonstrated by the Sagnac correction in GPS.

              I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS NO EFFECT OF ETHER WIND IN THE TRANSVERSE ARM IN MMX. Therefore, Galilean transform is correct. Lorentz transform is a cover up for a mistake.

              Regards ___________________ John-Erik

              Dear John

              Sorry, the link of the first reference is this. The other link works well.

              I said inertial and non-inertial systems of reference. The Sagnac experiment is an experiment related to non-inertial systems of reference, so any analysis of this experiment should be done having in mind a theory that considers non-inertial systems. The paper I cited on the one-way speed of light explains why the speed of light is constant when is measured.

              Regards

              Israel

              Your paper assumes sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in transverse arm. That is wrong. No effect in transverse arm.

              Regards ____________________ John-Erik