Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:23 pm

I would like to start this thread for the sole purpose of consolodating into one place all the chief arguments falsifying STR/GTR. Hyperlinks to other papers, articles, forum posts, thunderblogs or other resources are acceptable, just make sure you give a header/description for each and their relation to STR/GTR.

One thing I keep coming up against in my myriad of readings on physics are statements like this:
D.R. Faulkner wrote:Both Newtonian physics and general relativity have tremendous amounts of experimental data supporting them. [1]
D.R. Faulkner wrote:[Donald] Scott’s approach here is typical of those who distrust general relativity theory—they conveniently omit the vast body of evidence in support of general relativity. General relativity has been one of the most experimentally tested theories of all time... [2]
No citations, evidence, or examples of STR/GTR are ever given. It is simply deemed 'established', that the reader fully comprehends the breadth and extent of the evidence, the hands are dusted and the world moves on.

As a non-physicist I cannot read between the lines here, but I really wish to understand the main arguments of STR/GTR. What exactly are 'the tremendous amounts of experimental data supporting' STR/GTR? What are the evidences put forward by the relativists demonstrating that GTR 'has been one of the most experimentally tested theories of all time'?

And, most importantly, what are the specific counter-arguments set forth by EU/PU proponents that empirically falsify the assumptions of STR/GTR, and/or offer superior explanations of extant STR/GTR predictions?

Any assistance in this collation of materials would be greatly appreciated.

[1] D.R. Faulkner, "An Evaluation of Plasma Astronomy." Answers Research Journal 6 (2013):306
[2] Faulkner, 306-307. And yes, Faulkner should have critiqued Peratt's 1992 ed. of Physics of the Plasma Universe as a better starting point on plasma cosmology. I found his critique one of the lamest examples of Einsteinian buttkissing I've ever read.

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by crawler » Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:58 pm

The G O Mueller project -- is a good existing site re the stupidity of STR & GTR.
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index ... _O_Mueller
https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf
Me myself i hav 36 pdf's of papers in my anti-relativity folder, & 22 htm's.
Plus i hav over 1000 pdf's of papers that are all anti-relativity in one way or another in other folders.

The only experiment "confirming" STR or GTR that is of the slightest worry to me is the bending of light passing the sun. Here somehow Einstein was lucky when calculating the correct figure of 1.75 arcsec, ie double the 0.87 arcsec ballistic or "Newtonian" bending. His theory etc is of course wrong, but the worry is what is the correct explanation.
The answer is i think solved by Einstein's idea that light is slowed by the nearness of mass, his only worthwhile contribution to science that i know of. But that too is due to luck, he is i think correct re such slowing, but for wrong reasons. Anyhow this slowing must contribute a half of the known bending.

The "first" half of the bending (0.87 arcsec) is correct but for wrong reasons, ie it is not ballistic (i can explain).
Anyhow i will be interested to see what comes up here in this thread re that there bending.

The strange thing is that the Einsteinian mafia today ignore the slowing of light near mass. Amazing.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by webolife » Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:49 pm

I agree that the light refraction about/around/beside an object is not ballistic.
My own perception is that it is a geometric consequence of the light field pressure gradient elicited optically at the "ostensible edge" of the the solar disk. The same phenomenon accounts for the atmospheric coronal gradient of the two red phases of sunrise and sunset at the horizon. While differential absorption/reflection of colors also plays a part, the geometry of the resulting pressure gradient matches the Newtonian bending observation. It is also ultimately responsible for slit diffraction and the misunderstanding of interference originating with Thomas Young. For a surprisingly simple demonstration that has nothing to do with light interacting with a large mass, take a small object -- a pencil, for example -- and hold it up to a reading lamp or other bright or point source of light. Focus your vision on the ostensible edge of the pencil with the light shining behind it, and you observe the red "sunrise" of the light field at the pencil's edge. Any edge will do, but under the right conditions you can see the red fringe of light both above and below the pencil. With a little practice you can hold any opaque edge up to a discrete light source, and as you slowly move the edge back and forth across the eclipsed light, you will observe the optical "focussing" of tiny parallel lines reminiscent of "Newton's Rings" that have come to be known as diffraction, and around a beamsplitter as interference. It can be surprisingly easily demonstrated that the so-called "interference" pattern elicited by a double slit has nothing to do with reinforcement and cancellation of wave fronts. Back to the start, the starlight at the sun's edge is imaged via the same light field that produces a flash spectrogram, in the view of this light pressure field proposal.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.


crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by crawler » Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:00 am

STR & GTR. Komplete shite.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:09 am

The problem is that a lot of these are mathematical proofs, like "there is no frame of reference with speed c".

The mathematical proofs and experiments avoid the problem areas.
Problem areas are edge-cases, where the theory or experiment might give a problem.
Some of these edge-cases are related to "paradoxes", but there are many more.

S.Crowther often shows how there are many unsolved mathematical problems.
Like: it is impossible to define time as a dimension. / Lorentz sphere is not a sphere in relativity.
Or: the black hole maths uses some rules from Newton's gravity.

The areas that they do test are mostly related to static aether and some versions of dynamic aether.
These problem areas are related to variants that are static aether.

Some interesting paradoxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

Both can actually be tested via lasers or electron particle beams.
Because laser-light has a certain wavelength,
we can measure the distance by counting the number of waves.
The light or electrons move with a speed close to C.
And as you can already see, these waves do not get any longer or shorter.
Rotation can be done via glass-fibre or magnetic field.

This means that the ladder_paradox does not encounter any change in length.
Nor does the Ehrenfest paradox encounter any change in circumference.
This means that Einstein's relativity can not apply in these cases.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:43 am

Appreciate the resources so far! I do hope to make a summary, especially of key relativistic predictions, since this seems to come up frequently enough in various discussions.

The next step will be attempting to improve my math so I can actually understand the equations in Peratt's plasma textbook! That will be far more difficult a process! :shock:

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by nick c » Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:39 pm

Here is an index with a wealth of links many of which present some thought provoking critiques of Einstein's work.
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#index

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:29 pm

Roman Ulrich Sexl wrote:Mathematics lessons are the systematic abuse of a formula language specially invented for this purpose.[1]
Not an encouraging start! :lol:

[1] Zitat aus WEBER / MENDOZA, 1. Auflg., Seite 146: "Mathematikunterricht ist der systematische Missbrauch einer eigens dazu erfundenen Formelsprache."

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by crawler » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:38 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:09 am
The problem is that a lot of these are mathematical proofs, like "there is no frame of reference with speed c".

The mathematical proofs and experiments avoid the problem areas.
Problem areas are edge-cases, where the theory or experiment might give a problem.
Some of these edge-cases are related to "paradoxes", but there are many more.

S.Crowther [Stephen Crothers] often shows how there are many unsolved mathematical problems.
Like: it is impossible to define time as a dimension. / Lorentz sphere is not a sphere in relativity.
Or: the black hole maths uses some rules from Newton's gravity.

The areas that they do test are mostly related to static aether and some versions of dynamic aether.
These problem areas are related to variants that are static aether.

Some interesting paradoxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

Both can actually be tested via lasers or electron particle beams.
Because laser-light has a certain wavelength,
we can measure the distance by counting the number of waves.
The light or electrons move with a speed close to C.
And as you can already see, these waves do not get any longer or shorter.
Rotation can be done via glass-fibre or magnetic field.

This means that the ladder_paradox does not encounter any change in length.
Nor does the Ehrenfest paradox encounter any change in circumference.
This means that Einstein's relativity can not apply in these cases.
Good stuff. However, the ladder paradox is not a paradox within STR, it is a contradiction (in which case STR is false).
Within Lorentzian Relativity it is neither a contradiction nor a paradox, no conflict arises at all. All observers (observers are all length contracted due to the aetherwind) can see whether the speeding ladder (which is length contracted due to the aetherwind) will fit in the shed (which is length contracted due to the aetherwind). However this doesn't mean that LR version of LC is true (it almost certainly isn't perfectly true)(however aether & aetherwind are true). I should add, whether a speeding ladder that at rest will not fit in a shed will fit in a shed will depend on the direction of the background aetherwind & the direction of the ladder. If the ladder is speeding with the aetherwind then the nett wind will be less & the ladder will actually be longer than when at rest (when i say at rest i don't mean that the aetherwind is zero kmps, i mean that the ladder & shed have the same aetherwind).

The Ehrenfest paradox is a paradox within STR, but it is not a contradiction within STR. Therefore we cant use the EP to try to show the truth or falsity of STR.
Within Lorentz Relativity the Ehrenfest effect would result in some parts of the circumference of the spinning disk being contracted (if the spin of that part is into the background aetherwind) & some parts being stretched (if the spin of that part is with the background aetherwind), giving a nett change of zero.

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by crawler » Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:45 pm

nick c wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:39 pm
Here is an index with a wealth of links many of which present some thought provoking critiques of Einstein's work.
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#index
Very good. I am having a read.
I notice however that he fails to point out that STR was dead at birth, because the MMX was not null, it showed an aetherwind, ie an aether, & if aether then we hav an absolute reference frame, & all of Einsteinology is false. And all modern MMXs are not null.

I enjoy reading small nit picking criticisms showing the flaws in all aspects of STR & GTR. But we need only prove that aether exists. Einstein himself said so. Einsteinology, a theory proven wrong before it was invented.

Reading further. Thomas Smid it appears doesn't believe in aether (or ether). However he quite correctly points out that relative velocities of more than c are possible. Most aetherists would i think say that almost 2c is possible (eg observers moving at almost c in opposite directions). Anyhow Smid appears to have some novel arguments against STR & GTR.

https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/michelson-morley.htm Smid makes some interesting comments re the theory behind MMXs. But he himself makes a mistake. His criticism of the MMX theory refers merely to the calibration, ie kmps of the aetherwind per fringe drift. Correct calibration is not important. What is important is the measurement of a fringe drift that is nearly sinusoidal in a half turn (found), & which changes in a systematic way during a sidereal day (found), ie not per a solar day (per solar day would most likely be due to temp effects not aetherwind).

However the best MMX ever done was carried out by Demjanov in 1968-72, it used air & carbon disulphide, & was 1000 times as sensitive as MMXs done in air, & strangely enough it was periodic in a full turn (not a half turn). http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0038v1.pdf

And then we have the coupled shutters X of Marinov, showing an aetherwind effect, the wind changing during a day, giving a graph similar to Demjanov (however Marinov & Demjanov were not aware of each other's work). https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612201.pdf
http://ether.wikiext.org/wiki/Stefan_Ma ... ent_(1983)
Cahill points out that Marinov's aetherwind is approx. 90 deg off the usual aetherwind found by MMXs. I can supply the reason for this. It is because Marinov measures two aetherwind effects. One is the speed of the aetherwind projected along the axis of his X. The other effect, unknown to Marinov, is a change in the lumens due to diffraction. Diffraction is affected mostly by the aetherwind perpendicular to the axis of his X, & i reckon that the sidewind diffraction effect is stronger than the tailwind/headwind effect. Anyhow the correct calibration for kmps of the aetherwind is a minor matter. The correct calibration of the direction of the aetherwind is more important. But in any case the coupled shutters X identifies an aetherwind, ie an aether, ie an absolute reference frame, ie a preferred frame, & STR is a dead duck, which means that GTR is a dead duck.
Last edited by crawler on Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:34 pm

crawler wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:45 pm
..But we need only prove that aether exists.
I think this failed already.
The tests on wikipedia seem to show that.

If we look at the Maxwell equations, we can see that they almost look like a fluid equation.
That is because it is made to look that way, because the scientists thought there was an aether.
Now we are stuck with the idea of some kind of super-fluid.

But the maxwell equations are wrong.
The maxwell equations do not consider time-delays in distances, or delays in circuit movement,
or delays in dielectric reaction, or a homopolar generator.
If these equations are wrong, it means that the basic idea of aether is wrong too.

The equations also stink of mathematical perfectionism,
just as Einstein ideas stink of mathematical perfectionism.
This means that these theories are stepping away from basic reality, for perfectionism.

So what if we started with nothing to begin with?

I think that Einstein was right with only one thing:
The electric field is the same as the magnetic field.

And with a moving electrical field, I can deduct the magnetic force,
just using the Coulomb equation. ( F= q1*q2 / R^2 )
In strength, the magnetic field is just a consequence of the time-delay in the moving electrical fields.
Hint: the R becomes (R + v1*t + v2*t).

With an alternating electric field, I can get electromagnetic waves.
They are just a delayed alternating electric field.

In essence it is all very simple, without using any relativity nor any aether.
I just used the obvious delay that the electric force has when it moves through space.

So why not start with the NULL-hypothesis and start from there?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by crawler » Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:02 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:34 pm
crawler wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:45 pm
..But we need only prove that aether exists.
I think this failed already.
The tests on wikipedia seem to show that.

If we look at the Maxwell equations, we can see that they almost look like a fluid equation.
That is because it is made to look that way, because the scientists thought there was an aether.
Now we are stuck with the idea of some kind of super-fluid.

But the maxwell equations are wrong.
The maxwell equations do not consider time-delays in distances, or delays in circuit movement,
or delays in dielectric reaction, or a homopolar generator.
If these equations are wrong, it means that the basic idea of aether is wrong too.

The equations also stink of mathematical perfectionism,
just as Einstein ideas stink of mathematical perfectionism.
This means that these theories are stepping away from basic reality, for perfectionism.

So what if we started with nothing to begin with?

I think that Einstein was right with only one thing:
The electric field is the same as the magnetic field.

And with a moving electrical field, I can deduct the magnetic force,
just using the Coulomb equation. ( F= q1*q2 / R^2 )
In strength, the magnetic field is just a consequence of the time-delay in the moving electrical fields.
Hint: the R becomes (R + v1*t + v2*t).

With an alternating electric field, I can get electromagnetic waves.
They are just a delayed alternating electric field.

In essence it is all very simple, without using any relativity nor any aether.
I just used the obvious delay that the electric force has when it moves through space.

So why not start with the NULL-hypothesis and start from there?
I don't understand Maxwell. However Ionel Dinu has 11 papers that point out Maxwell's errors. And Hertz's errors. And shows that an electric field is not necessary, we need a magnetic field only. https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journ ... el,%20Dinu

Re MMXs & the aether, Cahill points out that an MMX in vacuum must give a null result. He says that an MMX in vacuum giving a null fringe drift merely proves that (Heaviside) FitzGerald Lorentz length contraction exists, & that the FitzGerald Lorentz (Larmor) equation for gamma is true.
Cahill has about 40 papers on MMXs etc. Here is one...... https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0205065.pdf

An MMX in air measures a fringe drift due to aetherwind because of the Fresnel drag effect, all other effects cancel. An MMX in vacuum suffers zero Fresnel drag, hencely zero fringe drift, ie a null result.

Modern twin-laser versions of MMX's too use vacuum. Nope, u need some gas, even just a little gas should do the trick i think.

Re the Shankland hitjob (says fringe drifts were due to temp)(not so) & the Roberts hitjob (says systematic errors were not linear & hencely could not be averaged out)(not so) on the oldenday's MMXs, their analyses are fraudulent, & even i, a non-scientist, can explain. Bunch of prix.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:50 pm

I don't understand Maxwell. However Ionel Dinu has 11 papers that point out Maxwell's errors. And Hertz's errors. And shows that an electric field is not necessary, we need a magnetic field only. https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journ ... el,%20Dinu
Hmm.
Magnetic only would be really weird.
To create such a model, you need some kind of relativity or imaginary space.
It would makes stuff very complex.

Let me explain Maxwell a bit..
In basic sense, Maxwell describes Electromagnetism in concepts that I call "circuits".
Magnetism is described as a circuit ( rot(B)= J + dE/dt )
And induction is described as a circuit ( rot(E) = -dB/dt )
Where rot( X ) means a circuit around an area.

It looks weird, but they are abstractions of an underlying concept, that I explained via time-delay.

The Maxwell equations are very similar to flow equations (Navier Stokes).
Stokes is also connected to the Aether models.
And in these flow equations, there is no time, and many other simplifications.
I think that Maxwell has made very similar over simplifications, and this will change certain outcomes.

So I simply remove them, and start with the Coulomb-equation, which has been tested thoroughly.
And by adding movement and delay, we automatically get magnetism. Simple :-)

An MMX in air measures a fringe drift due to aetherwind because of the Fresnel drag effect, all other effects cancel.
For other readers:
MMX is the static aether experiment.
Fresnel drag is the change in the speed of light due to the movement of a dielectric. (Like moving water or plasma).

Wikipedia has some on aether drag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
Which one is yours?

I use the NULL hypothesis to start the scientific process..
like an engineer starts building a house with a foundation.
No Aether, and no relativity.
And still I can explain all tests.
I can even try to design tests to falsify my hypothesis.
So scientifically, it would be great to start with the basis, and
only add things if we really need to.

That way we can find things that we might not even have discovered yet,
because most scientists are to fixed on either relativity or aether.
Like maybe your aether is related to neutrinos or whatever, but we will never
discover it if we work towards a certain conclusion.
I do not want to make the same mistake that mainstream science did.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

Unread post by crawler » Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:57 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:50 pm
I don't understand Maxwell. However Ionel Dinu has 11 papers that point out Maxwell's errors. And Hertz's errors. And shows that an electric field is not necessary, we need a magnetic field only. https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journ ... el,%20Dinu
Hmm.
Magnetic only would be really weird.
To create such a model, you need some kind of relativity or imaginary space.
It would makes stuff very complex.

Let me explain Maxwell a bit..
In basic sense, Maxwell describes Electromagnetism in concepts that I call "circuits".
Magnetism is described as a circuit ( rot(B)= J + dE/dt )
And induction is described as a circuit ( rot(E) = -dB/dt )
Where rot( X ) means a circuit around an area.

It looks weird, but they are abstractions of an underlying concept, that I explained via time-delay.

The Maxwell equations are very similar to flow equations (Navier Stokes).
Stokes is also connected to the Aether models.
And in these flow equations, there is no time, and many other simplifications.
I think that Maxwell has made very similar over simplifications, and this will change certain outcomes.

So I simply remove them, and start with the Coulomb-equation, which has been tested thoroughly.
And by adding movement and delay, we automatically get magnetism. Simple :-)
An MMX in air measures a fringe drift due to aetherwind because of the Fresnel drag effect, all other effects cancel.
For other readers:
MMX is the static aether experiment.
Fresnel drag is the change in the speed of light due to the movement of a dielectric. (Like moving water or plasma).

Wikipedia has some on aether drag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
Which one is yours?

I use the NULL hypothesis to start the scientific process..
like an engineer starts building a house with a foundation.
No Aether, and no relativity.
And still I can explain all tests.
I can even try to design tests to falsify my hypothesis.
So scientifically, it would be great to start with the basis, and
only add things if we really need to.

That way we can find things that we might not even have discovered yet,
because most scientists are to fixed on either relativity or aether.
Like maybe your aether is related to neutrinos or whatever, but we will never
discover it if we work towards a certain conclusion.
I do not want to make the same mistake that mainstream science did.
I had a read of that wiki Fresnel Drag stuff. I don't agree with much of it. Aether is not dragged by a moving mass. Aether is dragged by an accelerating mass (& vice versa)(giving us gravity & inertia).

Fresnel Drag is not due to the dragging of aether, it is due to the dragging of photons by moving mass (no acceleration needed here)(ie water flowing at constant speed will do the trick).
Photons propagate at c kmps in the aether in vacuum, but c is reduced to c' near mass, & is further reduced to c" in mass (eg air water glass).
When that mass (air water glass) is moving then the aetherwind is likely to be different with the flow compared to against the flow (here i assume zero aether drag). And logically c" is affected by the moving mass, giving us say c"' if u like, which will have a different value with the flow & against the flow, c"'w & c"'a if u like.

Unfortunately some aetherists reckon that Fresnel Drag is due to some kind of dispersion of the photons, some kind of micro deviations, & that c is not affected, ie that the apparent slowing of c in air water glass is due to extra distance, more than that, that FD is due to extra extra distance against the flow & less extra distance with the flow. I don't agree with any of that.

The slowing of light in mass is just a stronger case of the slowing of light near mass. We can thank Einstein for introducing the slowing of light near mass, even tho he used false reasoning. But all other aetherists don't know or believe in the slowing of light near/in mass. Hell, even Einsteinologists ignore it, the one good idea that Einstein ever came up with (within GTR anyhow). I used to think that Shapiro Delay was a fraud, but a year ago i realised that it aint a fraud.

I think that the early MMXs did assume a static aether, partly dragged by mass. They were looking for Earth's spin 0.5 kmps, plus Earth's orbit 30 kmps. What they didn't know is that the aetherwind is also made up of 11.2 kmps of wind vertically into Earth, plus 42 kmps of wind towards the Sun, plus a background wind of say 500 kmps say 20 deg off Earth's axis. MMXs measure the horizontal component of the wind, which might vary tween say 140 kmps & 480 kmps during a sidereal day (or stellar day)(but not solar day).

Re magnetic fields. I reckon that a charge field & a magnetic field are due to two kinds of vibration of aether. Or one kind of vibration, plus shock fronts due to acceleration. Or nodes or standing waves. And if these also involve the annihilation of aether then the field will have mass & inertia. Photons annihilate aether. But charge fields & magnetic fields do not consist of photons. Anyhow, the electric field is superfluous. What we hav around a conductor (or between conductors) is the Heaviside slab of E by H energy current, not a rolling wave changing from E to B.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests