A Simple Explanation for the Red Shift

Move a paddle to and fro at a frequency of 10/minute and generate a continuous train of waves in a large pond of still water.

Ask an observer standing in the pond about 5meters away from the source to measure the frequency of the water waves as the waves hit him.

Ask a second observer standing in the pond, say about 20 meters farther from the source, to measure the frequency of the same waves as the waves cross him.

The frequency measured by the first observer would be less than the frequency of oscillation of the paddle. And the frequency measured by the second observer would be even lesser. That is, the farther the observer from the source, the lesser the frequency one measures for the same waves.

And this drop in frequency would occur even when the source and the medium (water) are stationary. In other words, it is n’t because of the Doppler effect.

So unlike what our physics prophets preach, red shift isn’t a proof of a receding source, rather it is a natural phenomenon that occurs as waves propagate in space/medium.

In fact, not only the frequency, but also the velocity and the amplitude of the waves would decrease as waves propagate father and farther from the source. As I have elaborated elsewhere, it is the amplitude (along with frequency) which actually determines a wave’s velocity and not the wavelength.

http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/22/revamping-wave-mechanics/

Wave mechanics is probably the most messed up topic in the entire discipline of physics and that mess-up has what helped the absurd theories of modern physics to flourish in the religious scientific circles.

• Johan Prins  On March 8, 2016 at 4:45 pm

This argument is irrelevant since it compares apples to pears.

Waves in a pond move within a medium within which potential-energy changes into kinetic energy and kinetic energy into potential energy at each point in the medium through which the wave moves.

This is not the case for a light-wave since it moves by means of induction-forces. The energy of a light-wave is thus NOT within a medium but within the wave itself.

For this reason a trapped light-wave in a perfectly reflecting cavity does not undulate like a wave within a medium. Its energy is totally static: Such a trapped light-wave has no kinetic energy and its temperature is thus absolute zero!

I wish people would stop comparing light-waves to other waves that move through a medium and then claim that they have found a mistake in physics. To understand a light-wave one must be competent enough to solve Maxwell’s equations in the correct manner. Most theoretical physicists cannot even do this. Maybe none of them are competent enough to do this?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On March 9, 2016 at 3:56 pm

Johan Prins,

I am aware that according to the religion of relativity, light waves or EM waves travel through space without the need for any medium in some mysterious way (which you have explained in crystal clear terms!). But for rational minds, light waves are nothing but oscillations of ether medium and are not any more mysterious or magical than other type of waves. And through out this blog, I have talked about all that and exposed how the prophets of modern physics misinterpreted various experiments and wrongly disproved Ether. It looks like your religious preoccupation didn’t allow you to see all that but rather forced you to give a knee jerk response.

When your prophets use water waves analogy to confirm the wave like behavior of light in double slit experiment, your religious crowd never say that comparing water with light is like comparing apples with pears. But when I use water waves analogy to explain the red shift, you suddenly start arguing that I am comparing apples with pears. That exposes the double standards of your relativity believers.

So you argue that my above explanation for red shift holds true only for mechanical waves that move through a medium and not for your magical EM waves. But actually your physics prophets don’t agree with you. For example they swear that sound waves in air travel at a constant velocity of about 330meters/sec and believe that sound frequency remains the same even farther away from the source (of course, when there is no relative motion between the source, medium and observer). According to me, the velocity and frequency of sound waves decrease as they propagate through the medium just like the case with water waves. Now I will leave to you to decide whether you want to change your stance and go with your prophets or still stick to what you have argued above!

If you want to go with your physicists, you could argue that sound waves and water waves are like apples and oranges despite the fact that both are mechanical waves traveling in a medium. Good luck!

True, most physicists/ relativity believers don’t really understand about light waves but they swear that Relativity is true. How can one swear that something is true without really understanding that something, unless one is going by faith? That’s the reason why I say relativity is the worst religion on Earth, neither its prophets nor its believers realize that they are going by faith.

Liked by 1 person

• Mark  On August 17, 2022 at 6:15 am

Johan Prins is correct.
“This argument is irrelevant since it compares apples to pears.”

It’s folly to compare the kinetic effects of a wave in water or sound, with Light, simply because Light has no kinetic properties, because its has zero movement of bodies that have mass. But Water and Sound do.
Now unless you can isolate the necessary closely packed solid particles that have measurable size and mass in empty Space, (you can’t because there are none) then Light cant be truly classified as a Wave effect of some kinetic motion. (thus Light is NOT a Wave, nor is it particular. )

We can see that Light has a frequency and intensity, but these properties are not exclusive to Wave action.
I can type with a varying frequency, I can check on that boiling egg to see if its cooked, with frequency, but these are not Waves.
I can bash on a nail with my hammer softly or with more force, and this is intensity, but it not a wave.

BUT, Johan is not quite right when he says,
“The energy of a light-wave is thus NOT within a medium but within the wave itself. For this reason a trapped light-wave in a perfectly reflecting cavity does not undulate like a wave within a medium. Its energy is totally static: Such a trapped light-wave has no kinetic energy and its temperature is thus absolute zero!”

This is wrong because “Energy” is defined as: “a property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system, recognizable in the performance of work.” (Its the measure of ability to do Work of a PHYSICAL BODY or a system of physical bodies.)

So, as Light has no PHYSICAL BODY or is not part of a Physical System of Bodies, then Light can not actually have ENERGY. ( that is Lights obvious powers can’t be directly lumped in with the Energy measurable in a system of Physics massive bodies) The power in Light is not the same type of stuff that the Energy of massive bodies on motion possess) In other words, we need another term to quantify the power that Light can have as a property, because classifying it in the same camp as the energy in a falling rock, is not going to give sensible results. Simply because “Energy” is all about Massive physical Bodies, kinetic, motion, inertia momentum, but Light is a totally different animal, having none of these properties. (sorry Einstein, Light can have no Momentum, or Inertia, regardless of its “speed”, because there is no body to be speeding. Motion requires something material, Physical, having Mass, to be moving, light doesn’t fit that bill.)

So, back to Johan’s statement..
So Light has no “Energy in it’s wave” ….because there is no such thing as a Light “wave”. You ned to define a new term as wave requires a medium and motion of physical objects by transfer of kinetic energy, none of which Light possesses.

Light has a frequency and an intensity, for which we can devise a graphical representation as a Plot on graph paper, which then looks like a wave, but its no more a wave than a similar plot done of my bank balance over time which can also have a wave like appearance, but in the Bank, there is no Wave sloshing about in the vault.

Next, its impossible that you can Trap Light (or a wave of Light) in a perfect reflector chamber. Not even for a split second. This is impossible, So measuring zero temperature is not proving anything about Light.

And Maxwell’s equations pertain to Electricity, not to Light. Its a conclusion made by people that did not think things through enough, that Maxwell’s equations “prove” that Light is Electromagnetic.

This conclusion was made on the basis that owing to the questionable values of Mu and Epsilon whose inclusion in Maxwell’s equations provide a result of a velocity that is similar to the proposed Speed of Light, that this means that Light is an Electromagnetic phenomena.

This type of logical thinking also proves that a cat is a dog because they both have 4 legs and one tail each.

Even the belief that there exists a condition where we have a criss- crossed wave of electricity and magnetism which is then called “Electromagnetic wave”, is a conclusion that is not necessarily correct.

What we have is just two things here. One is Electricity, the other is Magnetism. They have nothing on common.

However, under very specific and controlled ideal conditions, we can generate Electricity from a copper coil and a permanent magnet, or we can do the reverse, generate a magnetic field from electricity and the same copper wire coil. Kinetic or chemical Energy must be supplied for this to work, for the supply of the Electricity in the first example.

But try generating Electricity with a coil made of forest vines, and a dead cat in place of the permanent magnet and it refuses to work.

My point is that Electric energy does not accompany Magnetic energy as if they were two sides of the same coin, but that’s the position of modern Physics. Both are lumped into the same boat, and that allows them to include the Phenomena of Light to be included as part of the “ElectroMagnetic” spectrum.

But I suggest that all Light, radiation, x-rays, gamma radiation, (all radiation that involves no physical particles having mass) share some commonality but its not Electric or Magnetic in nature.

Is it possible that we have at least 3 rather magical phenomena here?
And although they can be combined under very specific circumstances, they all are distinct and unique?
First is Electricity, next is Magnetism, and finally comes Light.

The commonality that these three share is that NONE of them is kinetic, none involve particles or bodies that have Mass, they are not subject to the Laws of Physics, the motion of bodies that Newton gave us. But other than that, Electricity exists without Magnetism or Light, and Magnetism exists without Electricity or Light, and Light exists without Electricity or Magnetism.

We cant apply the same equations and terms that were developed for Kinetics, to any of these phenomena.

But modern Physics does just that, ending up with a mess and confusion.

Like

• Eric N  On March 8, 2016 at 5:07 pm

That’s absolutely right. The reason they continue to support the Big Bang is because it contidicts the idea of a Creator. It’s an idea that some of them can not handle. An evil deception. Thank you.

Like

• jomine  On March 8, 2016 at 5:21 pm

Wow! Great, will the idiots of relativity ever try this?

Like

• Tim  On March 8, 2016 at 8:26 pm

But shouldn’t there then be a consistent measurement? What I mean is that the
measurements would be the same every time the waves are measured by the
two observers when they are in the same position at the same distance from the
paddle, right? If so, then let’s say Andromeda is the paddle. If the measurement
by an Earth observer continually changes over time would that not indicate a change in position of either the paddle (Andromeda) or the observer (Earth)?

Like

• Mark  On August 17, 2022 at 6:21 am

good point. if the distances are stable, and the signal generation is stable, then we must always get the same reading even if that reading is diminished from the original source strength or frequency. So why are we still measuring REDUCING values? Either the source is outputting reducing signals, or the distances are increasing.

Like

• Johan Prins  On March 9, 2016 at 8:09 pm

You stated: “And through out this blog, I have talked about all that and exposed how the prophets of modern physics misinterpreted various experiments and wrongly disproved Ether. It looks like your religious preoccupation didn’t allow you to see all that but rather forced you to give a knee jerk response.”

I agree fully that the “prophets of modern physics” have for the past 100 years been mostly wrong. But if you want to believe that light-waves move within a medium you are attacking them on one of the few aspects which is correct.

The Lorentz transformation DOES NOT transform REAL TIME, since real time changes everywhere under all physics conditions at exactly the same rate. The time that is being transformed by the Lorentz transformation is PHASE TIME. This time can act as a coordinate WITHIN the volume of an EM wave: Not outside the wave to define a so-called absurd “space-time”. Both the mathematics AND physics of space time only exists within Alice’s Wonderland.

Two different actual times can never be simultaneous as Einstein has absurdly claimed; since simultaneous time means THE SAME TIME: There is no other meaning possible unless you are demented. Furthermore even the Lorentz transformation proves that different times cannot be simultaneous.

For example if the time on a clock A moving relative to a clock B is t’, the Lorentz transformation gives the transformed-time as t=(gamma)t on clock B’. Now, if these two different times can be simultaneous, and an event occurs at time t at clock B, then surely since Einstein claimed that t’ is simultaneous with t, the time on clock A must be t’ when the event occurs at clock B at time t. This MUST mean that when one transforms the time t from clock B to clock A, one must get that t’=t/(gamma).

BUT the Lorentz transformation from clock B to clock A DOES NOT give t’ but another time T’=(gamma)t. From the transformation from clock A to clock B we had that t=(gamma)t’. So that when combining the last two transformations one obtains T’=(gamma)(gamma)t’ In order for T’ to be equal to t’, as Einstein has claimed, one MUST have that (gamma)^2=1: i.e. simultaneity only exists for the Galilean transformation. The Lorentz transformation connects two different times which are NOT simultaneous, and can never be simultaneous.

You cannot use your water analogy for a light-wave at all; since the light-wave is not caused by energy oscillations in any medium. The wave carries its electric and magnetic energy with it. Where-as a wave on a violin string causes undulations, a light-wave trapped within a reflecting cavity has no undulations since there is not ANY ether in which these undulations can exist.

Another point: If you transform the time at the front-end and rear-end of a stationary rod into an IRF within which the rod moves, these times are different at the front and rear within the moving rod. This time difference is a phase-time difference which has to be there owing to the de Broglie wavelength of the moving rod. This wave’s energy also does not move within a medium.

Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz transformation defined by these equations are perfectly correct physics. And when you solve these you find that the speed of light is the same within any IRF, not only a single one as it would have been if light moved within ether.

Einstein’s interpretation of Special Relativity is total bollox. Time dilation does not occur, length contraction does not occur since a moving rod becomes longer to accommodate the de Broglie wavelength: And “space-time” is a hallucination coming from seriously demented minds. When rejecting these insane concepts one finds that light- and matter-waves on the atomic scale follows logically from Maxwell’s equations. There is NOTHING “weird” in quantum mechanics since all these so-called “weird” effects are exactly what one expects from waves and wave-interactions. Physics is rational common sense!

Like

• Galacar  On March 9, 2016 at 10:57 pm

Johan Prins wrote:

“There is NOTHING “weird” in quantum mechanics since all these so-called “weird” effects are exactly what one expects from waves and wave-interactions.”

Duh?

“Exactly what one expects? Me think not!:

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

Richard Feynman”

And there are more quotes like this by ‘high level’ physicist.

If one can’t understand QM, one can’t also have the right ‘expectations’, right?

What hey actually are saying in my view is that they themselves don’t understand QM.And that tells me that there is something terribly wrong with
QM

So,

“Physics is rational common sense!”

I wish it was but it really isn’t.

Problem is you have to look outside mainstream physics,

to see that there are way better theories out there.

Once you can see that, you start to understand how very deeply flawed

mainstream physics is.

Oh and btw, did you know that the Maxwell Equations are deliberatly altered

so that the ant-gravity components was removed?

Some people high up the ladder don’t like to give powerfull knowledge to us,

the ‘common people”.

My two cents.

Galacar

Like

• Galacar  On March 9, 2016 at 11:01 pm

Actually THIS is going on:

“We are facing the same Suppression that Nikola Tesla was because we are going straight to heart of the matter. Tesla was an aetheric engineer and the finest that ever lived since ancient times. It wasn’t enough to crush Tesla they also suppressed the entire science of Aetheric Engineering

and instead gave us the lies of relativism and quantum mechanics.”

Galacar

Like

• aether  On March 10, 2016 at 12:01 am

Johan Prins,

For this reason a trapped light-wave in a perfectly reflecting cavity does not undulate like a wave within a medium. Its energy is totally static: Such a trapped light-wave has no kinetic energy and its temperature is thus absolute zero!

Firstly, there is no such thing as a perfectly reflecting cavity. That aside, how does your trapped light “wave” disprove the existence of a medium such as ether? We can have standing waves and waves that cancel each other out, but in either case there is energy in the system. Does your trapped light wave have a speed of c or zero? If the speed is c, how can the kinetic energy be zero (and no, I don’t believe in zero mass photons)?

You refer to Maxwell’s equations, but Maxwell himself believed in an ether or medium for EM energy. Are you implying Maxwell didn’t understand his own equations? Possible.

I for one am uncomfortable with action at a distance (gravity). Same deal with EM energy. But I’m not completely against the concept of a void as some are. I just think that some the “mysteries” of physics are better explained by the existence of an ether or medium. And I believe that if more scientists let go of Einsteinian fairy tales and were open to the concept of an ether, we might have a deeper and fuller understanding.

Just thoughts. Who can say for sure?

Like

• Johan Prins  On March 10, 2016 at 1:40 am

It is late in South Africa: I will thus return tomorrow to teach you some correct physics. Not the “counter-intuitive” claptrap they believe in at the centers of advanced studies, like at Princeton.

BTW way the following :”“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” was not by Richard Feynman but by Niels Bohr who was a superstitious woolly thinker. It is a pity that John Archibald Wheeler did not have the ability to think for himself and thus returned to the USA from Denmark preaching this superstitious claptrap as if it is reality.

Only a mad man will say that you can only understand physics when you do not understand physics. It is like saying that you can only do a brain operation if you do not understand how the brain is constructed.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On March 10, 2016 at 9:57 am

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics” was not by Richard Feynman

Well Johan Prins, most people attribute it to Feynman.
Of course Neil’s Bohr did apparently espouse something similar “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it”

Only a mad man will say that you can only understand physics when you do not understand physics

I think a true statement would be “When you feel you thoroughly understand the stuff that gets taught as physics nowadays, it is certain that you don’t understand the true physics”

You cannot use your water analogy for a light-wave at all; since the light-wave is not caused by energy oscillations in any medium

What made you to come to the belief that light wave is not caused by oscillations in any medium? Please don’t tell me “Michelson-Morley experiment”, it is the biggest blunder committed by mankind in the history of entire science.

Finally, to explain/understand the truth, it is neither necessary to understand the language of mathematics nor does it require solving Maxwell or Lorentz’ equations. Rather, fortunately for the laymen, truth can be expressed in clear terms using simple logic in any language. In fact anything that can’t explained in clear simple language must be considered mythical.

“Maxwell himself believed in an ether or medium for EM energy. Are you implying Maxwell didn’t understand his own equations?” well said aether. I hope relativity believers stop dragging Maxwell into their ugly religion.

Like

• Galacar  On March 10, 2016 at 12:15 pm

Johan Prins wrote:

“Only a mad man will say that you can only understand physics when you do not understand physics.”

I really don’t know what you mean by this. No one has said this here, as far as I know.

But maybe I misunderstand you. So, can you clarify, please?

Furthermore you wrote:

“Not the “counter-intuitive” claptrap they believe in at the centers of advanced studies, like at Princeton.”

Well, if you write this, that implies for me, that you are ‘against’ mainstream
physics, but at the same time you are defending qunatum mechanics?
which IS mainstream bollocks.

But again,

Maybe I don’t understand something.

Galacar

Like

• Johan Prins  On March 10, 2016 at 4:32 pm

@ drgsrinivas

I agree with most of your insights and I am glad you7 are now raising pointed questions and arguments on which we can base a logical discussion.

You wrote: “When you feel you thoroughly understand the stuff that gets taught as physics nowadays, it is certain that you don’t understand the true physics”

I am in 100 percent agreement with this statement. Not single mainstream theoretical physicist understands physics since they themselves reason that it is impossible to do so: Like Feynman wrote: “We have given up!” Why the hell are these “gurus” then still trying to do physics? Once you have given up you should get the hell outta the kitchen.

You asked: “What made you to come to the belief that light wave is not caused by oscillations in any medium? ”

You do not need the Michelson-Morley experiment to PROVE that it is so since the MM experiment only CONFIRMS what follows directly from Maxwell’s equations. When a wave moves through a point in a medium, its amplitude at time t at that point is not that of proportional to the total energy of the wave at that point: But only of the potential-energy component at that point at time t. That is why, even when you have a stationary wave in a medium the wave still oscillates to have zero amplitude when it has only kinetic energy.

The energy of a Maxwell wave is obtained from the Poynting vector and in this case the amplitude is proportional to the TOTAL energy of the wave at any point through which it moves. In other words when the amplitude is zero at a point there is ZERO wave-energy at that point. This directly proves that such a wave IS NOT moving within a medium within which the total energy at any point through which the wave moves is a constant sum of kinetic and potential energy; no matter what the amplitude is at that point.

This also means that a stationary trapped light wave cannot undulate like a wave on a violin string since this would mean that the trapped light-wave is cyclically changing its total energy from zero to a maximum. This obviously violates the conservation of energy. Thus Maxwell’s equations directly demand that a trapped light-wave cannot have any dynamic energy. It has a temperature of T=0.

You wrote: ” Finally, to explain/understand the truth, it is neither necessary to understand the language of mathematics nor does it require solving Maxwell or Lorentz’ equations.”

Correct but also wrong. To explain is not the same as to PROVE that it is the truth: To do the latter one must solve Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz equations in the correct manner. The latter is not being done by modern day mainstream theoretical physicists who believe in hallucinations like “space-time”, “time dilation”, “length contraction”, that the set of relativistic coordinate transformations forms a “group”. etc., etc. etc.

When solving Maxwell’s equations correctly one finds that EM-waves cannot move in aether, unless the Poynting vector, E=mc^2, and EM-momentum are wrong concepts.So far these concepts have withstood the test of time.

“Rather, fortunately for the laymen, truth can be expressed in clear terms using simple logic in any language.”

I agree, provided one does not use water-waves to explain electromagnetic waves. Even though the differential wave equations look the same, these waves involve totally different physics.

You wrote: ““Maxwell himself believed in an ether or medium for EM energy. Are you implying Maxwell didn’t understand his own equations?” ”

Yes Maxwell did interpret his equations incorrectly. If he had not done so, he would have discovered that E=mc^2 50 years before Einstein discovered this fundamental aspect of physics.

Like

• Johan Prins  On March 10, 2016 at 4:45 pm

@Galacar,

You wrote: “I really don’t know what you mean by this. No one has said this here, as far as I know.

But maybe I misunderstand you. So, can you clarify, please?”

This is exactly what is being claimed! One must accept that QM is “weird”. If you have to claim that something is nature is weird in order to model it, you definitely do not understand the physics that is involved.

You wrote: “Well, if you write this, that implies for me, that you are ‘against’ mainstream physics, ….”

I am against the absurd interpretation of mainstream physics.

“but at the same time you are defending qunatum mechanics?
which IS mainstream bollocks.”

Yes the interpretation of “probability-waves”, “wave-particle” duality, Heisenberg;s “uncertainty”. etc are all bollox since all the effects that one measures on the “quantum scale” follows directly from Maxwell’s equations which are valid on the macro- and atomic scale. In terms of Maxwell’s equations there is nothing weird, like “alive-dead cats” etc. What is claimed by modern theoretical physicists like Zeilinger to be “weird” can be modeled in terms of plain common sense.

Like

• Galacar  On March 10, 2016 at 11:51 pm

Johan Prins,

you wrote

“This is exactly what is being claimed! One must accept that QM is “weird”. If you have to claim that something is nature is weird in order to model it, you definitely do not understand the physics that is involved.”

I see you reversing cause and effect,

No one has said that “claim that something is nature is weird in order to model”

Or something of that nature.

I for sure have never mention that.

I think that the whole QM is so wrong and stupid, and that that is the reason they
can’t understand it themselves!
Those physicist loose themselve in mathematical equations, and have NO CLUE at what they are doing. They are making a huge castle on mud, so to speak.
There is no solid foundation at all.
(Just like evolution and all the rest of the academic shite & bollocks.)

But I never ment to say that it must be wrong to be understood or something of that matter. But again, maybe I misinterpret and don’t understand you correctly.

What of physics I don’t understand according to you?
In my view all mainstream physics is bollocks,and, alas, II have studied that shite on university level and had to unlean a lot.It is ALL garbage.

Nuff said

Galacar

Like

• Johan Prins  On March 11, 2016 at 5:20 pm

@ Galacar,

You are twisting my words: It thus serves no purpose to argue about “weirdness” any further .

You wrote: “I think that the whole QM is so wrong and stupid, and that that is the reason they can’t understand it themselves!”

When it comes to interpreting QM you are 100% correct. But the whole of QM is not wrong and stupid, since Schroedinger’s equation (although not completely correct) explains Solid State Physics and Chemistry quite well. It is only when one starts to use Dirac’s equation, Feynman diagrams etc. that it becomes bollox and one ends up with impossible models like the BCS model for superconduction!

You. like everybody else in the world, does not know that the de Broglie wavelength follows directly from the Lorentz transformation, which requires that any and all moving matter-objects with any mass has an electromagnetic wave-frequency given by f=(mc^2)/h, where h is Planck’s constant, Thus h is just as valid on the macro-scale as on the atomic scale. This is true for the earth, the sun, Jupiter etc.; and of course for the electron, the proton the neutron a buckey ball etc. It is the SAME on our macro-scale as well as on the so-called “quantum scale”. There is no “quantum-scale”!

Once you know this, all aspects of waves and wave-interactions on the atomic scale follow directly from Maxwell’s equations without having to invoke the absurd concept of a “point-particle” .

All mainstream physics is not bollox: Galileo’s concept of relativity, Newton’s laws and Maxwell’s equations are not bollox. These theories form the pillars on which all physics is based and which can be used to explain physics in a rational way so that it makes common sense.

There are no probabilities and weirdnesses involved in Nature. In fact the creation is understandable, and can be comprehended by mankind without invoking superstition. The latter is amazing!

Like

• Mark  On August 17, 2022 at 6:36 am

“equations” can never “explain” the natural world.
Math is NOT Physics. Its irrational to attempt to explain how some physical process works when you only supply an equation as the solution.
Before you mention anyone’s equation, please explain HOW the observed phenomena works using plain language, to demonstrate that you have a rational understanding of the Physics.
Saying that QM works because of Schrodinger or Dirac’s equation is irreverent to the understanding of Physics. What you are doing is just juggling numbers to make equations balance, which is Mathemagics unless the actual Physics is very solidly understood. I cant find any understandable Physics principals in the theory of QM anywhere. In fact, QM is totally devoid of rational understandable Physics. That should be its definition.

Like

• Galacar  On March 11, 2016 at 8:11 pm

@Johan Prins.

I will state it short and simple and this is just my view

You don’t have to agree, of course.

All of physics is bollocks. yes. Including Newton, Galileo , and what have you.

(Hell, even Newton never wrote a book, because he was too drunk!)

I have stated a lot of times that science is here to surpress any truth,

I do understand that you don’t agree and that is really ok with me.

But as far as I am concerned, after years of study, the whole of physics is

really bollocks. I am still finding deeper and deeper layers of it that it is

all bollocks. Problem is, if I want to explain that for a class, I might need

more then ten ours to speak, see the difficulty here?

Real Nature, works way wat way different then is leanred at ‘physics’.

“Physics’ has not even the slightest clue what nature is.

But all that by design!

Just my two cents again

Galacar

Like

• Johan F Prins  On March 13, 2016 at 6:38 pm

You have a right to your opinion. Enjoy it. I think you are confused and 10 hours of talking will just make the confusion worse. This is my opinion to which I am entitled.
Best regards,
Johan

Like

• drgsrinivas  On March 14, 2016 at 9:41 am

Johan Prins, I am not sure if our discussion will help us reach any consensus but let me give another try.

I agree, provided one does not use water-waves to explain electromagnetic waves

Well, I repeat, it is the water waves analogy which helped the physicists explain and prove the wave nature of light/EM waves in the double slit experiment.

To explain is not the same as to PROVE that it is the truth: To do the latter one must solve Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz equations in the correct manner

A theory remains proven as long as it provides a rational explanation to each and every observation that is thrown at it. The moment we find even one single observation that goes against, the theory becomes disproven, however strong mathematics it has on its side. So mathematics per se doesn’t prove any theory, rather it is the ability to provide rational explanations to observations that makes a theory proven.

Mathematics is just a language, albeit a short hand language. And just like how an argument based upon a wrong premise leads to wrong conclusion, any maths built upon a wrong premise leads us to a wrong statement or wrong theory. If some mathematical model really proves a theory, then it must also be possible to prove the same theory in any other language. Apart from serving as a short hand representation of arguments, maths serves no other purpose (of course it also helps physicists to hide information from the lay people/ maintain secrecy and to pose intelligent!)

You do not need the Michelson-Morley experiment to PROVE that it is so since the MM experiment only CONFIRMS what follows directly from Maxwell’s equations

Contrary to your conviction, MM experiment never CONFIRMED anything of that sort that you imagine as following from Maxwell’s equations. I would love to have your comments here http://debunkingrelativity.com/ether-wind-and-ether-drag/

hen solving Maxwell’s equations correctly one finds that EM-waves cannot move in aether, unless the Poynting vector, E=mc^2, and EM-momentum are wrong concepts.So far these concepts have withstood the test of time.

And so is the absurd theory of relativity. Physicists believe that so far relativity theory withstood the test of time.

Yes Maxwell did interpret his equations incorrectly. If he had not done so, he would have discovered that E=mc^2 50 years before Einstein

If Maxwell had discovered that mass-energy equation 50 years before Einstein, the metamorphosis of physics into its present mythology form would have occurred much earlier and Maxwell would have got the credit for the plight of modern physics instead of Einstein. Good that he didn’t do that. Mass is something that gives inertia to bodies and Energy is the one that helps overcome that inertia. So mass and energy are opposite things in Nature, and saying that mass and energy are equivalent is like saying life and death are one and the same. Also I am not a believer of Newton’s laws. All this I have explained elsewhere and you may post your comments there http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/29/the-divine-stuff-explains-all/

This also means that a stationary trapped light wave cannot undulate like a wave on a violin string since this would mean that the trapped light-wave is cyclically changing its total energy from zero to a maximum. This obviously violates the conservation of energy. Thus Maxwell’s equations directly demand that a trapped light-wave cannot have any dynamic energy. It has a temperature of T=0.

Sorry, I was never able to appreciate the marvelous costume of the nude Emperor. So I wouldn’t understand the “stationary trapped light wave” and whatever that follows from that.

does not know that the de Broglie wavelength follows directly from the Lorentz transformation, which requires that any and all moving matter-objects with any mass has an electromagnetic wave-frequency given by f=(mc^2)/h, where h is Planck’s constant, Thus h is just as valid on the macro-scale as on the atomic scale. This is true for the earth, the sun, Jupiter etc.; and of course for the electron, the proton the neutron a buckey ball etc. It is the SAME on our macro-scale as well as on the so-called “quantum scale”. There is no “quantum-scale”!

de Broglie’s matter wave concept stemmed from the wave particle duality myth which followed from the misinterpretation of double slit experiment. If our physicists had interpreted the DSE correctly and realized the existence of photon Ether, the duality myth wouldn’t have creeped into physics. And de Broglie’s equation would have helped us view this world through a normal plane lens instead of the twisted and distorted lens to which physicists got used to. Yes, all material objects can be represented in terms of electromagnetic waves or ether waves, and I have explained this without resorting to the absurd teachings of quantum physics. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/05/double-slit-experiment-electrons/

Once you know this, all aspects of waves and wave-interactions on the atomic scale follow directly from Maxwell’s equations without having to invoke the absurd concept of a “point-particle”

This is the most stunning bit that I have heard from you “absurd concept of point particle’. What do you think the physicists fire when they do the DSE with ‘photons’?

BTW, I like your face book page and your fight against the myths in physics!

Like

• Galacar  On March 14, 2016 at 1:03 pm

Johan Prins wrote:

“You have a right to your opinion. Enjoy it. I think you are confused and 10 hours of talking will just make the confusion worse. This is my opinion to which I am entitled.
Best regards,
Johan”

Ok, we agree to disagree, no problem there,

But please stop the ad hominems.(telling me I am confused etc , because you jave no clue who I am or what I do or what I have done)
You also can’t know that you would be more confused after 10 hours because
you very simply don’t know because you haven’t done that., hence it is seen as an ad hominem.

It is clear there is a huuugeee different between us about ‘physics’.

I am deeply convinced in physics it is all bollocks and you think it is not all bollocks.
So what? I enjoy the fact that that is possible.To have these differences.

I am also not attacking you personally because you have a different opinion,
I respect yours.Hell, I will even defend your rights to speak about it.
What else is ‘free speech’? If you were allowed only to speak certain things then what is free about it?

The ONLY thing you and I and others here can do, is put information out.
What other people do with that information is their thing.
I am not here to convince anyone.I really can’t.neither can you or someone else.

(btw if you have a need to further have a discussion about this, you can mail me,
I think it is better to stop here, and continue with the ‘physics’.so that we stay here on topic)

So,

Let’s treat each other with respect and all that,

Have a nice day.

Galacar

Like

• Marius de Jess  On April 6, 2016 at 10:00 pm

What about we judge physics by technology?

I mean if engineers can use the bollocks and shit of physics to construct their gadgets, machines, like river dams generating electricity, etc., and yes space shuttle to Mars, etc., then we can filter out the genuine physics from the nonsense bollocks and shit of superstitious physics.

I am no mathematician and no physicist, but I think I can think according to facts and truths and of course logic.

Thanks to you guys in particular to Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla!

Like

• Johan F Prins  On April 6, 2016 at 11:42 pm

You cannot judge modern theoretical physics by technology. Since Einstein postulated his absurd “time-dilation” and Born postulated his absurd “probability waves”, engineers have used Schroedinger’s equation to “calculate” and to “shut-up”. This gave us our present digital electronics age which does NOT PROVE that modern theoretical physics is correct! in fact ALL PHYSICS based on “space-time” and inbuilt “probabilities” can only be valid in Alice’s Wonderland! Jeesh for 100 years theoretical physicists have believed in hallucinations!

Like

• Galacar  On April 6, 2016 at 11:57 pm

@Marius de Jess

You wrote:

“What about we judge physics by technology?”

Well, those two things are NOT directly related.
Far, far rom it. But the propaganda say it does.

As I have written here before, nearly ALL TECHNOLOGy is made NOT

BY ACADEMIC PHYSICIST, but by lonely inventors and real geniuses..

And those people used the concept of tthe aether, like Tesla did!

If you are intereded there are several books who explain that these
two areas are not directly related at all.

Technology is mostly done by trial & error, not by defined procedues.
Hence the testings and all.

Again, the relationship between science & technology is sheer propaganda.

My two cents, again

Galacar

Like

• Johan F Prins  On April 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm

If there were aether the Doppler shift of a light wave emitted by a receding light-source with wavelength (lambda0) would have been (lambda)=(1+v/c)(lambda0) . Since a light wave does not move in aether, its Doppler shift is given by (lamba)=(gamma)(1+v/c)(lambda0). Thus PLEASE get rid of your aether hallucination.

Like

• Galacar  On April 7, 2016 at 1:23 pm

@Johan F Prins

You wrote:

“You cannot judge modern theoretical physics by technology. Since Einstein postulated his absurd “time-dilation” and Born postulated his absurd “probability waves”, engineers have used Schroedinger’s equation to “calculate” and to “shut-up”. This gave us our present digital electronics age which does NOT PROVE that modern theoretical physics is correct! in fact ALL PHYSICS based on “space-time” and inbuilt “probabilities” can only be valid in Alice’s Wonderland! Jeesh for 100 years theoretical physicists have believed in hallucinations!”

ha ha ha, yes! Love to see you writing this!
Especially the hallucinations.You are soo right.
As I have written before it (science, physics) is made up by psychotics, and they tend to hallucinate a lot.:)

Love it, thank you!

Galacar.

Like

• aether  On April 8, 2016 at 12:00 am

Johan F Prins,

From Maxwell’s equations:

V=1/(Mo*Eo)1/2

Mo=1.25610^-6
Eo=8.854
10^-12

===> V = 3*10^8 = c

No arguments here. All good. But how does this disprove the existence of the aether or a medium? And how do you get from EM energy traveling at c (either through “empty” space or aether to E=mc^2?

Also, if I understand you correctly, you claim E=mc^2 is a correct and proven equation. If so, is it correct for all objects or just for EM energy? As E=mc^2 pertains to EM, what exactly does the mass term ‘m’ represent?

And for a body in motion (EM of otherwise) do you claim that E=mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 as the relativists do?

Like

• Johan F Prins  On April 8, 2016 at 12:12 pm

c=/(mu0*epsi0)^1/2

is the same within any inertial reference frame. Thus light in free space always move with this speed relative to all possible IRF’s. This means there is not a unique stationary material that fills all space which determines this speed; as one has for other waves. If there were such a material it would define a single unique IRF in which the speed of light is c. In all other IRF’s the speed of light will be either c+v or c-v: Not only c.

E=m*c^2 could already have been derived by Newton if he also differentiated mass according to his second law F=(d/dt)(mv).

He would have found that m=(gamma)*m(0). He would of course not have known at that time that c=(the invariant speed of light). But he would have known that c is the SAME within all IRF’s and that mass is energy and that when energy increases mass also increases: So kinetic energy is also mass energy: So is potential energy.

Both matter and light consist of EM-energy. A moving matter-object with mass m=(gamma)m(0) is an EM-wave with a frequency f=(mc^2)/h and a de Broglie wavelength (lambda)=h/p independent of its internal structure. It is NOT a “probability-wave of a “particle” since these expressions are valid even for a moving Jupiter. An electron has continuously distributed EM energy within its volume and therefore it can diffract. There is NOT an electric energy-field in space around the volume of a solitary electron.

Yes E=m*(c^2) pertains to all objects and all energy: Also potential energy. The latter determines gravity: Not “space-time”.

Yes any body with rest-mass m(0) that is moving has a total energy E=(gamma)[m(0)]c^2. A single light-wave does not have rest-mass and its EM-energy is therefore the SAME energy E=m*c^2 within all IRF’s; since it moves with the same momentum mc within all IRF’s. This can be derived from Maxwell’s equations.

Therefore a photon wave emitted by a source with frequency f(0) so that this wave has energy hf(0), has the same energy within all IRF’s even when its frequency is Doppler-shifted to become f, its total energy is not Doppler shifted. It remains hf(0).

I will not be available for further discussions most of the rest of this day: Maybe the whole day.

Like

• Johan Prins  On April 8, 2016 at 8:29 pm

I wrote a long response but for some reason it did not load: So I will quote you and post answers:

“”From Maxwell’s equations:

V=1/(Mo*Eo)1/2

Mo=1.25610^-6
Eo=8.85410^-12

===> V = 3*10^8 = c

No arguments here. All good.”

I Agree

“”But how does this disprove the existence of the aether or a medium?”

Easy since you own calculation above proves that a single light-wave that is modelled by Maxwell’s equations must have the SAME speed c in any and all inertial reference frames. Thus there cannot be a single stationary medium which fills all space which determines this speed, since, if it were so, there would only be a single unique IRF in which a light wave will have speed c. This would mean that in all other IRF’s moving relative to aether with speed v the speed of light the speed of light will be either c-v or c+v in the direction that the single wave is moving.

“And how do you get from EM energy traveling at c (either through “empty” space or aether to E=mc^2?”

It follows directly from calculating the EM energy-density given by (1/2)(epso0)(E^2)+(1/2)(mu0)(H^2) for a single light-wave moving along a single direction; and integrating to get the total energy U of this wave. When then setting U=m*c^2, and using Poynting’s vector for this wave, one finds that the momentum of the single wave is given by p=mc. It thius has a dynamic center-of-mass that moves like a “point-particle”.

In the case of a moving matter-object the Lorentz transformation gives that this object becomes LONGER and also has energy E=m*c^2 but now has a de Broglie wavelength since it moves with speed v.

Thus, a single light-wave and a moving single matter-objects are BOTH EM waves which are modelled by Maxwell’s equations. setting of a single EM wave by means of the energy

“Also, if I understand you correctly, you claim E=mc^2 is a correct and proven equation. If so, is it correct for all objects or just for EM energy?”

“Maxwell’s wave equations model both light and matter in terms of EM-energy. Are there OTHER objects with different energy?

“As E=mc^2 pertains to EM, what exactly does the mass term ‘m’ represent?”

“It pertains to the total amount of energy since m is directly porortional to the total energy: Kinetioc and potential energy. A moving matter wave has both kinertic-energy and potential energy. A stationary matter wave has ONLY potential energy. A single light-wave moving with speed c has only kinetic energy: A trapped stationary light-wave has potential energy,

“And for a body in motion (EM of otherwise) do you claim that E=mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 as the relativists do?”

I suppose that with m you mean m(0), the rest-mass? If you do then this equation is absolutely correct since it can be derived directly from Newton’s second law by differentiation both the mass and speed of a matter-object. You do not need the Lorentz transformation to derive that this equation must be so.

A wave that moves within a medium has an amplitude that relates to then potential energy within the medium, and the total energy at each point through which the wave moves has a constant energy given by the sum of the potential and kinetic-energies. In the case of a light-wave the wave carries the EMM energy with it. It is for this reason that the total energy of the wave =m*c^2. It is also for this reason why a trapped stationary light-wave has no kinetic energy while a stationary wave within a medium does have kinetic energy: For example a stationary wave on a violin string. These characteristic of a light wave follows directly from Maxwell’s equations.

Physics has thus been unified since 1860.

Like

• Gatot Soedarto (@GatotSoedarto)  On April 8, 2016 at 9:55 am

“red shift isn’t a proof of a receding source, rather it is a natural phenomenon that occurs as waves propagate in space/medium.”

That’s right. Gravitational redshift is false. Redshift is caused by refraction, not gravity. Einstein’s General relativity theory was totally wrong.

1.Einstein’s thought experiments are incomprehensive, illogical, and misleading.

2.The equivalence principle is false.

3.General relativity inconsistent with Special relativity about the existing of an aether.

4.Special relativity and General relativity ignored the refraction of light, so:

5.The deflection of light by the Sun is misleading. The deflection of light is caused by refraction, namely astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction.

6.Gravitational redshift is misleading. Redshift and blueshift are caused by refraction, not gravity.

7.Gravitational lensing is false. Lensing is caused by refraction, not gravity.

8.There’s the Shapiro time delay. There’s gravitational time dilation. Gravitational time dilation is not correct. Why? Because the revelation of universal law: ‘the velocity of light is constant’ (Special Reltivity) is misleading. Speed of light slowing down caused by refraction when the starlight passing through the Earth’s atmosphere.The time-delay of light caused by refraction, not gravity.

9.GPS doesn’t need and doesn’t use Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity.

10.Black holes do not exist, the expanding universe and the big bang theory is incorrect.

11.About gravitational waves Einstein was wrong. There are no such things as curved/warped space. Space-time just a mathematical model.There are no gravitational waves or ripples in space-time. Where does energy for gravitational waves come from? Gravitational waves don’t carry any energy, so they’re just a formal mathematical construct with no real physical meaning (Nathan Rosen, 1955). Gravity is a real force, there are exist gravity waves, not gravitational waves. In the Earth’s atmosphere, gravity waves are a mechanism for the transfer of momentum from the troposphere to the stratosphere.

12.Dark matter and dark energy do not make sense. This time in 2016 is the end of the 9 biggest unsolved mysteries in physics.

Liked by 1 person

• aether  On April 9, 2016 at 2:12 am

Johan Prins,

First, thanks for your detailed response.

I wrote a long response but for some reason it did not load

I had a similar experience. Frustrating, but part of the moderation process of our gracious host.

Thus there cannot be a single stationary medium which fills all space which determines this speed, since, if it were so, there would only be a single unique IRF in which a light wave will have speed c.

Here we differ. I don’t believe that the aether is stationary and I have no idea why so many physicists throughout history have ascribed such a property to aether. But I do believe that light (EM) travels at a maximum speed c in aether. Not so in glass or other medium. Aether is dense but not stationary!

This would mean that in all other IRF’s moving relative to aether with speed v the speed of light the speed of light will be either c-v or c+v in the direction that the single wave is moving.

Yes, c-v or c+v. Per Newton, vectors are additive. And maybe this is why I don’t see the need to use Lorentz. I don’t buy Einstein’s concept that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference frame. And if Einstein is wrong about constant speed of light, his relativity theories are useless mysticism.

,Lastly, in Essays in Science, Einstein claimed that Lorentz’s theories were based on an aether. As for Einstein, he flip-flopped back and forth about the existence of an aether. Not that it matters to me – imo Einstein was a well agented phony. Interestingly, in Essays in Science, Einstein pays homage to Brahe, Keppler, Newton, Lorentz, Bohr and even the Flettner ship. No love for Tesla though. Why am I not surprised?

Just thoughts. I could be way out in left field.

Like

• John Davis  On April 9, 2016 at 6:40 am

“red shift isn’t a proof of a receding source, rather it is a natural phenomenon that occurs as waves propagate in space/medium.”

This might explain the red shift found in all stars / galaxies we see in space. It would also reconcile new evidence that perhaps the universe is not expanding (as perceived by equal surface brightness of near and far galaxies.) I believe Drgsrinivas has proposed the idea that the wavelength of light could change with distance traveled through space (similar to decreasing tidal frequency as it moves through the water medium). If light is truly propagating in an aether then this leads to the idea that light is perhaps refracted in the “aether” as well. Without energy / matter loss wouldn’t you start to get a compounding effect – ie: bright space? Think of how loud the earth would be if sound didn’t eventually dissipate.

Another idea – we should stop using “c”. How about instead – lw, la, ls, lg, lfo (speed of light in water, air, space, glass, fiber optic cable, etc). They are all different values.

It’s also good to keep in mind that the value scientists put forth as “c” have changed more than a few times. The cavity resonance value is different than the laser inferometer value – which are both subject to error. The CGPM has also changed the definition of a meter as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.” So now the definition of a meter is pliable? Instead of “constant” they should instead say “constantly changing”.

Like

• Johan Prins  On April 9, 2016 at 3:48 pm

Aether,

You wrote;

“Here we differ. I don’t believe that the aether is stationary and I have no idea why so many physicists throughout history have ascribed such a property to aether. But I do believe that light (EM) travels at a maximum speed c in aether. Not so in glass or other medium. Aether is dense but not stationary!”

What you believe is an absurd hallucination. Speed can only be measured relative to a reference frame which is assumed to be stationary, and if you claim that light-moves in aether this aether must be stationary within the whole universe. Furthermore ANY wave that moves within a medium moves by exchanging kinetic and potential energy at every point through which the wave moves. When you solve Maxwell’s equations this is NOT the case for an EM-wave.

I know that Einstein flip-flopped on the concept of aether: That is why his theory of gravitation is utter nonsense.

Like

• Galacar  On April 9, 2016 at 8:26 pm

Johan Prins,

ANY theory of gravitation is non-sense. There is no gravitation.
Nowhere in the universe.
( I know you are going to ‘edit’ this, but we will see.)

Galacar

Like

• John Davis  On April 9, 2016 at 10:14 pm

I don’t think the case is closed on the EM wave…

These papers are of interest –

Is the universe leaking energy – https://smp.uq.edu.au/people/TamaraDavis/papers/SciAm_Energy.pdf

(Although the ultimate conclusion seems to be more of a pandering to the current paradigm)

and also Varying speed of light –

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1823958_A_simple_varying-speed-of-light_hypothesis_is_enough_for_explaining_high-redshift_supernovae_data

Like

• Johan Prins  On April 10, 2016 at 4:13 pm

Galacar,

“ANY theory of gravitation is non-sense. There is no gravitation.
Nowhere in the universe.
( I know you are going to ‘edit’ this, but we will see.)”

So why does an apple fall to the ground?

Like

• Johan Prins  On April 10, 2016 at 4:26 pm

John Davis,

When I post a message it is mostly blocked on this forum. It is thus mostly a waste of my time to even try and have a discussion, Thank you for your references, some of which I know and mostly disagree with. If you have a point of view, then state it and only THEN back it up with references. But to quote refrences without giving any reason why, you are not partaking in a discussion,

To state that a wave emitted from a source moving away from you does not have a lower frequency when the wave reaches you, has no experimental basis. The Doppler effect has been demonstrated for all possible waves. For light-waves the formula has an added factor (gamma) since a light wave does not move in a medium like other waves do. That is the reason for (gamma). If a ;light wave did move in aether, its Doppler shift would not have had this factor (gamma). This follows directly from Maxwell’s equations, If you want to disagree with this direct consequence of Maxwell’s wave equations, you must first prove that Maxwell’s equations are wrong. If you cannot do the latter, then you are wrong in what you are claiming.

Like

• Sourav Ghosh  On April 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm

I think that is because water is a dispersive medium and this water wave is surface wave.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On April 10, 2016 at 10:24 pm

As I always say, wave mechanics is the most misunderstood and messed up concept in physics and is the cause of all the absurdities of modern physics. Yes, what we see as a water wave is a surface wave. But what the believers of physics fail to appreciate is that there exists a deeper longitudinal wave with every ‘surface wave’ (the so called ‘transverse wave’).

Water is a ‘dispersive’ medium. OK, let me accept that.
and who proved that Ether is not?

Like

• aether  On April 10, 2016 at 6:51 pm

John Prins,

What you believe is an absurd hallucination.

Thanks for giving it to me straight and not sugar coating it! 😉

Speed can only be measured relative to a reference frame which is assumed to be stationary,

I’m not sure what you mean here, but it likely doesn’t matter because I think we have a more fundamental disagreement.

If I understand correctly, your calculations and conclusions (from Maxwell’s derived value of “c” forward) are based on the believe that Einstein’s two postulates for his special theory are valid?

Einstein’s Two Postulates:

1) Every universal law of nature which is valid in relation to a coordinate system C, must also be valid in relation of a coordinate system C’, which is in uniform translatory motion relatively to C.

2) The speed of light in a vacuum has a constant velocity independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of light.

Like

• Galacar  On April 10, 2016 at 8:36 pm

Johan Prins

wrote:

“So why does an apple fall to the ground?”

Well, it does fall to he ground because of electricity.
NOT by gravity. If you assume ‘gravity’is right there are lots
and lots of of problems,(Never adressed at school of course!!)

Not so much with electricity. Makes much more sense.
This whole universe is run by electricity.
And most of it is being proven in labarotories.
That can’t be said about ‘gravity”.

The whole ‘gravity’ thing is nonsense.

My two cents.

Galacar

Like

• drgsrinivas  On April 10, 2016 at 10:02 pm

It is ultimately Ether currents which manifests as electricity, magnetism and gravity in different settings. So at the most fundamental level there is only one thing. One may choose to say that it is all electricity and there is nothing called gravity or magnetism. A different person may argue it is all magnetism and may say gravity and electricity are myths. And others may insist that everything is magnetism and deny the existence of things called electricity and gravity.

As far I am concerned, it makes no difference which name one gives to that phenomenon as long as one understands the underlying truth.

Like

• Johan Prins  On April 11, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Aether,

You quoted Einstein’s two postulates as:

“Einstein’s Two Postulates:

1) Every universal law of nature which is valid in relation to a coordinate system C, must also be valid in relation of a coordinate system C’, which is in uniform translatory motion relatively to C.

2) The speed of light in a vacuum has a constant velocity independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of light.”

It is firstly wrong to claim that Einstein postulated this. In his first “postulate” he attempted to quote Galileo’s concept of relativity and made a total mess of it, since he did not add the most important proviso of Galileo’s superb logic, namely that every universal law of nature which is valid in relation to a coordinate system C when LOOKING AT PHYSICS THAT IS CO-MOVING WITH C, must also be valid within a coordinate system C’, which is in uniform motion relative to C, FOR THE PHYSICS THAT IS CO-MOVING WITH C’.

When one LOOKS OUTSIDE C INTO C’ the physics that is co-moving with C’ is changed by a relativistic coordinate transformation, and vice versa. One cannot inversely transform the transformed co-moving physics from C’ into C, back from C into C’ since this transformed physics is NOT co-moving with C.

Einstein’s so-called second postulate follows directly from Maxwell’s equations and is thus a deduction from these equations: NOT a postulate.

Thus it is plagiarism to claim that Einstein “postulated” these concepts. They already existed looong before Einstein’s birth.

Like

• Galacar  On April 10, 2016 at 8:53 pm

More about the gravity myth here:

“From the Introduction page: In the course of this book I will prove that the force called “Gravity” by newton and later modified by einstein and others, does not exist and is purely mythical in its creation. The consequences of this conclusion are immense. It means that a huge list of non-existent entities have been conjured up by academic scientists based on the mathematics of a non-existent force. For example: dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, event horizons, wimps, mond, machos, neutron stars, gravitational collapse, gravitons, gravity waves, quantum gravity, inward pulling gravity, gravitational lensing, gravitational constant, schwarzchild radius, gravitational radiation, frame dragging, general relativity, anti-gravity, virtual gravitons, quantum field theory to name just a few, are in fact false and mythical as well. – ”

http://www.feandft.com/

Enjoy! And see the concept of gravity being obsolete!

Namaste!

Galacar

Like

• Galacar  On April 10, 2016 at 11:01 pm

drgsrinivas wrote

“It is ultimately Ether currents which manifests as electricity, magnetism and gravity in different settings. So at the most fundamental level there is only one thing. One may choose to say that it is all electricity and there is nothing called gravity or magnetism. A different person may argue it is all magnetism and may say gravity and electricity are myths. And others may insist that everything is magnetism and deny the existence of things called electricity and gravity.
As far I am concerned, it makes no difference which name one gives to that phenomenon as long as one understands the underlying truth.”

Good point.
I do agree aether or Ether is very very important! Certainly in the light of all the
discoveries in the past and not by academics.

But what about the standing wave throughout the universe and
providing for all of this?

Galacar

Like

• Galacar  On April 10, 2016 at 11:08 pm

In Tesla’s words:

“Tesla said he had fully developed his Dynamic Theory of Gravity and “worked it out in all the details”. This aether-based theory, which initially was developed between 1893-94, explained gravity and directly linked it to electromagnetic phenomena, explaining also that the sun and all stars emit “primary solar rays” which in turn produce secondary radiations. Tesla’s theory states that the phenomena produced by electromagnetic forces is the most important phenomenon in the universe. According to portions from his theory, mechanical motions are universally a result of electromagnetic force acting upon and through media. Unfortunately, no mathematical details of the theory have officially surfaced.
Tesla demonstrated that all bodies have electrical content and as such, are all moving charges as our earth hurls through space at incredible speed (hence ‘dynamic’). He demonstrated, through the use of his particular evacuated tubes and high voltage coils powered by specifically designed high frequency alternators, how earth emanates “microwaves” and how it behaves as a charged sphere. Based on these discoveries and their confirmation at Colorado Springs, he developed and tested his first electromagnetic machine that could fly “devoid of sustaining wings, propellers or gas bags”.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

indeed the aether AND electricity.

Still lots to learn.

Galacar

Like

• aether  On April 12, 2016 at 1:47 am

Seemingly, we have a fragmented understanding. Perhaps some lightheartedness is in order. A fitting poem from Nikola Tesla, novice!

Fragments of Olympian Gossip

Like

• Galacar  On April 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

I agree we do have a fragmented understanding.so far.

But we can and do know now that ‘modern physics’ is stupid , retarded and obsolete,

Now we have to move forward.

And we will

(hmmm maybe I try advertising 😉 )

Galacar

Like

• Max Nozin  On September 12, 2016 at 8:00 pm

drgsrinivas,
Interesting take on gravity as Bernoulli’s principle. Few follow up questions:
1. How to explain that gravitational force is stronger on the surface of Earth than that on the orbit assuming the density of ether is identical in both cases?
2. Would you elaborate on the definition of ‘charge’
3. Would you suggest other supporters of ether theory like Russian Atsukovski V A mentioned here https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410365.pdf
Unfortunately none of his 20+ books are translated. BTW Atsukovski’s explanation of gravity based on the pressure difference between two objects do to the fact that temperature between two objects due to the ether flow is always colder that on the outside.
Thanks,
Max

Like

• Alan VanMeter  On November 1, 2016 at 12:44 am

Finally I have found someone who doesn’t just echo others. I am a firm proponent that space-time may well be a fluid. Not just certain super charged particles in it giving a super fluidity to it, but the fabric of space-time itself having a fluid nature. It ties in perfectly with Bernoulli’s principle if gravity is the kinetic pressure exerted on matter as the fluid of space-time moves over it. This would also help tie in with certain quantum mechanics as with space-time movement not only would the kinetic pressure lessen as the fluid of space-time flowed over it at a faster rate, but the rate that matter experienced time in relation to matter with fluid space-time moving over it at a different rate, could explain time dilation as well.
Thanks Srinivasa Rao.
Alan

Liked by 1 person

• Johan F Prins  On November 1, 2016 at 12:05 pm

“space-time” cannot exist except in Alice’s Wonderland. And EM-waves do not move in a medium; or else these waves will have different speeds within different reference frames. PLEASE, in this respect Einstein was correct. He was however absurd to claim time-dilation and length contraction. And his mathemtics professor Minkowski was a fool!

Like

• drgsrinivas  On November 1, 2016 at 6:05 pm

“EM waves do not move in a medium”

Must be in Alice’s wonderland again.
Johan, in our world, EM waves move through Ether. Why different observers in different reference frames measure the same speed for an EM wave can be explained by the ether drag phenomenon.

Like

• Johan F Prins  On November 1, 2016 at 7:08 pm

You are wrong. Maxwell’s equations demand that an EM wave cannot move in aether since the same differential equations, with the same phase speed, are valid in any inertial reference frame for an EM-wave. The differential wave equations demands that the same wave must move with the same speed within different IRF’s. This fact should have hit Maxwell between the eyes but since this was the first differential wave equations that demand this, he just could not detach himself from believing that a wave MUST always move in a medium. Old beliefs die hard; especially among theoretical physicists who are the most dogmatic and closed-minded human beings in the universe.

The speed of a light-wave is given by c=(lambda)*(frequency) To keep the speed the same within every IRF, lambda and frequency must be different within different IRF’s. We know that this is so since a light-wave has a Doppler-shift. The Doppler-shift for waves that move within a medium, is determined by the Galilean coordinate transformation when the source or the detector move relative to the stationary medium. If a light-wave moved within a medium the Lorentz-transformation would not have applied. The Galilean transformation would then have been sufficient on it own.

There is no aether drag phenomenon.

Like

• khuram  On November 18, 2016 at 5:03 pm

About E=mc2 discussion here. It is stated that had Maxwell not committed some mistake, he would have found E=mc2 well before in time.

Following I copy a short blog post of mine as available on this link:
https://khuram.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/issue-of-larger-brain-size-of-einstien/

Was really E=mc2 anything new???

Not at all…!!!

So, in a sense, there was nothing new in “energy-mass equivalence”.

“c” is just the so-called absolute form of “v”.

When talking in absolute terms (i.e. not in half terms where K.E is half of Total Energy), then we don’t need “1/2” in the equation of K.E.

We simply get “E=mc2”

It is said that this wonderful formula describes energy equivalent of mass at rest. Since value of c is so high so an ordinary mass at rest will be possessing huge quantity of energy. It is also said that this formula rightly predicted such things as Nuclear Bomb.

Whereas fact is that this formula only describes such an hypothetical situation where velocity “v” of a mass has reached to the standard maximum value i.e. “c”. So actually this formula has nothing to do with state of rest of mass.

It is so assumed that this formula describes energy equivalent of mass at rest because “c” has been considered a “universal constant”. Again, fact is that within this context, “c” is not any “universal constant”. “c” is only the standard maximum value of a “variable” which is velocity “v”. Despite official claims of Science, there are so many unofficial counter claims that speed of light “c” is not constant or even the maximum possible speed. But here we don’t need to go against official claims. Let us accept that speed of light may be constant and may it be the maximum possible value of “v”. But point is that even then “c” cannot be regarded as “universal constant” when talking in terms of matter and mass. Because after all then it is just a value of a variable “v”. So in this sense, if “c” is not a universal constant, it means that formula E=mc2 is not describing state of rest of mass. It is only describing an hypothetical situation where value of speed (i.e. a variable “v”) of certain mass has reached to the standard maximum value which is “c”. In this right context, actually formula E=mc2 is worthless. It is just the case of such a K.E which, due to the mass having been reached to the maximum value of velocity (may be just hypothetically), has become Total Energy.

Nuclear Bomb was the result of later discoveries of hidden Nuclear forces and was not the result of this formula. Neither this formula has anything to do with those nuclear forces. It is the nature of Nuclear Structure of any atom which determines energy contents of that element. Mere “mass” does not determine it. If it were the case then Scientists should not have needed Uranium etc. because they could get mere mass from other common elements like iron etc. also, for making Nuclear Bomb.

Liked by 1 person

• Galacar  On November 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm

@khuram

Nice piece but with one problem as far as I can see,

The impossibility of the Nuclear Atom.

There are no nuclear atoms, because they can’t exist at all!

My two cents,

Galacar

Like

• khuram  On November 21, 2016 at 10:18 am

@ Galacar

Please explain. Do you mean nucleus does not exist in atom? or something else?

And … I confronted my above blog post to an expert on quora.com … He insisted that c is a universal constant because value of c is determined by permeability and permitivity of empty space in a way that value of c is basically the speed of electromagnetic radiation that direct results from these two attributes of empty space.

My reply was that … then c could not be applied to matter having mass.

Due to permeability and permitivity of empty space, electromagnetic radiation would automatically acquire speed c.

But due to permeability and permitivity of empty space, matter having mass will not automatically acquire speed c.

Thus within the context of matter having mass, ‘c’ only means value of a variable ‘v’. When talking in terms of matter and mass, ‘c’ cannot be regarded as any universal constant.

Like

• Galacar  On November 21, 2016 at 2:18 pm

@khuram

The whole idea of a ‘nuclear atom’ is ridiculous to say the least,

This because there are numerous problems with it,

“The case against the nuclear atom’

by Dewey B. Larson

This book will gradually convince you that a nuclear atom is impossible to exist

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Nuclear-Atom/dp/B0007DOB0U

The book only costs you \$499.60 😉

Well, I have ordered the book from our town library and just for under \$ 5!

If you are clever enough you can find it on the internet for free

Here a lecture on video from the writer of the book:

Inductive Reasoning: The Case Against The Nuclear Atom – Dewey B. Larson (1978)

It is very freeing to read it, but it is also a process which can take some time
to really digest this whole damn thing.

Ah well, as I always say:

“Nothing in this world works the way you think, nothing!”

Hope this helps

Namaste!

Galacar

Liked by 1 person

• khuram  On November 21, 2016 at 10:29 am

And … right now I have asked on quora.com the following question:

Does atom bomb explosion result from destruction of protons or neutrons?

“Neither, really. Most of the energy (about the first 85%) is created without bothering either protons or neutrons.

In the making of any type of atomic explosion no net neutrons or protons are created or destroyed. The most that happens is one may be turned into the other, but the total stays the same. That’s a law of nature, or close to it.

Generally, neutrons are turned into protons by bombs, but it’s a slow process (caused by a weak interaction) that takes minutes, hours, days, years. It happens in the residual radiation, not the big blast.”

My opinion in the light of this answer:

If E=mc2 … then energy should have been created by eliminating protons or neutrons…

But all what has actually happened is that total mass has not been disturbed. Mass is contained in protons and neutrons … and both these things are intact … even if they have interchanged still the total mass has remained the same.

Explosion of energy has been created without eliminating the mass….!!!

Like

• khuram  On November 22, 2016 at 2:44 pm

@ Galacar

Well … it is nuclear price so can read only if I find free PDF.

anyhow …. I received another brilliant answer on quora …. explaining that binding force between nuclear particles is the ‘mass’ which is converted to energy. So E=mc2 is again saved…:P

Below I copy his words:

“The binding energy between protons and neutrons is seen as mass and it is that mass that is converted into energy by nuclear reactions, whether fission or fusion. There are more types of nuclear reactions that are not as significant in nuclear weapons but do involve the mass and energy of the protons and neutrons, themselves. These are decay reactions and involve changes in the quarks.

Protons and neutrons may be completely destroyed and converted to energy in matter anti-matter annihilation, a favorite source of energy for science fiction starships.”

Like

• Galacar  On November 23, 2016 at 1:14 pm

@khuram

you wrote:

“anyhow …. I received another brilliant answer on quora …. explaining that binding force between nuclear particles is the ‘mass’ which is converted to energy. So E=mc2 is again saved…:P”

It is a bit like the gloal warmiing (=hoax).
Everything is nowadays seen as prove of climatechange!
And may god forbid you think about it! Then you are in the same
range as a holocaust denier!
It ALL looks like a religion to me!

Amen!

Galacar

Like

• Galacar  On November 23, 2016 at 12:02 am

@khuram

There a ye go!

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=19034384517&searchurl=x%3D0%26y%3D0%26sts%3Dt%26sortby%3D17%26tn%3Dthe%2Bcase%2Bagainst%2Bthe%2Bnuclear%2Batom

\$ 8,04!

OR as I have also written, ask your local public library. I did!

Galacar

Cheers!

Like

• Mike Shaw  On November 23, 2016 at 1:34 am

Erin N – Yes – I’ve always thought, from the very beginning of reading the relativity theory, that is was all about perception, nothing more. I’m sure there is a lot of practical application, but basically observing the stars moving in the sky by observing them from the equator on Earth doesn’t mean they are really really moving at millions of times the speed of light because they traverse the heavens (to us) across such vast distances. Observation-wise, yes it seems that way. Just a perception. Thanks!

Like

• khuram  On November 25, 2016 at 1:19 pm

My next question on quora is “Does Spacetime effectively mean speed?”

Moreover … what is the SI-Unit of spacetime?

Thanks in anticipation.

Like

• Galacar  On November 26, 2016 at 12:25 pm

@khuram,

Well, my question is then now, what the f*** IS spacetime?

According to me that can’t exist at all!

My two cents

Galacar

Like

• khuram  On March 14, 2017 at 1:35 pm

@drgsrinivas

With reference to this simple experiment …

I think it is Huygen’s Principle … At every point of wavefront, a new wavelet is generating. Each successive wave should be be red-shifted if this principle is correct. Huygen was contemporary of Newton so he could not relate it with red-shift.

Like

• cadxx  On March 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Thought some of you may be interested in this?
How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud?
http://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html

Like

• Galacar  On March 17, 2017 at 6:11 pm

My guess is you kow already that according to me everything in this world is a
lie and works very very different from waht we are told. Hence all of “Modern Physics’ is fillled with lies.

Point at something that isn’t filled with lies, and I will be awed!!!

My two cents

Galacar

Like

• khuram  On March 20, 2017 at 3:58 pm

@drgsrinivas

With reference to your simple experiment on water waves whose wavelength can be seen increasing.

Is it also common with sound waves?

I mean, do sound waves red-shift over distance (and not due to speed)?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On March 22, 2017 at 10:52 pm

Khuram, there is no reason to think that ‘sound waves’ behave differently from water waves or ether waves.

By the way, as I have explained elsewhere, sound is a sensation that we perceive when air waves impinge upon our ear drum. so its ultimately air waves. There isn’t any substance or medium called a ‘sound’ for there to exist ‘sound waves’. https://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/12/08/explaining-the-double-slit-experiment/#comment-6705

Our present classification of waves into sound waves, water waves, light waves etc. is rather messy. We should be classifying waves as ether waves, air waves, water waves, solid media waves etc. I have explained elsewhere about this.

Liked by 1 person

• King  On December 10, 2017 at 4:36 pm

Johan F Prins:
“you are wrong. Maxwell’s equations demand that EM wave cannot move in aether since the same differential equations with the same phase speed are valid in any inertial refferance frame for an EM wave.”

No! They are not valid in all riferance frames if we use GALILEAN TRANSFORM as opposed to LORENTZ’S TRASFORM.

Like

• Johan Prins  On December 11, 2017 at 12:06 am

Obviously the Galilean transformation applies to waves moving WITHIN matter while the Lorentz transformation applies to electromagnetic waves which DO NOT move in any medium. It is its own medium.

Like

• King  On December 10, 2017 at 5:43 pm

As for the other point raised by Johan F Prins, I think he has a good point, however there is a catch that makes Drgsrinivas a good explanation nevertheless. I will explain it below.

Drgsrinivas is asking us to pay attention to the water wave analogy so we may understand red shift. Johan is asking us to rather close exermine Maxwell’s equations. However, if we were to close exermine Newton’s Wave Equation for accoustic wave, we won’t read what drgsrinivas is pointing out either!!

Why? Simple!! Newton’s equations are idealizations that hold thermodynamics constant. In practice though, this is impossible and infact there is no medium in which waves propagate like those descibed by the equations!

Like

• King  On December 10, 2017 at 6:12 pm

The verdict:
If EM wave is a physical wave propagating in a physical medium, then Maxwell’s equations solutions for waves simply ceases being applicable exactly the way they are. This is because we must then factor in thermodynamics of the physical medium, not just its electrodynamics.

It is just like in Newton’s case. Lets consider the oscillations of a spring: we combine both Newton’s second law and Hook’s law. We write the differential equation:

Md^2x/(dt)^2=kx

Solving this, we get:

X=Xcos {t(k/m)^(1/2)}

Alas! The solution describes a thing oscillating forever! It isn’t a surpise, the equations, even those describing states of real things, don’t treat the things, like springs in this case as real things. It treats them as ideal things

Like

• King  On December 10, 2017 at 7:26 pm

I forgot to mension that Johan F Prins also mensioned that unlike in all mechanical waves, EM waves as described by Maxwell’s equations doesn’t have the interplay between kinetic and potential energy. Well, this might be understandable in the modern sense where the electric field, E, is described in abstract sense devoid of its possible origin in charged particles.

However, this isn’t how Maxwell himself understood ‘E’ in aether. There is the ‘displacement current’ whereby the original Maxwell’s explanation is ignored! Specifically, write

E=q/Ae

Where E is the electric field crossing a region of cross section area given by A. q is the charge causing the E. So when we have the differential equation

dE/dt=dq/dt{1/Ae)

We know that dq/dt(1/A) is electric current density. But for every current, there is kinetic energy. Ergo as long as there is oscillation of E, there is an implied interplay of kinetic and potential energy in aether!

Like

• Johan Prins  On December 10, 2017 at 11:59 pm

King forgets that Maxwell’s equations are derived from electrodynamics anif if Maxwell’s equations are wrong in demanding that the speed of light is the same relative to any and all objects no matter with which speed each of them is moving relative to the other objects then electrodynamics must be wrong. So I suggest that King should re-read elementary books on physics before making an even bigger fool of himself.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On December 11, 2017 at 7:30 pm

Johan Prins, unfortunately, not only your high level physics books but even the elementary physics books need rewriting. So don’t swear by what is in your elementary books.
The starting point for science is observation. So start from an observation (which yourself and others can easily observe) and build your argument from there and take us to your ‘electrodynamics’ if you really want to prove your constant SOL notion. Arguments in mid-air or swearing by religious theories won’t really help us understand Nature.

The discipline of science is spoiled at all levels. Unless we start from the scratch, whatever we speak is going to be flawed.

Like

• King  On December 10, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Also, by claiming that EM waves doesn’t propagate via ether just because Maxwell’s equations are invariant under Lorentz transform (and observably so) the transform, Johan resorts to the very same argument of Einstein. But this argument is fallacious because of the following explanation.

We posit aether to explain a couple of phenomena, not just the possible variation of the speed of EM waves. Indead if the latter was the sole thing aether was meant to explain, indead aether would be superfluous as explained this way:

1.)if speed of a wave is seen to vary depending on the motion of the frame of riferance it is measured, then the hypothesis that we are moving relative to the medium it propagates in explains that variation well.
2.)The speed of EM waves is seen to be same regardless of the motion of the frame
3.)ergo we need no hypothesis of aether to explain varying speeds of the wave simply because there isn’t such a variation.

However, using the above reasoning ignores other things aether explains!!

Like

• King  On December 10, 2017 at 9:23 pm

To make matters worse, it ignores the most important phenomena aether was meant to explain: how causes and effects are connected over vast distances.

It is surprising how physicists got slopy. If they applied such consistently, it would be like throwing away Einstein’s relativity solely on the grounds that it predict wormholes and non of these has been observed, ignoring other things the theory was meant to explain.

Why didn’t the usual thing happen: limiting the domain of applicability of a theory instead of throwing it away, when it came to aether?

Like

• King  On December 11, 2017 at 11:49 am

Johan Prins:
There is something that you miss. Maxwell’s equations per-se doesn’t demand that the speed of light is same as measured in all inertial frames. Einsteins relativity (or Lorentz Transforms) demands that, not Maxwell’s theory.

What if then Lorentz’s Transforms are wrong and Em waves propagated in a medium relative to which the earth moves? Then we would have speed of light that varys with the motion of the frame. Does this make Maxwell’s equations wrong? Nope! It merely demand that we must specify which frame when APPLYING them.

Remember also that again, it isn’t Maxwell’s theory that demands all laws of phyc must be mathematically same as viewed in all inertial frames. That was a mere math aestetics considerations having to do with noting that Newton’s laws enjoy this symmetry.

Liked by 1 person

• King  On December 11, 2017 at 12:26 pm

Let me see if I can elucidate the matter even better.

When we close exermine Maxwell’s equations, we realize that unlike Newt’s equations, they aren’t Galilean invariant. On the contrary, they are Lorentz Invariant.

A tricky point missed by Johan and by many is that the tranforms doesn’t have to corespond to anything in reality for the equations to be valid. Invariance can remain to be just a mathematical consideration. On the contrary, it is a different postulate wholetogether that demands that laws of phyc be invariant as applied in real world (as opposed to invariance being a mere math thing). Neither Newt’s nor Maxwell’s equations per-se demands this.

Like

• King  On December 11, 2017 at 3:53 pm

Johan also says:

“obviously the Galilean transformation applies to waves moving WITHIN matter while the Lorentz transformation applies to electromagnetic waves which DO NOT move in any medium”

Nope!! Acoustic waves are described by the same same wave equation that is mathematicaly perfectly identical to those of EM waves:

D^2y/(Dx)^2=1/U^2(D^2Y/(DX)^2

This equation is LORENTZ INVARIANT and not galilean invariant!! Try it! Use the lorentz factor as 1/{1-(v/u)^2}^(1/2). In this case u is the speed of sound.

Infact Lorentz transform was known way before lorentz and was originally used in the context of fluid mechanics. All those relativistic effects have coresponding analogies in fluid mechanics!

Like I said, the question is never the simplistic issue of what transform the equation is invariant with respect to. The question is what does this transform got to do with reality? The answer requires another theory, in case of EM, relativity is that theory.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On December 15, 2017 at 2:32 pm

“In fact Lorentz transform was known way before lorentz and was originally used in the context of fluid mechanics. All those relativistic effects have coresponding analogies in fluid mechanics!” this one statement I think explains almost everything that is discussed on this blog.

And, King, thank you for presenting the concepts in mathematical terms. That should satisfy minds who ‘understand’ only mathematical language and who are obsessed about maths!
🎄🎄🎄

Like

• King  On December 11, 2017 at 4:18 pm

If we are carefull, it is easy to see the interpratation of Lorentz Transforms as applied to acoustic waves etc. Certain rulers and clocks can suffer alterations if they work while imerced in a flud (like for instance a pendulum tick slowlier in water etc)

So there is nothing peculiar to EM waves when it comes to measuring and finding out that a speed of a wave is same in all inertial frames. On the contrary, measurements done solely within the medium tend to give this. It is only that in the case of EM, we haven’t figured out how to ‘come out of aether’.

The verdict is that the question of invariance under Lorentz Transform has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a wave requires a medium! Einstein’s reasoning was a typical example of non sequitur logical fallacy.

Like

• Aether  On December 15, 2017 at 1:05 am

“C” in Maxwell’s equations is a relationship between permittivity and permeability. A ratio. That’s it. It’s not clear to me that the SOL is a universal speed limit either. Tesla claimed to have measured waves within the earth faster than C. Others have claimed to have experimentally verified waves faster that C (with an average velocity of C*Pi/2).

Liked by 1 person

• Aether  On December 15, 2017 at 1:07 am

Johan Prins,

If light moves in a vacuum as you say (no kinetic energy, only potential energy) can we see light in space with our eyes? Can we see the sun or the stars while in space?

Like

• King  On December 15, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Aether, I think you raise a very good issue. One may ask: can we regard the ratio of permitivity to permiability in vacume to be frame dependent, given that velocities are frame dependent?

Well, naughta, and I hereby explain: lets first the analogy of waves propagating along a rope. These waves have velocity given by the ration of tension to density, i.e c^2=T/p. But this is only because T, being force and thus related to acceleration ‘a’ mean that T/p=ax. From simple calculus, we know that final velocity, c is given by c^2=u^2+2ax, where u=initial velocity. Setting u=0, we have ax=c^2/2=T/p. This mean that the velocity of waves along the rope is just the average velocity of molecules in the rope, spaced apart by distance x, and accelerated back and fort by tension T.

So such is the general meaning of waves: scrap off the whatever ratios and equate c^2 directly to 2ax, the ratios, such as permitivity to permiability merely serve to create relevant accelerations.

Like

• King  On December 15, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Having now noted that c for any wave is just same as (2ax)^(1/2), we can now see a fundamental problem with Einstein etc reasoning! The ‘volocity’ gotten via calculus, such as those of waves simply doesn’t add to the ‘linear velocity’ in a relativistic sence. We can equate c=(2ax)^(1/2) but having the care that this doesn’t mean that given that c is frame dependent, (2ax)^(1/2) must also be frame dependent. Naughta! Neither ‘a’ nor ‘x’ are frame dependent, but c is!

The bottom line is that the so called ‘wave equation’ for EM is correct as writen with the product eu, (e=permeability, u=permitivity), BUT WE MUST BE CAREFUL WHEN EQUATING eu TO A VELOCITY SUCH AS ‘c’!!

Like

• Aether  On December 21, 2017 at 3:01 am

King, I use d instead of x.

E = mc^2. c^2 = 1/eu ==> E = m/(eu) – interesting, no?. Distorting Maxwell was a mistake. Also, W = E = Fd = mad. I’m confused! Do we need mass for energy if photons have no mass? Also, by the standard definition, energy requires an acceleration. And yet, by the standard definition of kinetic energy, no acceleration is required.

Way to many contradictions for me. What a mess physics has become.

Like

• Aether  On December 16, 2017 at 3:23 am

Drg, King, Johan Prins,

Tesla wrote no books. Rumors and newspaper articles aside, all we have are his patents, his inventions, some letters and some lectures. I found this pre-deposition of Nikola Tesla fascinating. What is the average velocity of Tesla’s Earth current from pole to pole in Fig 82? Tesla clearly didn’t hold that “C” is a universal speed limit.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm

Like

• King  On December 16, 2017 at 11:07 pm

Perharps the reason why many practicaly minded guys like Tesla finds it problematic to suppose a universaly constant speed of light is that it does vary from medium to medium. So just what is this ‘vacume’? Engineers know that such a state is an ‘alice in the wonderland’ pipe dream!

Physicists have come to note that quantum field theory demands an event akin to ‘particles poping into existence’, of which it is easier to understand if we think of ‘vacume’ as any other medium. Farthermore, thus any quantum field theory becomes an as an EFFECTIVE FIELD THEORY as any other condense matter field theory. This is the modern approach to renormalization as explained by Keneth Wilson.

Like

• King  On December 23, 2017 at 1:28 pm

AETHER:

‘Do we need mass for energy if photon has no mass?’

Good question!

To see this, we must keep a close eye (with a thorny club ready in our hand) at how Einstein derives his E=mc^2. We spot eror in his reasoning which leads him to conclude ‘photon has energy but no rest mass’!

He for instance begines with the usual equation for the so called spacetime interval:

ds^2=dx^+dy^2+dz^2-cdt)^2

He now wishes to perform accelerations on these dx, dy, dz and ds. Wing wing yada yada, somewhere, he multiplies through by m and the hides the left’s mdsd^2s^dt^2 by subtituting it with E, and herein lies the problem! Though he uses the same m both at the right and at the left, he wishes to identify kinetic energy with mass only at the right!!. Actually, we should have something like:

mu^2=mv^2-mc^2, for some velocity, u, so that when v=0(rest mass), we have u=c. But Einstein hids u by equating mu^2 with E so that when v=0, we have E=mc^2.

u here is the velocity along the ‘ds’ …

M’=mB

Like

• King  On December 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm

So what is ‘ds’? As you know, relativists creats further obfucications by inventing another ‘dimension’. However, such mesmerisms are both false and unecesary.

Infact modern physicist should even know better (shame on him) cause we now know that the math of phyc are largely scale dependent. For instance, when saying v=0 for a macroscopic object, it makes perfect sense to limit such to macroscopic scale.

Velocity is VECTOR, as such, saying v=0 isn’t the whole story, infact, even if a particle doesn’t move in any of x,y or z, we can still interprate ds as a tiny motion in a direction othorgonal to the direction of usual motion. So a particle SPINNING at u as it moves services. That is to say v=0 doesn’t mean a particle isn’t spinning.

So must a photon move to have mass? Nope, we can simply be content that all particles in our univers spin at c even at rest. So there is no true rest. The relativistic mass increas is applicable only to the v motion (to to the spin), cause it is the macroscopic scale.

Like

• King  On December 23, 2017 at 4:51 pm

Aether:

‘Also, by the standard definition, energy requires an acceleration. And yet, by the standard definition of kinetic energy no acceleration is required’

Shuch is exactly what I was talking of. Actually, an expression for energy (work done as per fd definition) should read,

But we have a relationship:

By herein is a contradiction! Though both v and u are frame dependent, neither a nor d is! This mean equating mad with 1/2mv^2 should be done with care. Further info explaining what we are doing is necesary! FINAL VELOCITY should mean an entirely different thing in phyc than just VELOCITY. Same applies to DISTANCE MOVED should mean different from just DISTANCE even if they both have same MAGNITUDE.

Like

• mark  On April 21, 2018 at 6:04 am

About the invariability of light speed. Well, it can and does vary in different mediums. But can it go faster? You say maybe, but let us take another constant that varies a bit depending on the medium. Sound. The speed of sound slows but never goes faster than 760mph. A gunshot from a speed car still radiates out at only 760 in every direction. Not 860 in the forward direction and 660 in the other direction. A continuous sound, gets compressed or stretched, but although the sound is distorted, the sound still radiates out at 760mph. So maybe it’s like that for light too? check my website http://www.zeccano.com just a collection of my thoughts about Relativity.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On May 3, 2018 at 10:39 am

“—but let us take another constant that varies a bit depending on the medium. Sound.”

Mark, you have rightly mentioned on your blog that people can’t use the very theory that you are arguing against to say why you are wrong! That also applies to ‘science as a whole’. The whole science has become so much corrupt that going by the teachings of the established science only misleads us and drives us farther from truth. Basically science needs to be rebuilt from the scratch.

There exist as many myths about sound as there are about light. Sound velocity not only varies in different mediums, it also varies in the same medium. That is, sound doesn’t travel with a constant velocity in air medium even when the temperature, pressure and other things are kept constant. The teaching that sound travels in air at a speed of 340meters /sec is only a myth, and so is the teaching that it travels at 1500meters/sec in water.

If you dwell deeper, you would realize that there isn’t anything called a sound wave. Sound is a sensation that we perceive when air waves, water waves etc hit our sensory mechanism at certain frequency and intensity. So it is ultimately air waves, water waves etc and there isn’t anything called a sound wave per se.

We know that air waves and water waves can travel at different velocities. For example a water wave can travel as slow as a snail or it can travel as fast as a an aircraft (and probably more). In other words, the water waves that carry the sensation of sound can travel at different velocities.

Same is the case with light waves. What we call as light waves are nothing but ether waves or vibrations of the ether medium. And like water waves, ether waves could travel at variable speeds. Of course the maximum velocity of ether waves could be much higher than that of the water waves. But the point is that ether waves’s velocity is not constant.

And finally, even in air, water, glass etc, it is still the ether medium which transmits the light signals. That is, the air or water or glass particles per se do not transmit the light signals, rather it is the ether medium (which fills the space between those above particles) which transmits the light signals.

Like

• Laurence Crossen  On August 16, 2022 at 11:40 pm

I agree that the Big Bang is false because the velocity-distance relationship is incorrect since the correct explanation is tired light. Then what do you think of the fact that relativity theory claims that it is not the frequency of light that changes but the wavelength? I certainly regard their claim as ridiculous and would like good discussions and sources..

Like

• Mark  On August 17, 2022 at 6:52 am

Two ideas I would like everyone’s opinion on, related to this subject.
First, the famous two postulates of Special Relativity are nonsense as far as I can determine. Especially in the way Einstein changed the meaning of the postulate of the constancy of Light, half way through his paper, without mentioning that he was altering it.
Second, can anyone give a reasonable justification for the existence for the the Lorentz Equation? Its not applicable to anything as far as I can see. Its just a exercise in abstract Math.

Like

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.