I think that it is difficult to come up with a goodish theory where aether doesnt exist. And it is difficult to come up with a goodish theory re what aether is.rickard wrote:If the aether is a reality, of what does it consist?

I will make it a little easier in the following way. There is no such thing as aether, aether is some kind of excitation of praether, praether being the fundamental essence. So now i need to explain what praether is.

Anyhow, for starters, praether (& aether) are subquantum. Everything else is quantum, ie we can directly see or feel or measure quantum things, but we can only measure praether or aether by measuring its bulk macro speed, the aetherwind, by measuring the speed of light in various directions on Earth, because photons propagate at the same speed in the aether in all directions in the lab.

So what makes praether. I think that it is a fluid rather than particles or some kind of mixture. But if a fluid then what makes the fluid. A particle of fluid? My brain is starting to hurt.

Anyhow whatever it is, i think that it is not annihilatable, whereas aether being merely a process can be annihilated. And all quantum things being merely processes of aether can too be annihilated.

Anyhow that fluid must be very hard, & it cant be very sticky, & it cant be very viscous. But it must be a bit sticky & a bit viscous, otherwise it couldnt make anything worthwhile, ie that could be seen or felt or measured. My brain is really hurting now.

Hmmmm, it just occurred to me, some quantum things might not involve aether, they might involve an excitation of praether directly rather than via aether, ie another kind of excitation. I will have to have a re-think about my magnetism ideas. And some aspros.

- crawler
**Posts:**241**Joined:**Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

i consider the aether to be all the matter, all the electromagnetics ( light, radio waves etc) and the building block for all these things (free electromagnetic strands/tubes/tornadoes). We can only "see" the free strands through magnetism.

since the universe is not equally distributed theres no reason to think the aether would be either.

since the universe is not equally distributed theres no reason to think the aether would be either.

We shall know them by their works

- Webbman
**Posts:**522**Joined:**Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

I said that aether must be a little sticky & or a little viscous.

Yes & no. Aether will allow free movement, but wont allow acceleration. Acceleration results in inertial forces due to the aether pulling or pushing on nearby mass. The aether itself cant pull or push because aether has no mass. It can only transfer force from mass to nearby mass. The transfer being at at least 20 billion c.

Hencely in that sense aether is a little sticky & or viscous.

And gravity & em forces are in a sense identical, gravity being due to the macro acceleration of aether, em forces being due to micro accelerations of some kind. U could say that em forces are gravitational at a micro level. Hencely we have unification. Gravity explains all forces in the universe.

The strong force & the weak force -- they are due to gravity. But here we have to introduce pseudo-gravity due to the centrifuging of aether, which i think i have explained elsewhere.

Yes & no. Aether will allow free movement, but wont allow acceleration. Acceleration results in inertial forces due to the aether pulling or pushing on nearby mass. The aether itself cant pull or push because aether has no mass. It can only transfer force from mass to nearby mass. The transfer being at at least 20 billion c.

Hencely in that sense aether is a little sticky & or viscous.

And gravity & em forces are in a sense identical, gravity being due to the macro acceleration of aether, em forces being due to micro accelerations of some kind. U could say that em forces are gravitational at a micro level. Hencely we have unification. Gravity explains all forces in the universe.

The strong force & the weak force -- they are due to gravity. But here we have to introduce pseudo-gravity due to the centrifuging of aether, which i think i have explained elsewhere.

- crawler
**Posts:**241**Joined:**Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

to this topic i wrote here: viewtopic.php?p=127653#p127653

i think we have to think of aether as a fluid with much smaller "molecules" as water but with some properties very similar to that of water...

i think we have to think of aether as a fluid with much smaller "molecules" as water but with some properties very similar to that of water...

my model looks like this:

when nasa trained their astraunauts for zero gravity they used huge water tanks, where the whole set was afloat...

its this kind of space that we are dealing with. intead of water there is aether...

and all matter in it are steam-bubbles with much less watermolecules in it, very dynamically changing shape and molecules, condensing and evaporating on the bubble boundary, reacting on every pressure and temperature-change...

swirls and rotation ease the birth of bubbles...

like water molecules the aether-particles must have strong electric polarisation and asymmetric shape...

so that stable positive bubble-boundaries are way larger than negative ones. these bubbles are the subatomic building blocks... and they emerge with huge effects on each other...

electric and magnetic fields are the disturbances in the orientation of these tighly compressed aether-particles between these bubbles...

like the astraunauts in the tank, we focus on the bubbles and forget about the water and the tank...

- hlg
**Posts:**36**Joined:**Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:31 pm

I reckon that one shouldnt explain something by including that something in the explanation.hlg wrote:to this topic i wrote here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 53#p127653

i think we have to think of aether as a fluid with much smaller "molecules" as water but with some properties very similar to that of water...my model looks like this

.........like water molecules the aether-particles must have strong electric polarisation and asymmetric shape......

........electric and magnetic fields are the disturbances in the orientation of these tighly compressed aether-particles between these bubbles...........

For example explaining electric polarization by invoking an electrically polarized aether -- this is just kicking the can down the road -- what then explains an electrically polarized aether?

I see a lot of that. Saying that aether is made of dipoles -- how? Or aether has mass -- how?

I guess that all aether theories lead to bigger or deeper questions -- but shouldnt lead to the same questions.

- crawler
**Posts:**241**Joined:**Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

I think that the official EU (Wal Thornhill) aether is made of neutrinos.rickard wrote:If the aether is a reality, of what does it consist?

But neutrinos, if they exist, are probly just dark photons, each neutrino being made of two helical photons sharing the same axis & being 90 deg out of phase (Ranzan) thusly their em's cancelling (hencely dark).

And neutrinos have double the mass of an ordinary photon (crawler)(but i aint sure whether all photons have the same mass)(& there aint no such thing as silly relativistic mass).

Alltho there are at least three kinds of gravitational mass (ie with peculiar mass reactions)....

.......sub-luminal mass (ordinary slow moving matter)(moving at < c kmps)

.......luminal mass (photons & dark photons)(moving = c kmps)

.......super-luminal mass (em radiation)(photaenos)(moving at > c kmps).

And gravitational mass is due to the macro acceleration of aether inflow into matter & photons & photaenos where the aether is annihilated.

And gravitational mass is a useless property at least in the sense that it cant be measured. What we measure & deal with every day is inertial mass, a different animal.

- crawler
**Posts:**241**Joined:**Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

I see a lot of that. Saying that aether is made of dipoles -- how? Or aether has mass -- how?

well to the second term i think gravity is much like the tendency in foam, where surface tension of the aether leads to the tendency of ever growing bubbles with nearly no aether in them...

ordered aether has to be very dense, so that the propagation of longitudinal waves in it is very fast, like the speed of sound in a steel chain under strong tension....

compared to the relativly slow propagation of transversal motions like the waves propagating on violinestrings, definig the speed of light in aether...

for such waves the tension of the chaines of aether would lead to small differences in the speed of these transverse motions

for that chainlike behavior there must be a strong force between the chain elements in longitudinal direction, while it is nearly no force sideways to the other chains in parallel...

just my two cents....

- hlg
**Posts:**36**Joined:**Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:31 pm

The aether is the medium through which ether propagates.

Ether = longitudinal boson strings which travel through subquark waves.

Aether = superpotential

Ether = potential

The subquark waves are bidirectional: the laevorotatory wave is the electromagnetic wave, the dextrorotatory wave is the gravitational wave.

The magnetic field has a N-S flux of particles (magnetic monopoles/subquarks), but also a S-N stream of particles.

E.T. Whittaker proved in 1903 and 1904 the existence of the bidirectional longitudinal waves/potential which generate both the e/m and the gravitational vector fields.

The aether has various degrees of density.

A vector field is being generated by the potential (see the Aharonov-Bohm effect).

Ether = longitudinal boson strings which travel through subquark waves.

Aether = superpotential

Ether = potential

The subquark waves are bidirectional: the laevorotatory wave is the electromagnetic wave, the dextrorotatory wave is the gravitational wave.

The magnetic field has a N-S flux of particles (magnetic monopoles/subquarks), but also a S-N stream of particles.

E.T. Whittaker proved in 1903 and 1904 the existence of the bidirectional longitudinal waves/potential which generate both the e/m and the gravitational vector fields.

The aether has various degrees of density.

A vector field is being generated by the potential (see the Aharonov-Bohm effect).

- Sandokhan
**Posts:**34**Joined:**Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

This aint my thread (it is rickard's thread) but i have over say 5 years googled & downloaded dozens of papers etc re the possible makeup of aether, & some papers deal with the long history of various aether theories.hlg wrote:well to the second term i think gravity is much like the tendency in foam, where surface tension of the aether leads to the tendency of ever growing bubbles with nearly no aether in them...I see a lot of that. Saying that aether is made of dipoles -- how? Or aether has mass -- how?

ordered aether has to be very dense, so that the propagation of longitudinal waves in it is very fast, like the speed of sound in a steel chain under strong tension....

compared to the relativly slow propagation of transversal motions like the waves propagating on violinestrings, definig the speed of light in aether...

for such waves the tension of the chaines of aether would lead to small differences in the speed of these transverse motions

for that chainlike behavior there must be a strong force between the chain elements in longitudinal direction, while it is nearly no force sideways to the other chains in parallel...

just my two cents....

Parallel chains is a new idea. Ever-growing bubbles in foam with partial density of aether sounds newish. Alltho bubbles forming strong chains would be weird.

I am suspicious of aether waves. Me myself i believe in aether pulses, travelling at over 20 billion c, reverberating back&forth tween masses in the case of macro gravity. Micro gravity (em radiation) is different, involving a micro excitation or vortex, propagating along at say c longitudinally & propagating at say up to 5c (or somesuch kmps) radially outwards (transversely)(Walker)(Gasser).

- crawler
**Posts:**241**Joined:**Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Hi Sandokhan, good to hear from u as usual. I have never heard of the AH effect, & after googling i am no wiser. The AHE appears to be related to quantum wavefunctions or something, & potentials & fields. But i didnt see the word aether/ether anywhere.Sandokhan wrote:The aether is the medium through which ether propagates.

Ether = longitudinal boson strings which travel through subquark waves.

Aether = superpotential

Ether = potential

The subquark waves are bidirectional: the laevorotatory wave is the electromagnetic wave, the dextrorotatory wave is the gravitational wave.

The magnetic field has a N-S flux of particles (magnetic monopoles/subquarks), but also a S-N stream of particles.E.T. Whittaker proved in 1903 and 1904 the existence of the bidirectional longitudinal waves/potential which generate both the e/m and the gravitational vector fields.

The aether has various degrees of density.

A vector field is being generated by the potential (see the Aharonov-Bohm effect).

Does aether refer to gravity stuff, & does ether refer to em stuff?

Re Whittaker, he appears to be an aetherist & an anti-Einsteinian, i like him. But, re his 1903 & 1904 works, i dont see where he did any lab work at all, he only did some math, & there the only mention of aether that i could find was..................

Writing down the general solution of these latter equations,* we obtain the result that the most general type of electrodynamic disturbances at a place in the aether not occupied by an electron is that for which the components of the dielectric displacement and magnetic force are represented by the equations.........

- crawler
**Posts:**241**Joined:**Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

The Aharonov-Bohm effect:

https://image.ibb.co/c0CeLd/ton1.jpg

The Aharonov-Bohm effect, where potentials alone can interfere, even in the absence of EM force fields, and produce real force effects in charged particle systems. That is, the sole agent of the interference of scalar potentials can induce EM changes, according to the experimentally proven Aharonov-Bohm effect, even in the total absence of EM force fields.

The Maxwell-Lodge effect is the classical equivalent:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

The seminal Aharonov-Bohm paper:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485

The censored/modified Heaviside-Lorentz set of equations deal only with vector fields.

The original set of Maxwell equations, which are invariant under galilean transformations and thus superluminal, describes the potential, the scalar waves, the ether.

“What? Do you mean to tell me that I can tell you how

much magnetic field there is inside of here by measuring

currents through here and here – through wires which

are entirely outside – through wires in which there is no

magnetic field... In quantum mechanical interference experiments

there can be situations in which classically there

would be no expected influence whatever. But nevertheless

there is an influence. Is it action at distance? No, A is

as real as B-realer, whatever that means.”

R. Feynman

“throughout most of 20th century the Heaviside-Hertz form of Maxwell’s equations were taught to college students all over the world. The reason is quite obvious: the Heaviside-Hertz form is simpler, and exhibits an appealing near symmetry between E and H. With the widespread use of this vector-potential-less version of Maxwell’s equations, there arouse what amounted to a dogma: that the electromagnetic field resides in E and H. Where both of them vanish, there cannot be any electromagnetic effects on a charged particle. This dogma explains why when the Aharonov-Bohm article was published it met with general disbelief. . . E and H together do not completely describe the electromagnetic field, and. . . the vector potential cannot be totally eliminated in quantum mechanics. . . the field strengths underdescribe electromagnetism.”

C.N. Yang, Nobel prize laureate

https://image.ibb.co/c0CeLd/ton1.jpg

The Aharonov-Bohm effect, where potentials alone can interfere, even in the absence of EM force fields, and produce real force effects in charged particle systems. That is, the sole agent of the interference of scalar potentials can induce EM changes, according to the experimentally proven Aharonov-Bohm effect, even in the total absence of EM force fields.

The Maxwell-Lodge effect is the classical equivalent:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

The seminal Aharonov-Bohm paper:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485

The censored/modified Heaviside-Lorentz set of equations deal only with vector fields.

The original set of Maxwell equations, which are invariant under galilean transformations and thus superluminal, describes the potential, the scalar waves, the ether.

“What? Do you mean to tell me that I can tell you how

much magnetic field there is inside of here by measuring

currents through here and here – through wires which

are entirely outside – through wires in which there is no

magnetic field... In quantum mechanical interference experiments

there can be situations in which classically there

would be no expected influence whatever. But nevertheless

there is an influence. Is it action at distance? No, A is

as real as B-realer, whatever that means.”

R. Feynman

“throughout most of 20th century the Heaviside-Hertz form of Maxwell’s equations were taught to college students all over the world. The reason is quite obvious: the Heaviside-Hertz form is simpler, and exhibits an appealing near symmetry between E and H. With the widespread use of this vector-potential-less version of Maxwell’s equations, there arouse what amounted to a dogma: that the electromagnetic field resides in E and H. Where both of them vanish, there cannot be any electromagnetic effects on a charged particle. This dogma explains why when the Aharonov-Bohm article was published it met with general disbelief. . . E and H together do not completely describe the electromagnetic field, and. . . the vector potential cannot be totally eliminated in quantum mechanics. . . the field strengths underdescribe electromagnetism.”

C.N. Yang, Nobel prize laureate

- Sandokhan
**Posts:**34**Joined:**Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Now, scientists/researchers are always asking for definite proofs of the existence of ether. The Galaev ether drift experiments are certainly an important part of this process. But these scientists and researchers want to see equations, something which can be readily understood.

Here are the equations.

In 1925, A. Michelson published a formula which he claimed represented the Sagnac effect upon the light beams of the Michelson-Gale experiment (Clearing, Illinois).

However, the formula published by Michelson was the Coriolis effect equation, not the Sagnac effect formula.

Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v) = 2lv/c2

Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation (different radii, different velocities):

Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2

The Sagnac effect formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center is well known: 2vL/c^2. The Sagnac effect involves two continuous loops for which we find the difference in travel times: it is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams, and is directly proportional to the radius of rotation (v = RΩ). By contrast, the Coriolis effect formula for the same interferometer is 4AΩ/c^2: it is a comparison of the two arms of the interferometer; it is a physical effect upon the light beams, and is directly proportional to the angular velocity and the area of the interferometer.

The derivation of the Coriolis effect formula:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michel ... rstein.pdf

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/H ... nload/2645

In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 2408634503

Thus, the Sagnac interferometer can register/record BOTH the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect; the Coriolis effect is much smaller in magnitude than the Sagnac effect (one is proportional to the area of the interferometer, the other one is directly proportional to the radius of rotation).

If the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, a new global/generalized Sagnac effect formula must be derived.

Here are some illustrations of these cases (which include the Michelson-Gale interferometer, and all ring laser gyroscope interferometers).

http://image.ibb.co/fjSJy7/ahasag2.jpg

http://image.ibb.co/iQWfJ7/cir2.jpg

http://image.ibb.co/j7Q3hc/kel12.jpg

http://earthmeasured.com/wp-content/upl ... gale-1.png

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michel ... age002.png

Point A is located at the detector

Point B is in the bottom right corner

Point C is in the upper right corner

Point D is in the upper left corner

l1 is the upper arm.

l2 is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)

For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)

The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)

This is how the correct Sagnac formula is derived: we have single continuous clockwise path, and a single continuous counterclockwise path.

If we desire the Coriolis effect, we simply substract as follows:

dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))

For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.

For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

Dr. P. Yeh

PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics

Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center

Professor, UCSB

https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article

As an example, for the square ring laser interfermeter at Gran Sasso, Italy (GINGERino) experiment, the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula is:

https://i.ibb.co/bXJDkV1/sqrlg.jpg

Let us now rotate the square interferometer by 135° in the clockwise direction: point A will be located in the uppermost position (the source of light will be placed at point A as well).

Distance from the center of rotation to point C is k2, while the distance from the center of rotation to point A is k1.

v1 = k1 x ω

v2 = k2 x ω

Proceeding exactly as in the case of the interferometer in the shape of a rectangle, we have two loops, one counterclockwise, one clockwise.

A > B > C > D > A is the clockwise path

A > D > C > B > A is the counterclockwise path

Sagnac phase components for the counterclockwise path (only the vx components of the velocity vector are subject to a different time phase difference in rotation, not the vy components):

L/(c - v1)

-L/(c + v2)

-L/(c + v2)

L/(c - v1)

Sagnac phase components for the clockwise path:

-L/(c + v1)

L/(c - v2)

L/(c - v2)

-L/(c + v1)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

L/(c - v1) - L/(c + v2) - L/(c + v2) + L/(c - v1) = 2L/(c - v1) - 2L/(c + v2)

For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

-L/(c + v1) + L/(c - v2) + L/(c - v2) - L/(c + v1) = -2L/(c + v1) + 2L/(c - v2)

The net time phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

2L/(c - v1) - 2L/(c + v2) -(-)[-2L/(c + v1) + 2L/(c - v2)] = 2L(2v1/c2) + 2L(2v2/c2) = 4L(v1 + v2)/c2

This is the correct global/generalized SAGNAC EFFECT formula for a square shaped ring laser interferometer:

4L(v1 + v2)/c2

For the same interferometer, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is:

4Aω/c2

The phase difference for the SAGNAC EFFECT is:

Δφ = Δt x c/λ = [4L(v1 + v2)]/c2 x c/λ = [4L(v1 + v2)]/cλ

The frequency formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT is:

Δf = Δφ x c/P = [4L(v1 + v2)]/λP

Now, we can finally solve the mystery of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

In 1999 E. J. Post showed the equivalence between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac experiment.

E. J. Post, A joint description of the Michelson Morley and Sagnac experiments.

Proceedings of the International Conference Galileo Back in Italy II, Bologna 1999,

Andromeda, Bologna 2000, p. 62

E. J. Post is the only person to notice the substantial identity between the 1925 experiment and that of 1887: "To avoid possible confusion, it may be remarked that the beam path in the more well-known Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was mounted on a turntable, does not enclose a finite surface area; therefore no fringe shift can be expected as a result of a uniform rotation of the latter".

E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics. Vol. 39, n. 2, April 1967

A. Michelson and E. Morley simply measured the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect can be registered/recorded either due to the rotation of the Earth or due to the rotation of the ether drift (Whittaker's potential scalar waves). The deciding factor is of course the Sagnac effect, which is much greater than the Coriolis effect, and was never registered.

Since MM did not use a phase-conjugate mirror or a fiber optic equipment, the Coriolis force effects upon the light offset each other.

The positive (slight deviations) from the null result are due to a residual surface enclosed by the multiple path beam (the Coriolis effect registered by a Sagnac interferometer). Dayton Miller also measured the Coriolis effect of the ether drift in his experiment (Mount Wilson, 1921-1924 and 1925-1926, and Cleveland, 1922-1924).

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141)

The promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

As such, his formula captured the Coriolis effect upon the light beams.

By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

However, for the SAGNAC EFFECT, we have a single CONTINUOUS CLOCKWISE PATH, and a single CONTINUOUS COUNTERCLOCKWISE PATH, as the definition of the Sagnac effect entails.

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:

Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.

We can see at a glance each and every important detail.

For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.

For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

Experimentally, the Michelson-Gale test was a closed loop, but not mathematically. Michelson treated mathematically each of the longer sides/arms of the interferometer as a separate entity: no closed loop was formed at all. Therefore the mathematical description put forth by Michelson has nothing to do with the correct definition of the Sagnac effect (two pulses of light are sent in opposite direction around a closed loop) (either circular or a single uniform path). By treating each side/arm separately, Michelson was describing and analyzing the Coriolis effect, not the Sagnac effect.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

Connecting the two sides through a single mathematical description closes the loop; treating each side separately does not. The Sagnac effect requires, by definition, a structure, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

Here are the equations.

In 1925, A. Michelson published a formula which he claimed represented the Sagnac effect upon the light beams of the Michelson-Gale experiment (Clearing, Illinois).

However, the formula published by Michelson was the Coriolis effect equation, not the Sagnac effect formula.

Sagnac formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

Δt = l/(c - v) - l/(c + v) = 2lv/c2

Sagnac formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation (different radii, different velocities):

Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2

The Sagnac effect formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center is well known: 2vL/c^2. The Sagnac effect involves two continuous loops for which we find the difference in travel times: it is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams, and is directly proportional to the radius of rotation (v = RΩ). By contrast, the Coriolis effect formula for the same interferometer is 4AΩ/c^2: it is a comparison of the two arms of the interferometer; it is a physical effect upon the light beams, and is directly proportional to the angular velocity and the area of the interferometer.

The derivation of the Coriolis effect formula:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michel ... rstein.pdf

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/H ... nload/2645

In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 2408634503

Thus, the Sagnac interferometer can register/record BOTH the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect; the Coriolis effect is much smaller in magnitude than the Sagnac effect (one is proportional to the area of the interferometer, the other one is directly proportional to the radius of rotation).

If the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, a new global/generalized Sagnac effect formula must be derived.

Here are some illustrations of these cases (which include the Michelson-Gale interferometer, and all ring laser gyroscope interferometers).

http://image.ibb.co/fjSJy7/ahasag2.jpg

http://image.ibb.co/iQWfJ7/cir2.jpg

http://image.ibb.co/j7Q3hc/kel12.jpg

http://earthmeasured.com/wp-content/upl ... gale-1.png

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michel ... age002.png

Point A is located at the detector

Point B is in the bottom right corner

Point C is in the upper right corner

Point D is in the upper left corner

l1 is the upper arm.

l2 is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)

For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)

The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)

This is how the correct Sagnac formula is derived: we have single continuous clockwise path, and a single continuous counterclockwise path.

If we desire the Coriolis effect, we simply substract as follows:

dt = l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) - (l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2))

For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.

For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

Dr. P. Yeh

PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics

Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center

Professor, UCSB

https://i.ibb.co/MsS5Bb5/yeh4.jpg

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article

As an example, for the square ring laser interfermeter at Gran Sasso, Italy (GINGERino) experiment, the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula is:

https://i.ibb.co/bXJDkV1/sqrlg.jpg

Let us now rotate the square interferometer by 135° in the clockwise direction: point A will be located in the uppermost position (the source of light will be placed at point A as well).

Distance from the center of rotation to point C is k2, while the distance from the center of rotation to point A is k1.

v1 = k1 x ω

v2 = k2 x ω

Proceeding exactly as in the case of the interferometer in the shape of a rectangle, we have two loops, one counterclockwise, one clockwise.

A > B > C > D > A is the clockwise path

A > D > C > B > A is the counterclockwise path

Sagnac phase components for the counterclockwise path (only the vx components of the velocity vector are subject to a different time phase difference in rotation, not the vy components):

L/(c - v1)

-L/(c + v2)

-L/(c + v2)

L/(c - v1)

Sagnac phase components for the clockwise path:

-L/(c + v1)

L/(c - v2)

L/(c - v2)

-L/(c + v1)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

L/(c - v1) - L/(c + v2) - L/(c + v2) + L/(c - v1) = 2L/(c - v1) - 2L/(c + v2)

For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

-L/(c + v1) + L/(c - v2) + L/(c - v2) - L/(c + v1) = -2L/(c + v1) + 2L/(c - v2)

The net time phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

2L/(c - v1) - 2L/(c + v2) -(-)[-2L/(c + v1) + 2L/(c - v2)] = 2L(2v1/c2) + 2L(2v2/c2) = 4L(v1 + v2)/c2

This is the correct global/generalized SAGNAC EFFECT formula for a square shaped ring laser interferometer:

4L(v1 + v2)/c2

For the same interferometer, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is:

4Aω/c2

The phase difference for the SAGNAC EFFECT is:

Δφ = Δt x c/λ = [4L(v1 + v2)]/c2 x c/λ = [4L(v1 + v2)]/cλ

The frequency formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT is:

Δf = Δφ x c/P = [4L(v1 + v2)]/λP

Now, we can finally solve the mystery of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

In 1999 E. J. Post showed the equivalence between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac experiment.

E. J. Post, A joint description of the Michelson Morley and Sagnac experiments.

Proceedings of the International Conference Galileo Back in Italy II, Bologna 1999,

Andromeda, Bologna 2000, p. 62

E. J. Post is the only person to notice the substantial identity between the 1925 experiment and that of 1887: "To avoid possible confusion, it may be remarked that the beam path in the more well-known Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was mounted on a turntable, does not enclose a finite surface area; therefore no fringe shift can be expected as a result of a uniform rotation of the latter".

E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics. Vol. 39, n. 2, April 1967

A. Michelson and E. Morley simply measured the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect can be registered/recorded either due to the rotation of the Earth or due to the rotation of the ether drift (Whittaker's potential scalar waves). The deciding factor is of course the Sagnac effect, which is much greater than the Coriolis effect, and was never registered.

Since MM did not use a phase-conjugate mirror or a fiber optic equipment, the Coriolis force effects upon the light offset each other.

The positive (slight deviations) from the null result are due to a residual surface enclosed by the multiple path beam (the Coriolis effect registered by a Sagnac interferometer). Dayton Miller also measured the Coriolis effect of the ether drift in his experiment (Mount Wilson, 1921-1924 and 1925-1926, and Cleveland, 1922-1924).

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141)

The promise made by A. Michelson, "the difference in time required for the two pencils to return to the starting point will be...", never materialized mathematically.

Instead of applying the correct definition of the Sagnac effect, Michelson compared TWO OPEN SEGMENTS/ARMS of the interferometer, and not the TWO LOOPS, as required by the exact meaning of the Sagnac experiment.

As such, his formula captured the Coriolis effect upon the light beams.

By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

However, for the SAGNAC EFFECT, we have a single CONTINUOUS CLOCKWISE PATH, and a single CONTINUOUS COUNTERCLOCKWISE PATH, as the definition of the Sagnac effect entails.

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:

Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.

We can see at a glance each and every important detail.

For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.

For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

Experimentally, the Michelson-Gale test was a closed loop, but not mathematically. Michelson treated mathematically each of the longer sides/arms of the interferometer as a separate entity: no closed loop was formed at all. Therefore the mathematical description put forth by Michelson has nothing to do with the correct definition of the Sagnac effect (two pulses of light are sent in opposite direction around a closed loop) (either circular or a single uniform path). By treating each side/arm separately, Michelson was describing and analyzing the Coriolis effect, not the Sagnac effect.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

Connecting the two sides through a single mathematical description closes the loop; treating each side separately does not. The Sagnac effect requires, by definition, a structure, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

- Sandokhan
**Posts:**34**Joined:**Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Thanks everybody for all the comments ...... unfortunately I must admit that i did not really understand most of it .... and I think there is a more simple answer to the question....

If eather or ether exists is it possible to create a closed "room" that can be drained of all eather ?

Does eather exist also in solid matter?

Can eather move?

If light is a wave form there must be something that is being "waved" = eather ?

R

If eather or ether exists is it possible to create a closed "room" that can be drained of all eather ?

Does eather exist also in solid matter?

Can eather move?

If light is a wave form there must be something that is being "waved" = eather ?

R

- rickard
**Posts:**72**Joined:**Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Hmm...seeing a whole lot of conjecture and pet hypothesis about what the aether supposedly is in this thread. Going to try and steer clear of that, and hopefully provide you with some OG resources for you to examine from when the academy was working with aether theories.

The best one to start with is probably Oliver Lodge's "The Ether of Space": http://www.shamanicengineering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Ether-of-Space-Oliver-Lodge.pdf Lodge has a pretty level way of writing, doesn't slip into a whole lot of jargon and if I recall correctly he doesn't include a terribly large bit of math, at most probably some differential equations.

From there, I'd suggest Whittaker's "History of the Theories of the Aether and Electricity," which is significantly more detailed and goes into the entire historical development of theory, from Descartes all the way up to Lorentz: http://www.shamanicengineering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A-History-of-the-Theories-of-Aether-and-Electricity.pdf You're going to see a good bit more math in this text, including geometry and calculus, but it's easily the most in-depth text on the aether.

In a super, super, ~super~ brief summary: it was originally supposed that the aether was a kind of perfect fluid that filled all of molecular and interstellar space, thru which light could travel as a medium. This idea became more complicated after it was discovered that light is polarized, because polarized (i.e. transverse) waves weren't thought to be able to move thru fluid mediums, only thru solids. So from the aether being almost a superfluid, it became an extremely dense, elastic solid. This complicated the theory significantly, and kind of opened the door more for Faraday's field theory of the aether, being that *if* it existed, the aether was just composed of physical lines of force (dielectric, magnetic, etc.), and all "matter" was just the interexchange of forces between these lines. This was roughly the beginning of field theory, and it allowed for a conception of the aether that placed a higher degree of priority on "fields" than on any material/mechanical concept of the aether. So when 1915 rolls around and MM get a null result on their experiments with aether drift, in comes Einstein who says "forget the medium, we don't need to understand it mechanically or substantially: we can describe it thru fields, and fields can be discussed mathematically, without any need for a mechanical formalism."

So out went the aether, and in came field theory.

The best one to start with is probably Oliver Lodge's "The Ether of Space": http://www.shamanicengineering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Ether-of-Space-Oliver-Lodge.pdf Lodge has a pretty level way of writing, doesn't slip into a whole lot of jargon and if I recall correctly he doesn't include a terribly large bit of math, at most probably some differential equations.

From there, I'd suggest Whittaker's "History of the Theories of the Aether and Electricity," which is significantly more detailed and goes into the entire historical development of theory, from Descartes all the way up to Lorentz: http://www.shamanicengineering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A-History-of-the-Theories-of-Aether-and-Electricity.pdf You're going to see a good bit more math in this text, including geometry and calculus, but it's easily the most in-depth text on the aether.

In a super, super, ~super~ brief summary: it was originally supposed that the aether was a kind of perfect fluid that filled all of molecular and interstellar space, thru which light could travel as a medium. This idea became more complicated after it was discovered that light is polarized, because polarized (i.e. transverse) waves weren't thought to be able to move thru fluid mediums, only thru solids. So from the aether being almost a superfluid, it became an extremely dense, elastic solid. This complicated the theory significantly, and kind of opened the door more for Faraday's field theory of the aether, being that *if* it existed, the aether was just composed of physical lines of force (dielectric, magnetic, etc.), and all "matter" was just the interexchange of forces between these lines. This was roughly the beginning of field theory, and it allowed for a conception of the aether that placed a higher degree of priority on "fields" than on any material/mechanical concept of the aether. So when 1915 rolls around and MM get a null result on their experiments with aether drift, in comes Einstein who says "forget the medium, we don't need to understand it mechanically or substantially: we can describe it thru fields, and fields can be discussed mathematically, without any need for a mechanical formalism."

So out went the aether, and in came field theory.

- BecomingTesla
**Posts:**129**Joined:**Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

35 posts
• Page **1** of **3** • **1**, 2, 3

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests