Explaining the Polarization of Light

As expected, our physicists’ understanding of polarization is as bad as their understanding of wave motion.

Basically as I have explained elsewhere, there exists only one type of waves i.e. longitudinal waves. The so called transverse waves that we see on the surface of a pond only represent the surface manifestation of the underlying longitudinal waves. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/22/revamping-wave-mechanics/

A wave proper is actually a 3-dimensional phenomenon (hemispherical or umbrella shaped) which moves away from its source as it propagates in the medium. We can imagine a ‘transverse wave’ as something like the horizontal section of that 3-dimensional phenomenon or wave proper. In other words, what we see as a ‘transverse wave’ or a tide on the surface of a pond merely represents the ‘cut edge’ of a much larger, submerged 3-dimensional phenomenon.

‘Transverse waves’ being a surface manifestation, they lend themselves for direct observation and whatever we observe of the surface waves holds true for the underlying longitudinal waves because the former is nothing but the surface manifestation of the latter.

I am proposing that light waves are nothing but longitudinal waves (or ‘umbrellas’) traveling in the cosmic ocean of Ether (just like the sound waves traveling in water or air medium). And as is the case with sound waves, the ether particles oscillate to and fro as light waves propagate in the ether medium.

Now how do we explain polarization of light waves? Very simple if one understands what actually happens in polarization.

Imagine a point source that generates a continuous train of circular waves in a pond of still water (of course, they are actually spherical waves if we take into account of the submerged ‘longitudinal’ part). As the waves propagate in the pond, they remain parallel to each other and hence don’t cross or interfere with each other. This is what happens in polarized waves: all waves lie parallel to each other and remain in harmony as they travel. The waves don’t cross each other at any point. (In 3-D space, polarized waves may be imagined as series of parallelly arranged umbrellas)

Now imagine a cluster of point sources and each generating a train of waves. Obviously waves from one point source cross or interfere with those from other point sources as they propagate. And this is exactly what happens with unpolarized waves. Different waves interfere with each other in a random/ haphazard manner.

These unpolarized water waves become polarized if we make them pass through a slit. Also, as waves propagate in the pond, they become polarized to some extent i.e. they tend to arrange themselves parallel to one another.

The above model explains polarization in simple and clear terms. Of course, a lot more happens at a deeper level.

Actually the explanation provided by the physicists for light polarization is rather messy (as is always the case in physics). They first describe light waves as transverse waves with electrical and magnetic fields oscillating at right angles to each other. Then they ignore the magnetic field component and imagine light waves as having only the electric field component. Thus ‘by convention’, they depict EM waves as having only electric field component when they talk about polarization. Now it becomes easy for them to explain how the light waves with vertically oscillating electric fields pass though the vertical slits in the polaroid filter. The magnetic field which supposedly oscillates at right angles to the electric field, apparently doesn’t hinder the passage of light waves through the slits. Why? Well, our physicists decided to ignore the magnetic field, so it doesn’t exist for them! So the horizontally oscillating magnetic field can’t stop the light waves from passing trough the vertical slits! Isn’t that a great explanation?

What is pity is that our physicists don’t realize the difference between ‘conventional’ and ‘real’ while they explain the phenomenon of polarization of light!

April 29, 2018 – 5:44 pm Categories: Science with Sense | Comments (6)

Twin Flights and the Dumb Stats

Contrary to the claims of the dumb scientists, the atomic clocks’ readings in the historical twin flight experiment actually didn’t obey the formulae of the relativity religion, neither from the perspective of the earth bound observer nor from the perspective of the on-flight observers. So, in their desperate attempt to rescue their religion and prove their time dilation delusion, the relativists have introduced ‘proper time’ and the ‘centre of earth observer’. Actually there isn’t anything like ‘proper time’ in the original version or the ‘old testament’ of relativity religion!

But even from the perspective of ‘centre of Earth’, I don’t think that the atomic clocks that were carried on the flights ticked exactly as per the stupid formulas of relativity. If they really did, there wouldn’t have been any need to rely upon the ‘magical’ statistics to support their religious predictions. Let me explain that.

Apparently, in the twin flight experiment, the experimenters carried four atomic clocks on each flight. As all the clocks were synchronised before the take off, and because the clocks in each flight were subjected to same velocity and gravity and acceleration, we would expect that all the four clocks on each flight would show exactly the same reading (as dictated by the relativity religion) even after going around the earth several times.

But that didn’t happen. For example, if we look at the data from the twin flight experiment, we can see that the east bound clocks differed from the ground clock by 59ns plus minus 10ns (where 10 is the standard deviation). In other words if one east bound clock differed by 69ns, another east bound clock differed by 49ns with the ground clock. So there was a difference of at least 20ns between the clocks on the east bound flight (In fact that would be much more than 20ns if we look at the actual readings of the clocks. See the relationship between range and standard deviation http://statistics.about.com/od/Descriptive-Statistics/a/Range-Rule-For-Standard-Deviation.htm).

That is each of the four clocks had ticked differently despite being synchronised at the beginning and travelling at the same velocity/ acceleration/ gravity. How to explain this difference? Shall we blame it was the Time which ran differently for each clock on the east bound flight and hence the incongruence? But that would be stupid even as per the standards of the stupid religion of relativity.

The fact that all the clocks in the east bound flight didn’t show the same reading just proves that even atomic clocks are prone to errors like any other clocks. It would be stupid to accept standard errors (however small it may be) in the analysis here. Accepting standard errors mean accepting the influence of some hidden/unknown variables on the functioning of the atomic clocks. When unknown influences could affect the functioning of atomic clocks, then why not motion and gravity affect them in a similar way? So how can we swear upon those ‘errors’ in the atomic clocks’ readings caused by differences in motion and gravity as proof of time dilation?

So we can only make one of the two following conclusions out of the twin flight experiment:
1) Either we have to accept that even atomic clocks get affected by various factors (known and unknown) like other clocks. So the observed differences in the atomic clock readings can’t be taken as proof of time dilation.

2) Or if we have to interpret the different readings of the atomic clocks as proof of Time dilation, then we must accept that relativity theory utterly failed to predict/ explain the Time dilation experienced by each atomic clock (despite all the fudging and ‘inventing’ mythical concepts like ‘proper time’).

Coming to our original question that “why the atomic clocks got affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of GR and SR?”, the clocks didn’t actually get affected as exactly predicted by relativity. Rather the observed variations in the behaviour/ticking of the atomic clocks can be better explained by the spinning Ether model that I have proposed to explain gravity. Actually, atomic clocks don’t get slowed with faster motion or stronger gravity unlike what the deluded physicists imagine. They in fact do the opposite i.e. they tick faster with faster motion in a medium. Thus atomic clocks don’t behave differently from the pendulum clocks.

Here is the explanation for that. The tension in a string varies depending upon whether the string is at rest or whether it is moving with respect to the surrounding medium. As a string moves in a medium, the string gets stretched/ deformed i.e. the tension in the string increases. And as its tension increase, its frequency of oscillation increases. Similarly, when a tuning fork is moved fast in a medium, its prongs get deformed or stretched and its frequency of oscillation increases. Same must be the case with atomic clocks and pendulum clocks. That is, the clocks actually oscillate/tick faster when they move with respect to the medium. And the faster the clock moves, the faster it ticks!

In the twin flight experiment, though both the flights moved with equal velocity with respect to the ground observer, the west ward flight moved at a much higher velocity than the east ward flight with respect to the ether medium. (The reason is that the west ward flight moved against the ether wind while the east ward flight moved in the same direction as the ether wind). That explains why the clocks in west ward flight ticked faster and the east ward clocks ticked slower. The situation of the ‘stationary’ ground clocks is in between the above two. There is absolutely no need to bring in ‘the center of earth’ observer or invent mythical notions like ‘proper time’ etc, to explain the results of the twin flight experiment.

March 15, 2018 – 8:10 pm Categories: Science with Sense | Comments (3)

Tagged , , , |