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

      15 days later

      dear John, I presume that questions always give rise to new ideas that May rewrite physics in this age. old read/review my take on how anthropic bias is the basis of science here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks in advance,all the best.

        Otis

        You asked about my view on stellar aberration.

        I think that ether wind cannot tilt a wave front, since the ether wind adds the same velocity to all points on the wave front. To change orientation needs different ether wind in different points. This means that only a GRADIENT in ether wind can change a wave front. No wave front tilting in transverse arm in MMX either. MMX was misunderstood in transverse arm by a particle thinking.

        Observer motion is different and has the same effect on a wave front as on a particle. So, when we observe a fix star there is no REAL bending only an illusion.

        You mentioned Ed Klingman. I think I read an article by Ed a couple pf years ago.

        Perhaps I am more clear in my latest paper. I send a copy, and if you want you can send it to Ed.

        Regards ___________________ John-ErikAttachment #1: The_Michelson_Question_in_PDF.pdf

        Thank you for your answer. I understand your statement that either motion or a gradient of ether wind can cause a wavefront to bend. But is it possible to show that the bending causes the wavefront to align perpendicular to the direction of propagation by the time it arrives at the surface of the Earth? It would seem that this condition is necessary for a telescope on the surface of the earth to focus the star correctly and to explain stellar aberration.

        Best Regards, Otis

        Dear Erik Persson,

        You may read my new comment on Klingman's page. We answer the question why SRT is successful and fundamentally wrong at a time.

        Eckard Blumschein

        9 days later

        Dear John.erik,

        You and I had a few discussions when in NPA. At that time you were promoting the aether and I was suggesting that the background of space being gravity itself provides your aether. In your new paper you suggest 'a unification between ether wind and force of gravity' . This is exactly what I have promoted.

        We have also agreed about a pushing type of gravity. You mention here about Fatio and his connection with Newton while I took on the LeSage similar view and solved the mistaken errors that killed the 'Proper " view of gravity for both Le Sage and Fatio.

        You have also done some nice graphs that take on the fixed speed of light.

        I am printing out your paper to support my ideas. I Rate your paper very good! Perhaps mine will sound good to you.

        I wish you the very best

        Paul Schroeder

        Dear John-Erik

        Glad to read your work again.

        I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

        While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

        I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

        Warm Regards, `

        Vladimir

        Write a Reply...