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

          Dear John

          It is not an assumption per se, it is derived from the theory. If you think it is wrong you should develop the corresponding mathematical formulation and submit it to a journal.

          Regards

          Israel

          Israel

          I have described how, in 1882, the effect in transverse arm was introduced in error. In the law of reflection in a mirror we must use wave vector c and only longitudinal component of the ether wind, since mirrors are transparent to the ether wind. Therefore in advanced optical systems we only can detect wave front normal with very high precision by means of phase. The vector sum can only be roughly estimated based on amplitude.

          Sagnac effect is physically described by a translating line (not by a rotating area). That line can be straight and not closed, as seen in the Sagnac correction in GPS).

          Crystals must be built by positioning of atoms based on the ether. So, positioning forces move force and back between atoms with speeds c+v and c-v in the same way as light between mirrors in MMX. So, real and compensated effect in longitudinal arm.

          So, with correct interpretation all tests you assume to confirm Lorentz invariance are in fact demonstrating Galilean invariance.

          I suggest that you read IS THE ETHER WIN DECIDABLE? again.

          Regards _________________ John-Erik

            Dear John

            Thanks for the reply, it is not necessary that you post it in my entry to call my attention; I check my posts. Thanks for the reference. In my previous post I gave you an advice: If you think you are right try to publish your results in a well recognized journal. I think, that's the best you can do.

            Good luck in the contest!

            Regards

            Israel

            Thank you very much.

            I will read your article.

            Good luck.

            Regards ______________ John-Erik